"as I said above, if smoking causes cancer, then is it really "scaring people" if you tell them to stop smoking or they could die?"
No, but it is if you say "You will die, next week. Your children will die the day after. Everyone you've ever smoked near, a month later. You're a monster for using this legal, government supported product. ".
That's sort of the thing that happens, after the science gets to the newspaper and the Congress... scientists should be careful when being interviewed about these things.
"But if you have some egregious examples of scientists acting badly in public that you'd like to point out, feel free. "
Carl Sagan wasn't much of a scientist, but he's the big, classic example. I would guess those Eugenics guys back in the '20s were assholes, too.
"I tried to hunt down the BBC story you're referring to but I don't know what it is, so if you could please find the link? Please? "
If it still exists, I don't know where to look... this was years ago, when the IPCC was still news.
I have no issue with the data indicating that there is a global warming trend underway. However, there are many people in the public eye who paint the consequences of this trend as much more rapid and dire than they really are (i.e. the world is going to end in your or your childrens' lifetime), generally to push a vaguely anti-technology agenda (i.e. we should stop doing things in an effort to reverse the trend). I don't like scare tactics, and I don't like anti-technologists. This trend is simply going to continue (presuming the science is right, as I expect) because the whole world is never, ever going to co-operate on a project that hurts in the short term, for possible long-term gains. The only solution that might work is an engineering solution, and that should be the focus of climate change public media.
-Kle.
On the bright side, secret evil government experiments are still a lot less likely to kill you than cheeseburgers.
-Kle.
-Kle.
Nice toy, but not exactly revolutionary. Super-excitement is not in the house, for me.
Maybe the guy in the video stole mine, he clearly has more than the normal human amount.
-Kle.
Yes, I would be frustrated that they tried to scare people in the public media. In fact, that's exactly what I am complaining about. The public media is the only interface that the general public has with science, they don't read journals much. Nobody tries to scare people with peer-reviewed literature.
BTW, the IPCC did indeed try to scare people with their report. BBC published a story describing conversations at the IPCC about how much to overstate the problem, so that people would buy in.
-Kle.
That doesn't mean you can make people want just anything. Otherwise, products would never flop.
As for the right idea taking root in the ministry of whatever, that is vanishingly rare as a success story.
-Kle.
What you are describing is people all deciding that they want to do something and then doing it. That is relatively easy.
What is difficult is making people want something that they don't.
-Kle.
Nope, but for a very long time people have presented climate change in an overly melodramatic manner. This does not help the reputation of scientific inquiry, because "exaggeration" is the cousin of "lying".
Scientists should just present data, they should not try to scare people. Na matter how good their intentions.
-Kle.
Right. Because governments are so awesome at implementing behavioral, lifestyle, and social changes. Even mass murder and high levels of tyranny couldn't really make most of them stick in the Soviet Union and PRC. Prohibition was an enormous success here in the States, and the War on Drugs, and Absinence as Birth Control, etc. ...
The data do not even distantly support your contention.
-Kle.
Guys stick their wieners in much more ridiculous things than slightly-different-women all the damn time.
This is not rocket science.
-Kle.
"Google already most likely controls your email, your personal calendar and your web searches,"
Let's see... no, no, and... no.
"but can the internet giant also create a conference that comes up with real solutions to the world's problems?"
I'm going to go with "no".
-Kle.
Because behavioral, lifestyle, and social changes are almost impossible to implement across any sort of broad populace.
Technology sells itself.
-Kle.
I really can't imagine ever being "excited to see [a]... commercial" ...
I'm sure the ad world just loves those of you who can, though.
-Kle.
Exactly. We are part of nature. Maybe we'll fail - this is bad for us, but just fine for nature.
-Kle.
-Kle.
Of course it's bad for you. However, just as Mr Multiverse states, that is not why it is regulated, nor should it be.
-Kle.
-Kle.
No, the health insurance crisis we're in mostly has to do with the insurance industry being a scam that ought to be illegal, like other pyramid schemes. It also breaks the market by destroying buyer influence over service prices.
-Kle.
-Kle.
Judging by the experiences of my teacher friends here in R.I., science isn't on the yearly standardized test, so it doesn't matter. All that matters is "processing the product", which means advancing the students one grade irrespective of whether they've learned anything or not. Government has ceased to be even distantly competent at primary education.
-Kle.
-Kle.
Well, sure, if you keep at it long enough. You can do that with pretty much any object though... this thing isn't exactly Hydrogen Bomb material.
-Kle.
-Kle.
Nature isn't some loving, harmonious goddess of symbiosis. Nature doesn't care. This is an old story, it happens all the time.
-Kle.
-Kle.
This guy's a jackass.
Alcohol isn't regulated because it's bad for you, it's regulated because it makes you stupid, so it can be bad for innocent bystanders.
People want sugar, they should have sugar. That's the whole point of having a representative government, instead of submitting to the rule of a council of know-it-all imbeciles.
-Kle.
You're entitled to your opinion whether it's informed or not.
That doesn't make it any less amusing.
-Kle.
