An awful lot happened during a hearing on Wednesday by the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology titled "Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method." But there's only one exchange that matters.
Saturday's March for Science calls for “robustly funded” science and “political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest.” But is this just an attempt to dress up the marchers’ political beliefs as science? And what do they mean by science?
Thousands of scientists and their supporters took to the streets to advocate for public support for science and technology today in Washington, D.C., and other cities around the country.
The organizers of the 'March for Science' follow the legacy of substituting a political narrative for the distinctive language and methods of science.
Science can still be a bipartisan cause.
What does it mean?
The March for Science brought out great minds—and signs—at 600 events worldwide.
Washington headlines rallies in more than 600 cities to bolster public support for science.
Chairman Lamar Smith dismissed commentary presented during testimony on climate change because it came from the journal Science — one of the oldest and most prestigious scientific publications in existence.
As congresspeople deliberated yesterday—before the GOP bid to destroy the Affordable Care Act devolved into a colossal train wreck this afternoon—Lamar Smith, the Chair of the House Committee on Space, Science and Technology, slipped away from the discussions so he could go hang out with climate change deniers and remind them that the media is liberal, according to a report by Motherboard. He also bragged about all the times he subpoenaed the Environmental Protection Agency.