I like this poll on the differences between the public and scientists on various controversial issues.
The subject on which people disagree with scientists the most isn't evolution, global warming, or vaccines…its GM foods.
I'm always boggled on how people who disagree with science can see things like this and not significantly revise their opinions.
Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society
The public and scientists express strikingly different views about science-related issues, yet both groups agree that K-12 STEM education in America falls behind other nations.
This post has been reshared 2 times on Google+
View this post on Google+
Quite a number of those questions feel a little odd in this context. Human astronauts, fracking and so on aren't scientific questions, and to the extent that they touch on science it would be only a small minority of polled researchers that are within that area of expertise.
It looks to me that the difference disappears as a function of how much the question probes general political/societal beliefs rather than scientific knowledge or understanding.
I consider myself of moderate scientific litteracy. On the first point, my objection to consuming GMO foodstuff has nothing to do with food safety as it is usually defined. I am mostly concerned with having one (or even a few) company controling the whole food chain. Most people rebel against dictatures, but don't bat an eyelid when corporates make unscrutable decisions…
That's reasonable to a degree. Â Have you investigated whether there are more or less companies involved in other typical foodstuffs?
I'm a scientist, and like +Daniel Carollo​ above I have no problem with gmo from a safety aspect, but oppose the corporate oligopoly it enables.
I want to know what my food is made from not because of safety but so I can choose what companies and corporate practice I support or not with my money.
The chart is biased by who gets paid to talk and who doesn't get paid to listen.
Talking GMO in this thread? Â Can i join? Â I'm an engineer and my concern is that many of our staple crops like corn are a monoculture. Â Most of the planted acreage of these crops is limited to a handful of varieties worldwide. Â
Is this the general public or an equally educated public of non scientists .Big difference .
+Daniel Carollo looking more closely at the questions more so than the answers I believe , in the words of William Shakespeare "There's something rotten in Denmark "
Last time I checked I believed the number was 97%, or is it like the hottest year thing, where it actually was not
And yes that wasn't a serious question, as there's 40% of scientists saying it's NOT human caused
+Michael Rainey My concern with corn and wheat is that humans and the livestock they eat aren't designed to eat corn and wheat. We are part of a long term experiment that is resulting in disease and unhealthy lifestyle.Â
From a purely logical perspective +augie nelson, one would have to be pretty obtuse to think that modifying our environment to the point we, as humans, have done in the past few hundred years, would have no consequence whatsoever on the weather.
In the words of (Douglas Adams?) taking all that black stuff that was safely hidden underground to mess up so many places so we can go faster and further to places we haven't yet messed up (OK, I'm paraphrasing, can't find the exact quote right now) is only a small example of the way we introduce irreversible (in human scale) changes to the system.
We keep dumping our garbage in the sea and in the air as if they were bottomless pits. Have a look at this image : http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/159214/enlarge and realise how little air and water there is on this planet, and weep…
+Daniel Carollo of course we are affecting many things (oil spills deforestations, mass slaughter, driving creatures to extinction) However to say we are the major driver of climate change is insane
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/climate-change-deniers-are-completely-insane/
That's an amusing reply that basically sums up my opinion
No more insane than denying it +augie nelson 😉
I'm going to read that article now…
+augie nelson Without the sun the Earth would drop to -400 degrees F. I would suggest the sun is the driver of climate change.Â
Well, the reasoning is fairly sound in that article +augie nelson, and pointing out the other scares is only fair.
However, it does not explain how an infinite growth could happen without major disruption to cycles on earth. You admit that we are affecting many things, why is it insane to think we can affect climate change significantly? (Note that I'm implying a difference between affecting significantly and major driver of change).
If you have a modicum of scientific reasoning, you know that the majority of what we consider stable is in fact in a state of equilibrium. There is nothing that guarantees that when you push something a little bit away from its state of balance, it will come back to the point where it was before the disturbance.
Assuming human activities are not what is triggering the unprecedented drastic climatic changes, do you think it's reasonable to simply carry on as if nothing was going on?
We (the human race) are on a very destructive path. It's likely that I won't witness catastrophic changes during my lifetime, so I theoretically don't have to worry (I don't have children), but somehow, this waste gets to me…
Without the atmosphere, the climate on earth would be very different +Bill Fox, should we suggest that the atmosphere is the driver of climate change?
Oh, wait, make that the oceans.
And the moon.
Vegetation. We've got to mention vegetation.
+Daniel Carollo I've studied the subject:
Peculiarities of Earth that allow life
No other planet or moon in the Solar System has all of these characteristics
Mass of Earth
Mass of the Sun, nuclear stability of the Sun
The Moon (mass of moon) for tides
Distance of Moon from Earth
Distance from the Sun, abundance of ambient heat energy
Distance of the Earth from other planets
Tilt of the Earth on Axis, allows seasons, allows accumulation of ice at poles
Average temperature (between 32 degrees F and 100 degrees F)
Abundance of Water (the nature of water at the average temperature)
   water expands when it freezes, water evaporates at average temps, has a natural PH of 7
Abundance of carbon
Abundance of silicon
Abundance of calcium
Abundance of sodium
Abundance of chlorine
Abundance of potassium
Abundance of phosphorus
Abundance of iron
Abundance of oxygen
Abundance of nitrogen
Abundance of boron
Abundance of iodine
Abundance of sulfur
Mixture of atmosphere, density of atmosphere, support of carbon, nitrogen, water cycles
Rate of spin on axis
Available raw materials specifically necessary to sustain life
Available raw materials for intelligent civilization (coal, oil, gas, uranium, thorium)
Available raw materials in Solar System for millions of years
Distance of the Sun from closest stars
Distance of Solar System from center of Milky Way
Distance of the Milky Way from other Galaxies
Lack of novae and super novae in Milky Way
Lack of significant asteroid and comet activity
Â
+Daniel Carollo I do have scientific reasons of course, hence being a skeptic, I understand that both sides have amazing points (I'll list that in a moment)
+Daniel Carollo​ well to begin with, co2 levels hasn't ever matched temperatures (Greenland icecaps, I shall give link in a moment)
The reason why it's insane to scientifically think that we affect the climate (hugely) is because there's WAY to many variables to even get a sensible answer, every month we are finding that beavers, woodpeckers, cows woodticks etc affect co2 levels beyond what we do, and their population levels change massively yearly
And then there's the oceans, the massive size of the earth, the atmosphere, plant life (another huge variable) that can suck a lot of carbon dioxide (which is assumed to be more than we produce), and then there's that 22 trillion degrees nuclear reaction in the sky, which has spots and plenty of other bulges, and then there's the fact that if the earth moves slightly, we have no way to tell, and that would give us major climate shifts,
And trust me, carbon pollution, and the fact that we ruin habitats looking for more non renewable resources, when renewable resources are just about to catch up, and it's energy is free beyond the initial costs, is enough to make me believe that it's a necessity to get to renewable resources, and we certainly need a change, at any second we can end all life at a push of a button
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make +Bill Fox, and how relevant the distance of the Milky Way from other Galaxies is to our climate…
If the purpose of your list is to show that earth's capacity for life is unique, may I point out that you are making a completely tautological point?
+Daniel Carollo As a pseudo-intellectual I'm sure you understand that there are no inconsequential points in a discussion. If the Sun were closer to the center of the Milky Way, ambient infrared would increase. If the Milky Way were closer to another galaxy, ambient infra-red would increase. Further away, ambient infra-red would decline. Either situation would require the Earth to be in a different orbit, or it would be too hot or too cold to support life.
That was my point. Â
You remind me of Douglas Adams puddle parable +Bill Fox…
I totally reject your assertion that it would be too hot or too cold to support life. We found life around hot water vents at the bottom of the ocean, bacteria that live in ice, we know Earth has been considerably colder AND considerably warmer than it is now, and it supported life…
+Daniel Carollo Then you are not scientific in your understanding. You have fixed opinions, not your own, and you a cannot reason outside that small framework.Â
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Over and out.
+Daniel Carollo"Over" means it is my turn to speak and "out" means you are turning off your transceiver. Pseudo-science in the public interest.Â
+Bill Fox I think we may still be missing nutrients that were common in foods our ancestors ate.  Like maybe there are still forms of Pellagra still occurring.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellagra
+Michael Rainey Pellagra was proven to be caused by niacin deficiency. I take 50 mg a day as a supplement.
I also take borax (as in 20 mule team). This has long been depleted from our soil and is associated with bone and joint health. The same with iodine, magnesium, and potassium. Don't get me started. I've been dealing with nutrition issues for thirty years.Â
+Bill Fox That's what I'm talking about.  It took a while to figure out that our advanced modern high-tech farming and food processing techniques were eliminating niacin "contamination". Â
There may be other trace elements or even biotics that we've processed out of our food and environment that had some critical function we didn't know about. Â
I only use borax as blacksmithing flux but I eat yogurt and take a multivitamin every so often. Â
+Michael Rainey Boron is essential. In Australia it has become a serious problem causing arthritis. Â
I did not know that. Â Thank you.Â
+Michael Rainey http://www.health-science-spirit.com/borax.htm
Fascinating.  I googled for corroboration, using "medical uses for borax."  Most of the results returned pegged the needle on my woo detector; they were almost exclusively homeopathy and other "natural health" types of sites.  But I did find results from NIH's Toxnet, http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+328, which is always full of interesting data.  Separately, I looked up the MSDS for borax but as typical for these data sheets it's focused on exposure to industrial quantities. Â
+Michael Rainey Then you should stick with allopathic medicine. They only have interest in curing your ailments. Â