Here are our favorite signs from New York’s March for Science

In which the analytical types get creative​

Photo by Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge​

Scientists aren’t usually known for taking to the streets, but that’s just what they did in New York yesterday as part of the March for Science. It was one of more than 600 rallies yesterday for scientists and their supporters.

Donald Trump has threatened many federal agencies that fund scientific research with budget cuts; more than 10 percent of the science budget is scheduled to be slashed in 2018. (The EPA is slated to lose nearly a third of its funding under the proposal.) His cabinet is packed with Pruitt and his ilk, a group who do not seem particularly interested in scientific expertise. The hostility to scientific consensus isn’t limited to the executive branch, either; House Republicans held a fake inquiry on climate change in order to attack the only credible scientist that testified.

Though the organizers repeatedly stressed they didn’t view the march as a protest — the official purpose of the demonstration is merely to highlight the role of science in society — the signs carried by people at the march suggested otherwise. Many had pointed thoughts about the current administration. Some focused on the Environmental Protection Agency — its current director, Scott Pruitt, is very cozy with the oil industry. He also denies that climate change has a human cause. Signs in support of facts — the real variety, not the alternative kind espoused by Kellyanne Conway — were also a common sight. We’ve rounded up our favorite signs from the protest here, along with one bonus costume.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Original article (links) by Elizabeth Lopatto and Amelia Holowaty Krales - The Verge

​

 

Science is the enemy of the right. Ideology must be adhered to at all costs

 

TRUTH is the enemy of the right.
The right is all dogma.

 

I was at the one in Austin! This was my sign, which literally was peer-reviewed as I and some other grad students brainstormed sign ideas together.

 

If they lose their federal grant money, they'll have to get a real job and go to work.

 

Research already is a real job.

 

Fortunately this anti-science mentality will eventually be replaced with panic and accusation that the scientists did not prevent what will happen to our planet. Unfortunately it will be far too late to do anything about it by then.

 

Is that the right's narrative for this event? Lol.

 

Exactly. When the sh*t hits the fans and the right gets slapped by reality, they'll blame the scientific community for "not having been vocal enough."

 

Good one!!! Bit too cerebral for most of the right though ascreviewed has more than one syllable

 

I almost wish America would experience the same rolling heat waves we have had this year but it means so many may die

 

Quick question. Would you believe any science that the Trump administration paid for?

 

Depends. As with any research the funding sources should be declared so possible bias can be evaluated. Thing is - even with the yuuuuuge finding from Exxon mobile and the Koch brothers there has been precious little research that contradicts mainstream findings. Same thing happened under Bush. Scientists were actively silenced. Jobs have been threatened if the words global warming were even mentioned in government documents let alone discuss implications. As things stand if we go back to those days we may see America being the least prepared country in the world

 

Point is that any research that is done by/for the EPA that draws the wrong conclusion and therefore will be deem inaccurate or corrupt or something. So if the science will not count, why be upset about the funding being cut? It's saving the US tax payers money on pointless research. Looking at it from a half full point of view.

 

What is the "wrong conclusion"? Is it a wrong conclusion to determine that dumping coal waste into rivers will kill fish? Is it a wrong conclusion that lead pipes may contaminate water supplies? Is it a wrong conclusion to show that climate change is real and adversely affecting the ecosystem?

 

This is speculation at best as there has not ben such data as of yet. If there were I for one would celebrate it, as would many in the scientific community.

 

"Wrong conclusion" is a matter of opinion apparently within the scientific community and this board, and I'm not taking a side on which is right or wrong in this thread. Simply pointing out a glass half full option for the view.

 

Not saying there is, but there are people upset that Trump may be cutting federal funding for scientific research. If he didn't cut funding and the research drew a conclusion that was inconsistent with other scientific research that a people like better what is the point of spending the money so I'm not understanding why they are upset. Seems like a waste of money for research that will not be believed.

 

Idiot college students not scientists marched. As you can see it is about politics and ideology, not science. What next, seances for science?

 

That really does not make sense. People would be upset if he cut scientific research because this funding helps the people and planet. If he didn't cut funding it would still help both regardless of what the data and discoveries provide. Your entire premise begins with assumptions based on personal bias and hope that is not in evidence anywhere. IF we could debunk climate change everyone could stop worrying and relax....thus far we cannot.

 

My favorite:

 

Do you believe this scientist who founded green peace?

 

The signs weren't particularly creative. Very disappointing. Even more disappointing is that the folks were marching for science instead of floating on their hoverboards for science or levitating for science.