http://www.salon.com/2014/04/12/the_dangerous_pitfalls_of_scientific_celebrity_authority_alone_cant_be_trusted/
Clockwise from top left: Megyn Kelly, Neil Cavuto, Shep Smith, Bob Beckel
Imagine this scene: A preeminent academic sits down for an interview with CNN or MSNBC about the hot scientific topic of the day. Maybe it’s climate change or a blood moon. Maybe it’s something even more complicated — like, say, elusive proof of the rapid expansion of the universe during the first explosive moments of the Big Bang. If you’ve watched the news recently, you’ve probably seen one of these segments, and one of these scientific authorities. And even if you haven’t, you’ve still probably heard a newscaster mention such “authorities” as evidence of the accuracy of the scientific finding du jour.
It might turn out that the expert in question — whose name you might not even have heard, or remembered — doesn’t necessarily specialize in the field about which he or she speaking on national television (Bill Nye, for all his admirable efforts to educate the public about the dangers of anthropogenic climate change, is actually not an atmospheric scientist. He’s an engineer.) Nonetheless, the scientist acquits him- or herself admirably, speaking articulately and with poise on the topic.
So what’s wrong with this picture? It turns out, a bit more than you probably imagine.
But not all scientists are created equal; it’s practically common sense to point out that different scientists have different fields of expertise and different strengths as researchers. It’s even more obvious to point out that none of those credentials even matter if the scientific data itself is bad. Yet when it comes to the dissemination of scientific information through major media outlets, there seems to be a one-size-fits-all attitude that is more than a little problematic.
i still believe the republican denial of science and it's validity is just a ploy to avoid preeminent laws of regulation of their big business benefactors allowing pollution of all of what surrounds us, air, and earth. to admit to climate change being speeded up by fossil fuels impact would insure such regulation and rising cost of those republican pimps to do business.
insuring some to move to another country more willing to put it's people at risk even though they would share nothing with them but imminent death. note those "commentators" all work for Fox who works for big business interest.
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp
Exhibit A: Fox News, which, according to new data released this week, only presents accurate information on climate change 28 percent of the time. The rest of the time, the network’s hosts are prone to offer a misleading characterization of scientific authority in order to create a false narrative of doubt around global warming.90% of scientist 28% Fox gets it right who do you believe to be more accurate and truthful?
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp
