“Rage is rocket fuel!” – Speaker at UW College of the Environment on Inauguration Day

Tomorrow is the so-called March for Science, which claims to focus on science, not politics. Given the statements by supporters and others associated with the March, that claim is pretty tenuous.

On the national level, organizers of the march have been embroiled in a series of self-inflicted political controversies. For example, they tweeted their opposition to bombing the ISIS bunker in Afghanistan, calling the terrorists, “marginalized peoples.” They took that tweet down, but not before receiving a fair amount of critique.

In Seattle, the March will feature overtly political speakers, like Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, who is described on the March’s web page as “strong advocate for social justice and social equity.” There is no mention of science or a scientific credential.

The University of Washington is also getting in on the act. The quote above, from a speaker at a College of the Environment event, was retweeted by the UW College of the Environment earlier this year. Rage, apparently, is now part of the scientific process. The notion that science is a dispassionate approach requiring rigor and a commitment to follow results wherever they lead is, according to some, an outdated notion.

Part of the problem is that many who profess support for “science” don’t actually know what that means. This week, KUOW interviewed a UW professor about the Science March and about who really cares about science – a professor of philosophy.

Michael Blake was asked about which ideology was more anti-science and his conclusion, not surprisingly, is that “The right wing in particular seems to me to have more wholeheartedly endorsed the thought that news that is unwelcome is fake.” He does point “a small finger” at the left on GMOs and vaccines.

There is, however, an indication that his grasp of science isn’t that strong. When asked about climate change, Blake said the “The worst case scenario is ‘Mad Max,’” referring to the “refusal to engage in any kinds of proposals to mitigate climate change.”

I e-mailed him asking about that comment, wondering, “What kind of temperature increase would that be,” to create the Mad Max scenario. Here is his response:

I think it’s unlikely - but the “Mad Max” scenario (to my thinking) refers to social institutions breaking down under environmental stress; it would have to involve not just climate change, but an inability to respond to whatever sorts of climate change come into being.  So I think it’s an improbable event, but I’m not sure it’s impossible - and it doesn’t seem to depend upon any particular sorts of temperature increase in itself.

There is no science in this answer. In an interview about science, he makes a comment about climate change but then says the level of climate change isn’t the issue, but “an inability to respond” in a political way he believes is appropriate. This is politics masquerading as science.

Working in forestry at the State Department of Natural Resources, I was surprised to find how much agreement there was amongst scientists on forests and wildlife. Where there was disagreement, it was in areas of uncertainty where scientists had different levels of risk tolerance for forest health, habitat and other issues. When those issues were translated into the public discussion, however, science was set aside in favor of political slogans and righteousness.

There may be some tomorrow whose goal in marching is to promote science, no matter where it leads. The leadership of the March, however, and many of the politicians taking advantage of it, hope to hide their politics while cloaked in support for “the science.”

And, although it didn’t work out in 2016 or 2017, we join John Cleese in this hope for 2018.