I am responding to the April 26, 2017 front page article about the March for Science.
Science research should be honest and debated and not political, but unfortunately it often isn't. Environmental groups, whose original focus was reasonable and good, have like so many groups become extreme in their agendas and thus end up funding/pushing those viewpoints. Some of the climate change research is not based on actual data only by computer modeled algorithms, which makes predictions about future climate events which then get acted on as truth. Later those predictions turn out to be inaccurate. We should let experts in these fields sort it out and come to as true a consensus as can occur in science. If you have ever read a research paper in anything scientific, you know it is usually technical and thus, only the people in a given field of study understand the validity of the research/data, are able to critique it and understand the correctness of the conclusions.
Fossil fuel burning gives off a by-product of CO2 and an increase in the latter has been claimed to cause the increased warming of the earth, and all the havoc in the earth's climate (i.e. climate change). But this is unsettled science: that there is actually an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and that this is the source of the earth's warming. Politics has been influenced by the money/pressure of groups (environmental and others) and the politics of the last eight years embraced an agenda pushing the greenhouse warming hypothesis. Thus, they jumped ahead of science and made laws to support these unsettled scientific conclusions. They say coal for electricity and oil for gas powered engines are the main culprits of the claimed increase in CO2, so we need to limit or do away with using those resources. I am for developing alternate sources of energy because having a variety of energy sources is good for energy independence and national security, not because of climate change. But coal, oil and natural gas should continue to be part of our energy mix too because of their reliability and cheap cost. I am skeptical about the claims of efficiency and reliability of solar panels and wind turbines, and that they can produce enough electricity for our needs. Energy conservation should be achieved through education, not by taxing.
What bothered me most about the signs/article for March for Science was the protestors' position that if you don't believe what they believe then you are a climate denier which implied you are against science, an inaccurate assumption and arrogant attitude. And did the protestors need to go back to grade school name calling?