Between a phone interview for a job, a rally, wandering around Fisherman’s Wharf like a tourist, and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund dinner, I didn’t attend any actual science. Feeling guilty about that…
The shots of the rally that have been published make it look smaller than it was. It seems my amateur iPhone shot may be of use to people trying to demonstrate that the turnout was substantial.
While, to people who organize rallies, this amounted to a successful rally, I have to say that for me it was somewhat disappointing.
As you can see, there was a good turnout. But I have to say organizers wheeled out tired lefty script. I am not down with climate science aligning itself with Naomi Klein.
Oreskes & Mann each spoke briefly, but not really to the AGU crowd. Scientists in white lab coats was a nice eyecatcher for the press but I suspect perhaps a bit offputting for most geoscientists. A few of us do lab work, but most do either field work or computation.
The issue I have is that I did not come away with any sense of what scientists are supposed to do about all this.
Oreskes at least suggested joining 350 or CCL. Okay but that doesn’t seem to rise to the occasion.
I think we should separate out the fate of science from the fate of climate policy. They really are getting mixed up in the public’s mind, and I don’t think we should let left-idientity politics get away with this.
The threats to science are real. It’s time to separate the fate of climate science from the fate of the climate. They are different questions and they should be considered on separate merits, As goes climate science, so goes science as a whole.
Whether there is going to be science at all, or just Lysenkoism, is the question at hand. It’s not as if this hasn’t happened before. Russian biology was set back a century.
If the purpose of science is to flatter the poltical leadership it’s not just the discipline in the crosshairs that gets corrupted.
So it’s good to get a good turnout. (If anyone wants the full-resolution crowd pic let me know.) It’s good to stand up and be counted. But we have a problem, and we don’t have a strategy.
I had various nice conversations at the CSLDF dinner, most notably with Jon Overpeck’s attorney, Mike Mandig (sp?) not to be confused with Mike Mann who was sitting just across the table from us.
It was interesting getting Mandig’s perspective of getting involved in the case and discovering just how malign the opposition is.
I enjoyed not being the fusspot, as the dinner was strictly vegan.