Science Under Attack

Marine Iguana · 27 Jan 2011 at 00:33

groen said:
the growing earth

NickK · 27 Jan 2011 at 00:34

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.

Amp34 · 27 Jan 2011 at 00:38

Mitty said:
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...

badcompany said:
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 · 27 Jan 2011 at 00:44

Marine Iguana said:

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).

NickK said:
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.