[John H K]

Hmmm, I thought they meant "Snowball Earth" but as you point out the dates are wrong.

What's really bad about the article is the average person thinks of the "Ice Age" as the very recent episodes we've had in the last few million years, and the article doesn't point out that it's not the same Ice Age most people are thinking of when they read the headline.

Much of the contempt that people have for science on FR is actually just caused by moron non-science writers getting it totally wrong for a general audience, not the scientists themselves.

[VadeRetro]

Much of the contempt that people have for science on FR is actually just caused by moron non-science writers getting it totally wrong for a general audience, not the scientists themselves.

Seems to be what's happening here. Local talent writing for the Lawrence, Kansas newspaper.

[Ichneumon]

Much of the contempt that people have for science on FR is actually just caused by moron non-science writers getting it totally wrong for a general audience, not the scientists themselves.

Hear, hear.

I'd like to second that sentiment. When science looks stupid to an audience of layman, more often than not it's because the public reporting of it is garbled to the point of nonsense.

The second most common reason is because anyone with a lab coat can call himself a "scientist" and call a press conference to hear and report whatever wild notion he has, whether it's poorly grounded or not. Then the press dutifully reports, "Scientists say (or have found) that..."

It's important to remember that there's no "central science board" clearing and issuing such statements. Anyone can issue a press release about their latest "study", even if they've never managed to get any respected science journal to accept it for publication (or never even tried).

So how does "Science" with a capital "S" come about if there's no "central committee"? By the peer-review process -- people who have done new studies or come up with new hypotheses publish their work in one of the science journals, and after everyone else in the field has had a chance to check it out and critique it (ripping apart any that have obvious flaws, some of the review an be quite brutal), the work that survives the initial inspection and subsequent independent testing/verification gain acceptance by enough of the scientific community that it becomes part of the "body of knowledge" of science (even if there are always a few cranks who will inevitably dissent).

So in short, "Science" is that body of work which has gained widespread acceptance by the scientific community because it has been found to be solid. It's a matter of consensus.

So feel free to laugh at what any particular self-described "scientist" may say, but remember that it's often not the same as what "Science" as an institution holds or has accepted, and should be taken as no reflection on the institution's reliability.

[bondserv]

Much of the contempt that people have for science on FR is actually just caused by moron non-science writers getting it totally wrong for a general audience, not the scientists themselves.

Science is fun and is more like a convenience store than anything else.

Cell phone, Combustible engine, XM satellite radio or allow my neighbor, who thinks he's a smart ape, to act like an ape for ten more years because of a new medical procedure.

The character of a person is the only thing significant in this life, not the quantity of knowledge one can discuss.

However, science is fun and occasionally helpful. (We were wrong this time, but because science is "pure" we will be right sometime in the future).

The character of a person is the only thing significant in this life. Get to know Jesus Christ so that He can perform a Character transfusion on you as He has been doing for millions of others for 2000 years. Seek and you will find.

[spinestein]

[Much of the contempt that people have for science on FR is actually just caused by moron non-science writers getting it totally wrong for a general audience, not the scientists themselves.]




This needs to be repeated and AMPLIFIED.

As a rule, research scientists don't write for the general public. That is always done by the lowliest journalists who are not even competent enough to write for the more desirable political and entertainment beats.