Sentences with phrase «of the public trusts scientists»

Not exact matches

Matthew C. Nisbet refreshingly acknowledges the importance of addressing trust and communication issues between scientists and the public with regard...

«This agreement was extremely important in order to ensure that Canadians could trust public science and the decisions that governments make with that science,» says Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the Ottawa - based union representing about 15,000 federal scienpublic science and the decisions that governments make with that science,» says Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the Ottawa - based union representing about 15,000 federal scienPublic Service of Canada, the Ottawa - based union representing about 15,000 federal scientists.

Since then, I'm helping to start a science advocacy group on campus in hopes of improving public trust in scientists and opening conversations between academic researchers and the local community.

As Director of Scientific Conferences and Engagement for the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Julian will be leading campus - wide efforts to communicate the technology and implications of genomics to scientists, clinicians, teachers, students and the broader public.

Of course if the vast majority of the public trusts the scientific community, then to offset the misinformation, it is important that scientists speak up publicly and emphasize the consensuOf course if the vast majority of the public trusts the scientific community, then to offset the misinformation, it is important that scientists speak up publicly and emphasize the consensuof the public trusts the scientific community, then to offset the misinformation, it is important that scientists speak up publicly and emphasize the consensus.

More of the same serves only to undermine public trust in in scientists and science.

In a column on The Times Op - Ed page, four scientists from a team of specialists independently assessing the volume of oil gushing from BP's destroyed seabed well provide more evidence that the company can not be trusted to put the public interest ahead of its corporate interests as this disaster continues to unfold.

Gleick and his co-author Randy Townsend of the AGU wrote that advancing scientific work to create a sustainable future would only be possible if scientists had the trust of the public and policymakers.

Over all, he wrote, «My reading of the vast scientific literature on climate change is that our understanding is undiminished by this incident; but it has raised concern about the standards of science and has damaged public trust in what scientists do.»

Climate scientists will have to work harder to earn the warranted trust of the public — and maybe that is no bad thing.

570 @twomoon: «The broader point remains nonetheless valid in my view: without a common forum for direct engagement with their critics, climate scientists risk continued erosion of public trust.»

The broader point remains nonetheless valid in my view: without a common forum for direct engagement with their critics, climate scientists risk continued erosion of public trust.

In fact, only scientists are trusted more, but most of the public has little contact or exposure to scientists.

We are living through a crisis of trust between the American public and climate scientists, and we must extend ourselves, as scientists and public servants, to rebuild transparency and trust with the public.

I have not read Goodwin's piece in detail, but from the excerpts I read here I judge that she assumes the scientific evidence is primarily correct for the scientist / advocate to argue their AGW cases and what she recommends is some generalized strategy to regain or gain «trust» from some «misunderstandings» of the public about climate scientists.

They seem to think that «I'm a climate scientist, trust me» is a slam dunk argument winner, whereas increasing numbers of the public see it as a contradiction in terms.

The trust in that case would be more along the lines of the less informed public, and that includes many of those persons responsible for policy, «trusting» the advocacy of climate scientists, in a general way, being backed, more or less, with hard science evidence.

Climate scientists love to try and complicate matters knowing most of the public can not follow it and will in general trust perceived authority.

This post is sort of a prolegomena to what I hope will be future studies that investigate the sociology and psychology of scientists and motivated reasoning, and its influence on public trust in science.

It's just that by intentionally misleading the public, scientists are further eroding the possibility of public trust.

It's not helping the credibility of scientists or the trust that the public puts into climate scientists and therefore on the science because it's hard for the public to understand the nuances of such a complex subject — it's hard for the scientists to even understand — so [members of the public] have to trust the experts on some level and when the experts behave like this it's a big loss of credibility for the whole climate science enterprise.

Yes, «Nobody but nobody trusts climate scientists,», yet 67 % of the American public want scientists to play a major role in policy - making regarding climate change:

At a time when the U.S. and the world's nations are trying to put together an agreement to tackle climate change (for better or for worse), Steyn's book reminds everyone of Climategate, why the public doesn't trust climate scientists and aren't buying their «consensus»... I hope that everyone will learn that adversarial science as practiced in its pathological form by Michael Mann doesn't «pay» in the long run.

The issue I have with this is that there seems to be more evidence that a luck of trust (if it exists) is because certain media outlets keep telling the public that climate scientists can't be trusted, rather than the public deciding this independently because they've become aware of advocacy by climate scientists (see Dana's Guardian article today, for example).

According to the March 2012 George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication (CCCC) national poll, climate scientists are the most trusted source for climate science information, with 74 % of public trust (Figure 3).

In the aftermath of the Climategate scandal, in order to ensure scientific integrity and regain the public's trust, scientific bodies called on scientists to allow access to their raw data, assumptions, methodologies, and software and to promptly and completely respond to all Freedom of Information Act and government requests for information.

The statement by Mike McPhaden, President of the AGU, comes down pretty hard on Peter Gleick for having «betrayed the principles of scientific integrity» and thereby «compromised AGU's credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public's trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth's changing climate.»

Another way to look at it, is if one thinks real scientists are of the opinion that «climate change» is important issue, and compare this with public's opinion of what are important national interests, the divergence of this could a metric to measure this lack of trust.

A desire for brevity compels me to end it here but the list of scientists and the public who don't trust them is very long.

-- I'm asking for evidence of the theorized cause - and - effect that causes the public to lose trust in scientists.

Keep in mind, also, that the data are measured over a time period that largely predates the polarization related to global warming — so using that study as a way to confirm assertions about the impact of the climate wars on public trust in scientists is motivated reasoning in its purest form.

And concern about a public lost of trust in scientists (due to scientific alarmism or advocacy or other factors) seems perfectly fine to me.

I'm asking for evidence of the theorized cause - and - effect that causes the public to lose trust in scientists.

If the climate scientists want to gain the trust of the public, hiding data and code isn't going to do it.

Climate scientists are the most trusted source of global warming information among the American public, with 76 % of Americans trusting climate scientists on the subject.

It is scientific nonsense of the highest order that is inexplicable as anything but a fraud perpetuated on a public conditioned to trust science and scientists.

The crucial point that you are all dancing around and refusing to confront is that the idea of «Trust us, we're climate scientists» has taken another huge battering in the public mind.

So, what we have here from Bud Ward is little more than half the story, with the basic idea of trusting Gelbspan as some kind of highly regarded investigative journalist who found smoking gun proof that skeptic climate scientists are shills paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie to the public.

«There's a lot of handwringing among scientists, and a belief that these events permanently damaged public trust.

Hansen, supported by his two Columbia colleagues and other scientists, has written an amicus brief for that effort, which relies on the doctrine of environmental «public trust.»

It contributed to an overall drop in public concern about climate change and a significant loss of trust in scientists.

Climate scientists hope independent reviews will reverse public's loss of trust Ben Webster, The Times, 25 February 2010

• The Koch - funded climate denial machine • Why the public is losing trust in scientists • How alarmist propaganda has skewed the climate debate • How climate change has contributed to a new literary genre • The impact of social media and the «Kardashian Factor» • Climate and the «clash of values» • Global warming or global cooling?

Moreover, having scientists discuss their scientific disagreements in a public setting can go a long way to increase the public trust in science, which has suffered from the (imho incorrect) impression of being closed - minded.

Maibach, who is now working on a further project to measure the effects the views of weathercasters have on their audience, added: «Most members of the public consider television weather reporters to be a trusted source of information about global warming - only scientists are viewed as more trustworthy.»