Sentences with phrase «public view of scientists»

Not exact matches

The public has been fascinated by these breaks with traditional Western science and has responded enthusiastically to the writings of those scientists who have come up with new views.

In his closing remarks, Dr David Hine, who organised the conference, said that conferees had had a rich and fruitful day of discussion, and that the conference had shown how both political scientists and the general public have changed the way they view Europe.

In 1969, when the AAAS Board first suggested creating a special committee to draw up a statement concerning the freedom and responsibilities of scientists, association leaders, along with a number of other scientific societies, were looking into allegations that the Public Health Service was rejecting the appointment of scientists to study sections based upon the candidates» political views and affiliations.

Three weeks ago, climatologist James Hansen accused NASA's public affairs officer, George Deutsch, of muzzling climate scientists who did not conform to the Bush administration's view.

But the subject resurfaced recently when I gave a talk at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory about how members of the public view scientists.

This view is at least congruent with his belief that human - caused climate change is a hoax, which puts him at odds with pretty much every climate scientist on the planet and the majority of the U.S. public.

I suspect the most widespread view, held by practising scientists as well as by the minority of enthusiasts among the public, is that science is the engine of progress within society and as such ought to be accorded more respect than it usually is.

Despite similar views about the overall place of science in America, the general public and scientists often see science - related issues through a different lens, according to a new pair of surveys by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Some 42 % of the public as whole says that scientists generally agree the universe was created in a single event often called «the big bang,» while 52 % say that scientists are divided in their views about creation of the universe.

He has advocated the public release of individual genomes with the view that a growing database in which scientists can compare DNA profiles with health histories and traits will help them understand in greater detail the impact of genetics upon human health.

«The listing not only raised public awareness that climate change is already driving vulnerable species like the polar bear toward extinction, but also forced the Bush administration to adopt the consensus view of the world's scientists on global warming.»

In 1993, political scientists Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones introduced this theory to the study of public policy, and it has since become a common lens through which to view change in social systems.

They viewed public schools as akin to voluntarily supported charities and as part of what social scientists today call civil society.

They viewed public schools — even though public schools in those days usually charged a fee — as akin to voluntarily supported charities and as part of what Tocqueville then, and social scientists today, call «civil society.»

Political scientists have considered leadership from the point of view of the power held by leading persons and institutions, the policies that are implemented, and the interests of various publics within a society.

In a culture too often dominated by expediency and self - interest, I came to view climate scientists as visionaries and altruists, flawed and flummoxed like all such people who are suddenly called by forces outside themselves to excel themselves, fighting not just their own reluctance to become publicly involved, and their own ill - adaption to public and activist lives, but, ultimately, fighting for the truth in the face of falsehood, not just because truth matters in some abstract or even in moral terms, but because the fate of the Earth itself, and all who live here, is ever more obviously at stake.

If Mann had wanted to point to an opposite end to the spectrum of ways in which scientists can contribute to public discourse on global warming science and risks, a better choice (in my view) would have been Susan Solomon's handling of the rollout of the 2007 science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

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.»

a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases, â??

Dr. Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist, added that polls and input he has received from various sources indicate that «public opinion has moved toward the view that scientists often try to suppress alternative hypotheses and ideas and that scientists will withhold data and try to manipulate some aspects of peer review to prevent dissent.

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.

Unfortunately, that perspective fails to account for the mechanism by which motivated reasoning influences how the public interpret what climate scientists do and don't say and how motivated reasoning influences what the public think about the prevalence of shared view among climate scientists w / r / t the related uncertainties.

In regions like North America and Europe, where the public was relatively well educated and informed, the views of scientists and public tended to evolve together.

By way of further explanation... Warren's paper seems to suggest that a significant % of the public formulate their views about climate change based on what climate scientists do or don't say about uncertainties in the science.

How can scientists help the political process by ensuring that the testimony is from the best representative (s) in that field, the person or persons who indeed possess the «full confidence» of the group to give the politicians and the public the facts and truth as it is currently known; and NOT a bunch of «personal views» or «bright ideas» about using pure gold slabs to cover every city and village on the planet and protecting everyone from harmful intergalactic Z - rays?

Interesting, isn't it, that Krosnick has conducted a poll amongst the public, to see if their beliefs match those of the scientists, but neglected to poll scientists to establish their views.

AAAS scientists» views about climate change, using the same three - choice measure, contrast starkly with that of the public.

Ottawa town hall attendee, Rod Packwood, a PhD in physics and retired senior research scientist at Natural Resources Canada, said: «The government is clearly biasing the town halls in such a way as to generate supposed public support for the point of view they hold dear.

Does this mean scientists who read that journal have a BS filter inferior to that of the general public viewing the billboard?

In an open letter to Martin Durkin, head of Wag TV, the independent production company that made the film, the scientists say: «We believe that the misrepresentation of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest... In fact, so serious and fundamental are the misrepresentations that the distribution of the DVD of the programme without their removal amounts to nothing more than an exercise in misleading the public.»

The Great Global Warming Swindle received critical response from the scientific community, including a letter to ABC that was signed by thirty - seven British Scientists who claimed «the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest.

Opinions and narratives is very lazy science, easy to write, very well - funded by governments, keeps people prominent scientists in the public eye, and is aligned with the barrage of views produced by anti-development NGOs like Greenpeace.

If you want a public debate, instead of one - on - one, let's use the correct proportions of the views of climate scientists.

Using language that echoes popular blogs and books, and that offers a deficit - model view of science policy and public understanding, the small group of rapid - response scientists appears to view the climate change issue via the prism of a partisan - fueled «war,» one that pits science versus «anti-science.»

In response to charges by the UCS that the administration has «consistently sought to undermine the public's understanding of the view held by the vast majority of climate scientists,» Marburger stresses that Bush has «clearly acknowledged the role of human activity in increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.»

Suggest a word that captures the behavior you see in the mails where the over arching concern appears to be how the public will view a valid disagreement between scientists, a word that captures the careful attention they pay to the crafting of the message, a word that captures the attitudes displayed towards those who stray from the message.

Some of the other emails simply show scientists expressing frustration and — in one email — even talking (not seriously, we hope) about beating up someone who had, in his view, made an unfair, public attack on his colleague.

I'd planned to also mention how our pro-global warming friends must view skeptic scientists and skeptic organizations as a very annoying irritation, but they probably fear the general public the most, over the looming potential of the public losing faith in talking points about «settled science» and «corrupt skeptic climate scientists» that become too preposterous to accept.

If you challenge politicians or public figures on climate policy you will hear the answer that it is the view of the majority of scientists.

«New Website Wants to Encourage Public Discussion of Climate Change by Scientists» by Meg Gilley, November 12, 2013 [click on link here to view full article on THE FRONT PAGE] What are your thoughts on the new Climate Change National Forum and Review (CCNFR)?

In any event, if politicians and the general public are finally persuaded to the view that scientists are certain about the on - set of disastrous AGW, it is almost certain that climate research will suffer badly.

While these results indicate high public acceptance of climate science, there is still a significant gap between public opinion and the views of climate scientists.

That maybe because the first was a disagreement between 2 groups of scientists who had put their respective points of view down in the journals, as well argued, though different, cogent lines of thought (ignoring the fits of public slanging).

We therefore echo Senator Lautenberg's concern, and hope that efforts such as this site, will increasingly help the public, journalists, and policy makers appreciate the distinction between the informed views of dedicated scientists committed to investigating the factors governing variability and change in earth's climate, and the opinions coming out of think - tanks and special interests.

Even if what you are saying were true of scientists towards each other it is not true of the way that the general public views science.

Charting the evolution and confirmation of the theory, Spencer R. Weart, director of the Center for the History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics, dissects the interwoven threads of research and reveals the political and societal subtexts that colored scientists» views and the public reception their work received.

After he called on the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a December 2005 lecture, Dr. Hansen found that NASA officials began reviewing and filtering public statements and press interviews in an effort to limit his ability (as well as that of other government scientists) to publicly express scientific opinions that clashed with the Bush administration's views on global warming.»

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.»

The question that remains is how this information can be useful to scientists or communicators hoping to better reach members of the public who disagree with their views.

Transracial adoption, defined as the adoption of a child from a race that is different from that of the adoptive parent, has attracted interest among social scientists seeking to understand how the public views adoption.