Science Under Attack

[Amp34]

Bit of a sensationalist title but actually one of the better Horizons I've seen in a while. Definately worth a watch if you are a scientist of someone interested in science. It does concentrate quite a lot on climate change and "climategate" but it also shows he biggest problems with science today, politics and the media.

The parts where the presenter interviews the creator of "climategate" and the newspaper comparisons are perhaps the best bits in explaining this, showing just why scientists need to start interacting with the public more.

It turns out that (suprise suprise) the original journalist that brought the climategate issue to the fore didn't have a scientific background and announced, quite smugly it seems, that he doesn't have time to read peer reviewed papers and so takes all his information from second hand sources... I particularly loved his reaction to the consensus on cancer treatment, as soon as he said "yup... um..." you knew he was going to avoid the question.

The newspaper comparisons just show how the mainstream media add so much spin, politics and misunderstanding to reporting of science, which as an example, leads me to this:

I was reading an volcano blog, as you do, on a tuesday night and came across a perfect example.

The Blog... http://bigthink.com/blogs/eruptions/ discusses a recent paper on Yellowstone uplift by showing recent articles from papers, which hits exactly the same point as the Horizon episode...

Read the Mails article

Is the world's largest super-volcano set to erupt for the first time in 600,000 years, wiping out two-thirds of the U.S.?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...Yellowstone-National-Park-wipe-thirds-US.html

and then read the blog entry and discussion...

http://bigthink.com/blogs/eruptions/


Sorry for the rambling post but I think, especially on a forum like this, that a lot of people should have a watch and a read. Maybe it will make you think (it has me).

 

[Amp34]

People shouldn't be taking about what they don't know, way too many people form opinions on stuff they do not fully understand. My question to them is what's wrong with not having an opinion?

Politics and media are not fully to blame, people still learn of it, and then because they are absolute nutters come up with some nonsense. Then solidify their viewpoint because it is apparently scientific. This can be seen through "Global warming". Also, global warming is true, but obviously its more complicated and thrown out of proportion tbh. For a geographer several million years is an extremely short period and that kind of time frame is often referred to as short or fast etc...

Then what annoys me also is why people who don't believe in global warming somehow want to waste more fuel/energy/create pollution and why people who do believe in it start preaching hippy nonsense and by that in referring to the extreme opinionated uneducated nutters.

So i agree with you but i think the words jibba jabba and STFU need to be used FAR more often.

Anyway i tend to argue a few points when i am faced with misunderstood people, what tips me off is the feeling that if you try and tell that person they are wrong, immediately, out of nowhere they erect massive defences. "I will not change my mind".. If someone is thinking like that they are wrong even if they are right. So anyway i ask them what they were thinking when they made that decision, where they got the info, if they checked it, why they did it tbh there are way more things id ask just cant remember unless i am in that situation.

Actually for a geographer several million years takes them way beyond their remit, you want a Geologist.

I agree though, nothing wrong with an opinion, problem is when that opinion becomes "fact". To take the analogy from the program "you wouldn't take the opinion of a random person over a doctor for a medical condition", somehow that logic doesn't seem to be followed when non medical science comes into it.

It actually made me slightly annoyed watching the climategate guy, what a stuck up idiot. He's supposed to be a journalist in one of the better papers too, no wonder the Mail et al. are so bad!

The problem is that newspapers and the media don't hire 'proper' scientific journalists to report on these stories. Instead they hire someone who thinks they know without any proper background, or they take anyone and make them cover the stories.

Any scientist will tell you that reading information directly from the source will get you the hard facts without the wishy washy nonsense added in by a second party or indeed, the media.

Very true, but you do need stuff disseminated to the general public in a more simple form than scientific papers provide. National geographic and websites like sciencedaily do a reasonable job, but the only people that really read either will be very sciency people in the first place. Even having studied a subject for several years I find a lot of papers hard going, that's before you start thinking about all the mays, possiblys etc. you get in most scientific papers. Scientists know that it's essentially the author covering their backs (we were (only half jokingly) told never write anything definate in a report or paper as it could come back to bite you) and that it isn't guessing but an issue with the way science works, would the public?

 

[Amp34]

Violent Seismic Activity Tearing Africa in Two

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,740641,00.html

Check the pictures. This goes to further prove the growing earth theory that is completely ignored by mainstream science.

That article isn't too bad actually, a little sensationalist in some places (like the hills disappearing in a matter of days) but seems reasonably ok from a quick glance, much better than the likes of the Mail et al..

Not sure what it has to do with the "growing earth theory" though? I would assume it was a joke but coming from you I can see you thinking it is real. If that's the case have a look at continental rifting and ocean floor spreading, there are plenty of papers and even websites out there about it and it explains almost everything that is happening there. It's a very well studies area, coincidentally there are quite a few people at my university that study it actually, including the taker of a few of those photos (yeah I've seen most of them). Don't think they think it's to do with growing earth theory though.

 

[Amp34]

OP look into scientific literacy.. Someone who is scientifically literate has the skills to work out which pieces of media to take with a pinch of salt and those they would should to disregard all together =)

I have an idea about that, unfortunately most people don't, which is why I thought the program was interesting and should be spread around. Unfortunately the ones that would benefit the most from it seem to have just come in here and spouted rubbish about nothing much related to what I said in the OP...

Science Under Attack


OMG people are questioning Climate Change and AGW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HELP!!!!!!



LOL BBC just LOL .

That is all.

Let me get this straight first. I am neither for or against AGW, I'm very open minded about it (although I do think we should definately be reducing our output just for the sake of our health and other pollutants), unlike a lot of my peers, who have made up their minds that it definately is caused by us.

However the thread and the show, to an extent, were nothing to do with playing up AGW. They were using it as an example due to it's massive prominence in our lives at the moment, along with all the issues with it. Go watch the show with an open mind and listen to what the presenter is trying to say instead of talking ****.

 

[Amp34]

Some **** about mid ocean ridges causing sea floor spreading (correct) but no subduction happening (wrong). Instead the earth is slowly getting larger (due to the sea floor spreading)... Problem is there is no real explanation as to how we are gaining material to allow for this expansion and also things like the Wadati-Benioff zone (amongst a large number of other things).

The issue with science is that scientists require funding and so their over-exaggeration of things is a form of marketing to maintain/attract funding.

Current theory "to the best of our knowledge" is stated as fact. However it can still be wrong - that's part of science.

To an extent. A lot of funding comes from sources that shouldn't be bais (such as NERC) and a lot of projects are very open ended, meaning people aren't seaching for one specific right or wrong. In both cases this should mean an overall unbias result, even if some people are playing the numbers.