Climatologist asks: “Exactly what are scientists marching ‘for’?”

Dr. Judith Curry

Dr. Judith Curry

Dr. Judith Curry points out the blatant hypocrisy of so-called science marchers who didn’t mind when the Obama administration butchered climate science for political gains.

The smartest people on the planet want to oppose Trump & the best they can come up with is a march in support of themselves? – Roger Pielke Jr

A mega March for Science has been planned for Earth Day (April 22) in Washington DC.  The web site states:

The March for Science demonstrates our passion for science and sounds a call to support and safeguard the scientific community. Recent policy changes have caused heightened worry among scientists. 

The mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue, which has given policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and urgent matter. It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted.

Of course, the poster child for partisan  ‘mischaracterization of facts’ is statements by members of the Trump administration regarding uncertainty surrounding the causes of climate change.  President Obama and his Call Out the Climate Deniers campaign apparently elicited no concerns about partisan mischaracterization of facts from the science establishment.

Scientists fear  what ‘might’ happen under the Trump administration — they are working from rumors, leaks and a few public statements by individuals connected with Trump’s transition teams.  These are the same scientists pushing for ‘evidence based’ policies  — go figure.

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) ‚Äì which is joining the March ‚Äì had a blog post describing the positions on climate change and science of important individuals in the Trump administration: Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry, Wilbur Ross, Scott Pruitt, Ryan Zinke.  Read the blog post.  To me, Trump’s team looks like it has a healthier attitude to science than did Obama’s team, who sought to scientize policy debates and politicize science debates..

The scientists’ big concern is ‘silencing of facts’.  This concern apparently derives from their desire to have their negotiated ‘facts’ — such as  the ‘consensus’ on climate change — dictate public policy.  The scientists who are marching seem not very interested in science as a process based on continually evaluating evidence and reassessing conclusions through reasoning and impartial habits of mind.

The scientists are not just out to defend ‘facts’ — they fear funding cuts and limits to immigration.  They also seem very attached to safeguarding the academic scientific community and the elite institutions that support it.

Some sentiments from scientists supporting the March:

Caroline Weinberg: “[I]t is not possible to ignore policy when it affects not just your jobs but the future of your field.” [link]

Dr Jacquelyn Gill: “A lot of scientists are realizing that the institutions that fund and support and science in this country . . .are under direct attack.” Trump, she said, “not only doesn’t value our institutions, he doesn’t seem to value evidence-based decision making at all. That is alarming to us.” [link]

Other scientists are very concerned about the March:

Professor Jim Gates,  former adviser to Barack Obama, told journalists that the march appeared to lack an end goal ‚Äì a prerequisite for political action ‚Äì and would simply be perceived as “science against Trump”. “At least as far as I can detect, there is no theory of action behind this,” he said. “This bothers me tremendously. “To have science represented as this political force I think is just extraordinarily dangerous.” [link]

Robert Young wrote that the march would be perceived as a protest of President Trump and “trivialize and politicize the science we care so much about.” “Trying to recreate the pointedly political Women’s March will serve only to reinforce the narrative from skeptical conservatives that scientists are an interest group and politicize their data, research and findings for their own ends.” [link]

Tactics in want of a strategy

So, exactly what do scientists expect to accomplish with this March, and how do they plan to go about it?  Well, I am still at a loss to understand what they expect to accomplish, but there have been some interesting suggestions on how they might go about it.

Jonathan Foley in the Scientific American on how to defeat those who are waging war on science:  portray an inclusive vision; get political; don’t fall into the culture war trap; balance facts with meaningful stories; be forceful.

Roger Pielke Jr in the GuardianTo counter Trump’s administration, scientists need counter-propaganda, evidence-based alternative policies and political representation.  The scientific community needs to eschew old habits that have manifested themselves in the march: calling for more funding and waging political battles through science.  

Kristy Henschel in Science: hold webinar viewing parties; host science policy seminars; design a science advocacy workshop; organize a State Hill day; invite your government representatives for a lab tour; host a science cafe; share your voice on twitter.

The most provocative suggestion comes from an editorial in Nature:  Researchers should reach beyond the science bubble.  Excerpt: Scientists in the United States and elsewhere ought to address the needs and employment prospects of taxpayers who have seen little benefit from scientific advances. As they ponder their next move in response to the election of Trump, science organizations — universities, funders, supporters and the rest — should look harder at social problems and opportunities, and seek ways for science to help.

JC reflections

So far, the March for Science seems to be shaping up as a self-serving navel gazing exercise for scientists — sort of a ‘we don’t like Trump’ tantrum.  The impression that this will have on policy makers and the public will be to cement scientists as a politicized special interest group, just like any other lobbying group.  In short, I very much fear that this March will do more harm than good.

Read rest…

Comments (3)

  • Avatar



    There’s a kernel of truth in the advice from Nature magazine. I have a bit of sympathy for the people who went to school, got some letters after their names, then couldn’t find work in a gutted economy. The global warming mafia made them an offer. Their new job is part of the world wide sales team for the climate scam. The climate scam is a job killer wherever it finds suckers. It’s a downward spiral that creates desperation, which Socialists thrive on.

  • Avatar



    Judith Curry is one of the few impeccably credentialed scientists who has spoken for reality rather than unproven hysterical fiction and weathered the smear storm of the politically grant driven fanatics.

    Professor Curry has taken an enormous professional risk and has been unjustly castigated for speaking the truth.

    But she and other not so courageous GHE realists will win out in spite of the lying MSM because none of the fanatic left will be able to stop the truth.

  • Avatar



    I like the unshackled Judith Currie even more .
    A lot of great scientists have stood up to the tyranny
    of UN globalists and other rent seekers trying to impose science
    misinformation about the earth having a fever .
    Judith Currie gives all of us hope that real science will win out .

Comments are closed