Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Jan 2010 19:32 Climate of suspicion http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues such as climate change according to their personal values (see page 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People have more trust in experts � and scientists � when they sense that the speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they share something in common with that other side.
From: Peter Franks on 22 Jan 2010 20:06 Sam Wormley wrote: > Climate of suspicion > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html > > "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors > will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. > Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues > such as climate change according to their personal values (see page > 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely > to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. > And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People > have more trust in experts � and scientists � when they sense that the > speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus > do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when > communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should > be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a > respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they > share something in common with that other side. That's just common human decency. The problem with a 'scientist' is that by and large they are driven to prove their hypothesis. If the data don't agree, then they conclude that the data are wrong and go about proving it a different way. After all, they don't get fame and fortune proving their hypotheses wrong, do they?.
From: ATM on 22 Jan 2010 20:30 To hell with the idiotic uneducated peons who think they know better...just keep 'em employed for a good tax base. "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:n66dnUZh2rwb3sfWnZ2dnUVZ_uti4p2d(a)mchsi.com... > Climate of suspicion > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html > > "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors will > ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. Empirical > evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues such as > climate change according to their personal values (see page 296). Those > who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely to reject > evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. And the > messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People have more > trust in experts � and scientists � when they sense that the speaker > shares their values. The climate-research community would thus do well to > use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when > communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should be > careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a respectful > tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they share > something in common with that other side.
From: Marvin the Martian on 22 Jan 2010 21:02 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:06:53 -0800, Peter Franks wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: >> Climate of suspicion >> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >> >> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >> Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues >> such as climate change according to their personal values (see page >> 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more >> likely to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict >> emissions. And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the >> message. People have more trust in experts — and scientists — when they >> sense that the speaker shares their values. The climate-research >> community would thus do well to use a diverse set of voices, from >> different backgrounds, when communicating with policy-makers and the >> public. And scientists should be careful not to disparage those on the >> other side of a debate: a respectful tone makes it easier for people to >> change their minds if they share something in common with that other >> side. > > That's just common human decency. > > The problem with a 'scientist' is that by and large they are driven to > prove their hypothesis. If the data don't agree, then they conclude > that the data are wrong and go about proving it a different way. After > all, they don't get fame and fortune proving their hypotheses wrong, do > they?. The idiots and posers at Nature were willing participants in this bastardization of science. Quite frankly, their editorial has no place in science, and their speculation on the best propaganda techniques to use in light of the exposure of the massive scientific fraud THEY ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN reflects on their decidedly anti-science, pro socialist political view.
From: Mike Jr on 22 Jan 2010 21:10
On Jan 22, 8:06 pm, Peter Franks <n...(a)none.com> wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: > > Climate of suspicion > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html > > > "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors > > will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. > > Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues > > such as climate change according to their personal values (see page > > 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely > > to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. > > And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People > > have more trust in experts and scientists when they sense that the > > speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus > > do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when > > communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should > > be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a > > respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they > > share something in common with that other side. > > That's just common human decency. > > The problem with a 'scientist' is that by and large they are driven to > prove their hypothesis. If the data don't agree, then they conclude > that the data are wrong and go about proving it a different way. After > all, they don't get fame and fortune proving their hypotheses wrong, do > they?. You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political objective. That isn't science, that is advocacy. Decide; are you a scientist or a politician? Nature's editors have. --Mike Jr. |