SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Phys.org reports:
If scientists want the public to trust their research suggestions, they may want to appear a bit "warmer," according to a new review published by Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
The review, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), shows that while Americans view scientists as competent, they are not entirely trusted. This may be because they are not perceived to be friendly or warm.
[...]
Focusing on scientific communication, Fiske and Dupree administered another online survey asking adults to describe public attitudes toward climate scientists specifically to provide a clearer picture of the public's seemingly mixed feelings. The researchers used a seven-scale item of distrust that included motives derived from pilot work on scientists' alleged motives. These included such motives as lying with statistics, complicating a story, showing superiority, gaining research money and pursuing a liberal agenda, among others.
The abstract for the paper can be found here.
Although distrust is low, the apparent motive to gain research money is distrusted. The literature on climate science communicators agrees that the public trusts impartiality, not persuasive agendas. Overall, communicator credibility needs to address both expertise and trustworthiness. Scientists have earned audiences’ respect, but not necessarily their trust. Discussing, teaching, and sharing information can earn trust to show scientists’ trustworthy intentions.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 23 2014, @06:51PM
Real estate is an investment. Gas is a consumable.
Of course you wouldn't hear someone say not to buy real estate because prices are going up. Because the plan is always to sell that real estate again at some point. You can't sell gas after you've used it. It's more like food. I have heard people say for example that they'll have to stop buying bacon because prices are going up.
Maybe the ultra-wealthy will still buy the big SUVs as a status symbol, but the vast majority of Americans can't afford status symbols.
Of course, that's not to say that raising fuel prices is always good. The people who can't afford higher fuel prices probably can't afford a more fuel-efficient car either...
Although all of this also ignores the fact that, despite how many cars are on the road, they're not the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly a third of all US emissions come from electricity generation. Go big with nuclear, solar, wind and other carbon-neutral sources and that will come pretty close to meeting the IPCC's estimates required to limit warming to 2C. But we'd have to do that before 2020....