Scoutfish Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 It's a matter of two things: NIMBY! and WIIFM?. NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard! ; refering to trash dumps,landfills, nuclear energy plants, prisions, waste water/ solid refuse treatments plants. All needed and wanted by people, just not in their communities. WIIFM: What's In It For Me? : "I am against such total pork barrel waste of resources and spending of any tax supported dollars...unless I get something out of it, in which case, it's okay!" Let the scientist explain how we personally benefit, and things will go differently! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Boyce Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 I don't go for science by popular vote, but science with popular oversight. Let's face it, we make moral choices in determining what research to fund. It's interesting to me that women's breast cancer research gets such huge public attention and funds (with 40,000 annual deaths) versus the negligible attention paid to prostate cancer (with 32,000 annual deaths). The "funds per death" formula is not equivalent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Speaking of communication problems, it took me about 10 seconds to figure out what Trevorum meant by the phrase "which pack skirts"... Which...packs a punch? Which...packs the pants in the family? Wat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 Well...we left off with packing punches from Merlyn and the subject of the thread receded with a whimper into those dark recesses of our cholesterol-clogged minds. So I couldn't get the 'search' function to work this morning and I decided to use this thread to revive another somewhat-related question regarding climate change. As I remember, vol_scouter had brought to our attention the news about a Nobel laureate who resigned from the APS over the AGW issue. I've kind of been waiting for Vol_scouter to 'drop the other shoe', so-to-speak, but now I'm going to make that (evidently nasty) middle-Eastern gesture and flip the shoe myself (this is one gesture I really don't get, by the way). Anyway, a few days ago one of the most credible skeptics of AGW and his team completed their studies and have confirmed that global warming is indeed happening. Here is the link to the actual place to read the drafts of that research as they have been submitted to peer-reviewed journals: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/resources.php There is also a two-page summary on that site, for those who might not want to wade through all the technical detail. I note that as the 'birthers' were answered with that infamous 'long form', one of the two questions regarding global warming seems to have been addressed by 'one of their own'. The skeptics can, however, continue to cling to the remaining question about the anthropogenic component. I offer this because it is an example of what is great about science. An idea, healthy skepticism, open communication and exchange of data, and most importantly, the willingness to consider that one's own ideas might be incorrect. I just love this science stuff. Think I'll throw another lump of coal on the fire to celebrate! (shouting to wife, "could you bring me my stocking from last Christmas???") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perdidochas Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Merlyn, Trevorum was not communicating well. From what I can get from context, a better way to rewrite the sentence (The larger point, which pack skirts, is that scientists tend to do a pretty crappy job of public outreach and public education. ) in question is: The larger point, which Packsaddle skirts, is that scientists tend to do a pretty crappy job of public outreach and public education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 The larger point, which Packsaddle skirts, is that scientists tend to do a pretty crappy job of public outreach and public education. Yah, that's true, eh? No surprise really. It's not their job. PR and communications is all about tellin' a story - preferably an interesting, emotive story. Scientists are just lousy at that. Once upon a time yeh had responsible journalists who actually understood enough science to be good science writers to help educate folks. That went away sometime back in the 80s or early 90s. Nowadays da journalists usually don't know a thing about what they're writin' about. There are still some good folks in this business, but they work for venture capital firms and angel investors, eh? People who really do know science and da industry and can explain it in effective storytelling ways to non-scientists. Problem is, those folks have a large monetary incentive to stay quiet about stuff and just share it with their clients. And of course there are da academics and teachers, who are pretty effective too. But they're just a bunch of Democrats, leftists, and socialists so they don't count. Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAKWIB Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 When one of the most notable "public faces" on the discussion of climate change is Al Gore, it's easy to see why the topic suffers from a public relations problem. As Beavah points out, there really seems to be a lack of good mainstream scientific journalism. Maybe I just don't dig deep enough, or maybe I've gone past the point of caring because the topic has been so politicized my trust factor of the information stream has shut down. None of the celebrity/politico types who preach the end-of-the-world via climate change seem to be radically altering their lifestyle. In turn, I feel no strong compulsion to fear this boogey-man either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 "As Beavah points out, there really seems to be a lack of good mainstream scientific journalism." In reality, real journalism is almost extinct. It is really a shame that the best journalists appear to work outside of mainstream media. Whether it is due to standards, or lack of, or that "sound bite" writing is not real journalism, so the best writers simply go elsewhere. All you need to do is look at the atrocious spelling and grammar in any large newspaper to understand how far even basic standards have slipped. One of the reasons that a few blogs are so popular in some areas of interest. But of course, then we have other issues related to veracity and opinion and supporting material. Interesting how much of the divisiveness now so prominent can be at least partially connected to lack of basic education, such as reading and comprehension and basic math. Just an aside observation. Sorry if it is too far off thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Could not locate the original thread relating to climategate, so am tacking on here. Yes, I realize the attached link is from a group many find less than acceptable. But, the basic info is definitely of interest in this area. It will be interesting to see the follow ups on this particular study. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/richard-muller-global-warming_n_1066029.html?ncid=webmail12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Packsaddle, Just saw the article this morning on a physics site. I look forward to reading his planned papers and see this as potentially significant research. Though still skeptical, this would to me be an important person to have changed their opinion. The article that I read said that he was mute about the cause of the GW which is keeping with available information. So while skeptical, my skepticism is a little less today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2Eagle Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 In case anyone doubts the motives of the Huffington Post, here's the link to Professor Mueller's op-ed piece in that liberal yellow rag the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html#articleTabs%3Darticle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSScout Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 OOO - OOO !! They could sell something to raise money for their pet projects... I understand popcorn is a popular idea.... How many cans of chocolate dip p/c for one F37 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now