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 frojack on Tuesday September 23 2014, @09:39PM
I disagree. Fuel taxes are a great example of this; in Europe cars have had much higher fuel economy than U.S. cars, largely in response to high taxes on the fuel. Turbo/supercharger technology is ubiquitous there,
I suggest you check your facts. European cars do not fare all that well in fuel economy, turbo charged or not. Many that appear to have reasonably good mileage all seem to require premium fuel.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Mercedes-Benz2014.shtml [fueleconomy.gov]
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Audi2014.shtml [fueleconomy.gov]
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Fiat2014.shtml [fueleconomy.gov]
For a while I was lusting after a Mini Cooper, only to find it wanted premium gas, and got worse mileage that my middle of the line detroit monster of the same year.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Wednesday September 24 2014, @12:29AM
Fair enough; in my experience European gas stations only sell one gasoline grade, and it's premium. Putting a turbo on a gasoline engine doesn't add much in the way of fuel economy, either; it just gives more horsepower at high RPMs.
What you're not accounting for is that the best fuel economy on Euro cars is in their diesel engines; here are my alternate links for your consideration:
Merecdes [fueleconomy.gov]
Audi [fueleconomy.gov]
Volkswagen [fueleconomy.gov]
That's where your turbo technology gives a big win on fuel economy. Most of my European friends drive diesel at home, and in my opinion it's high time for the U.S. to get over its phobia of diesel as a fuel.
PS - sorry for substituting VW for Fiat; Fiat doesn't sell any diesel cars in the U.S. market.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:44AM
Convert MPG and fuel prices into $/mile or mile/$ or similar. The premium cars are usually a bit more fuel efficient, so they come out ahead despite the higher cost fuel.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday September 24 2014, @05:09AM
Not in the US. And Not without a turbo.
I've done that math. (Its been years ago).
You might see a payout if you drove cross country at highway speeds, but it all disappears in typical in-town traffic usage.
Its very difficult to find comparable cars/engines where one is set up for premium and the other is set for regular.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.