The March for Settled Science

On April 22nd, people took to the streets in what was called the March for Science! It’s not really explained who would be against science; that was just a convenient straw man. In fact, there was a good representation of anti-Trump signs, so that it seemed this was equal parts scientific and political. And many folks would agree that science has become too politicized, though the marchers probably couldn’t see that it’s being done by both sides, including theirs.

Republicans are continuing to work on their repeal and replacement of ObamaCare. Well, it’s more like a “repeal and rename” strategy. Much of the failures of ObamaCare remain, but now Republicans will be blamed when the train wreck happens; a pre-existing condition that would have happened anyway, but now that the GOP will claim to have “fixed” it without actually fixing it, they’ll bring the blame on themselves.

Mentioned links:

20 Funniest Signs at the March for Science

Science vs. Science™!

The March for … What?

House Freedom Caucus endorses Republicans’ revised health care plan; centrists still wary

Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks!

On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes.

If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts.

Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it.

Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm.

And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it.

I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience.

Show transcript

On April 22nd, people took to the streets in what was called the March for Science! It’s not really explained who would be against science; that was just a convenient straw man. In fact, there was a good representation of anti-Trump signs, so that it seemed this was equal parts scientific and political. And many folks would agree that science has become too politicized, though the marchers probably couldn’t see that it’s being done by both sides, including theirs.

For example, there were those that held signs about the “settled science” of climate change, missing the fact that science is often in a state of “unsettlement”. And I have to wonder; were there any signs pointing out the biological fact that Caitlyn Jenner is a man? How about the idea that a child in the womb has their own blood type and DNA, while the mother might insist it’s “her body”? Were there any signs thanking President George W. Bush for being right on the embryonic stem cell debate? Science found a way to avoid the whole ethical issue, but I’d be incredibly surprised if anyone credited science for affirming his moral stance. And what kind of debate would this be if I didn’t mention Nazis; you know, those folks who experimented on Jews in the name of science?

This is just like the March for Women, where pro-life opinions were not allowed. In both of these events, the Left has demonstrated clearly how political they are willing to go in pursuit of an agenda. Unlike the science they claim to revere, only the facts and ideas that they find useful can be considered. It’s liberalism in a lab coat, and they’re not seeing that clearly. [She blinded me with science.]

And yes, the Right does it, too, but the idea that the Left is pro-science and the Right is anti-science – an idea promoted on many a protest sign – is just wrong on its face. Those who participated in the March for Science didn’t seem to understand that they were one more data point against the very idea they were propagating. It’s too bad there isn’t a scientific formula for irony.


Speaking of science, and the whole climate change thing, Joe Bastardi, writing at the Patriot Post, asks those marchers to take a critical look at the actual science of it. They won’t, of course.

Joe points out that, at very large time scales, the correlation of CO2 and temperature is awful; they have no apparent linkage. He then suggests that perhaps these allegedly pro-science people should use the scientific method.

What I am trying to figure out is why there is a march when many of the people in that march have no tolerance for the questioning of their position. While I think it’s noble to be inclusive and diverse, are any “skeptics” included as speakers? Is there diversity of thought? Of course not.

He then points out that these people are doing exactly what they accuse the opposition of; shutting down debate.

Further, a series of charts that he presents demonstrates the rise of other statistics that have increased along with CO2 emissions; stats that have a much closer correlation. As CO2 has risen over the past 2000 years, so have population, life expectancy, and GDP per person. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, these graphs compare much more favorably than with temperature, which the Left insists is causation.

Should we conserve our environment? Yes, we should. But let’s, y’know, be mindful of the science.


Republicans are continuing to work on their repeal and replacement of ObamaCare. Well, it’s more like a “repeal and rename” strategy. Much of the failures of ObamaCare remain, but now Republicans will be blamed when the train wreck happens; a pre-existing condition that would have happened anyway, but now that the GOP will claim to have “fixed” it without actually fixing it, they’ll bring the blame on themselves.

One of the main differences in the new bill will be the opportunity for states to opt out of various parts of it, or waive some of the rules. This is how a country called the United States is supposed to be run; with the states making a lot of these decisions, and then we get to find out what actually works in practice (none of this one-size-fits-all “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” nonsense).

The Freedom Caucus – a conservative group that blocked the last attempt at this – is going to vote for the new version. They said in a statement, “While the revised version still does not fully repeal Obamacare, we are prepared to support it to keep our promise to the American people to lower health care costs.” But, as I said, that leaves the door open for the media and the Democrats to blame them for the inevitable. Not a good idea.

Another idea that is not good is that Congress will be exempt from this new insurance. I’ve heard this mentioned on the news a couple times, but I only got the context from an article in the Washington Times. Republican aides said they had to include the exemption to satisfy Senate rules because of the complicated budget process Republicans are using to pass their repeal bill without facing a Democratic filibuster. However, Republican lawmakers are insisting at this point that Congress will use this new plan, in spite of not being forced by law to do so. As they say in DC, the optics are bad, though I understand why they did it this way. Still, this is a sign of things to come regarding how the media will cover this. Republicans need all the advantage they can get, and this doesn’t help

Filed under: Climate ChangeGovernmentHealth CareHuman SexualityScienceStem CellsTransgender