The whole NCSE march on April 22nd is devoted to a strawman:
The National Center for Science Education was one of the first organizations to endorse the march, and we are encouraging our members to take part. Why? Because we believe that the marches will be a powerful and positive reminder that there is somethin
g that virtually everyone agrees on: the value and importance of science.
There is no public debate saying science is not important. It simply does not exist. So why march? According to Ann Reid, biologist, science is important for farming, water quality, and beer-making. No kidding. Load up the strawmen.
Rage On: March for the trite!
“Science is for Everyone” (except scientists who disagree with government propaganda):
And that’s where the March for Science fits in. On April 22, 2017, people all over the world will be gathering together to celebrate science, and to declare that science belongs to everyone. NCSE will be there.
Obviously the real subtext are controversial topics (why else does anyone march?) Guess which branch of establishment science is the one hardest hit by the Trump presidency:
At the National Center for Science Education, we know that science sometimes addresses controversial issues. It’s no surprise to us that scientific findings can trigger fierce disagreement. We’ve devoted over thirty years to making sure that science teachers have the expertise and support they need to teach about evolution and climate change, even when there are people in their communities who object.
So this is a climate protest in disguise, masquerading as a generic “science” protest. These people couldn’t form a sequential cause-effect argument if their lives depended on it. Indeed, their jobs almost depend on them not doing it. (If they did, they might get sacked, evicted, blackballed, terminated, punished, vilified and bullied.) It will be touted by religious climate believers as a protest for “climate change”. Whatever: it’s another Science-for-Big-Government-PR exercise. It’s a form of Argument from Authority: “Trust us” some scientists can make good beer, therefore they can predict the climate. Wash out your brain, cleanse your thoughts, scientists speak with one mind.
The irony and projection of Ann Reid peaks in the next sentence:
But it is important to remember that many who object to the teaching of evolution or climate change haven’t encountered the science for themselves.
How much does Ann Reid know of the missing water vapor feedback recorded by 28 million weather balloons. How much has she looked at the scandal of temperature adjustments that are larger than the trends they measure?
Thus speaks a scientist who has never studied the evidence herself:
They are merely taking cues from those they trust—politicians, church leaders, or their favorite websites and newscasts.
Reid “takes cues” from the IPCC, which takes cues from Greenpeace. (Did she know?)
When people are given an opportunity to explore the scientific evidence for themselves, they often conclude that accepting what the evidence shows need not threaten their fundamental values.
Thus speaks the condescending put-down, if you disagree with her climate change belief it’s only because of your “values” — you have personality flaws.