The difference between what scientists think & what the public thinks on policy issues

You'd have to guess the most accurate observation was with the scientists obviously, since they should be the subject matter experts!!!!

FWIW;

1. safe
2. prefer not
3. prefer not
4. yep, I'm revolting all the time :lol:
5. not all at once, but yep

6. An increasing factor yes, especially at local level, but observation bias is still real possibility in regards to global warming.
7. yep
8. Waste is a concern to me, as is those really rare catastrophic accidents like meteor impact or serious earthquake. I don't leaving behind such toxic waste just because I know it will be contained until after I die.... seems like bad karma manifest.
9. the ocean is pretty big, but its not without its negative environmental impact.
10. Telepresence operators could be in orbit!?
11. yep
12. nup
13. yep

percentages of prostitutes who sell their souls, and so called research, to corporations.







you cannot wake those who pretend to be asleep.

I think favour of use of animals in research shouldn't have been on that list, because there's no 'right or wrong' there but a moral question.

ghost dog wrote: percentages of prostitutes who sell their souls, and so called research, to corporations

So offshore drilling and facking are things corporations are fundamentally opposed to and pay their 'prostitutes' to speak out against? And human caused climate change is an idea those corporations want promoted? What are you talking about?

Granted, you could bring up the pesticide or vaccine question, but, frankly, on the view that the scientific community is concerned with what is actually good for people it is easier to explain those poll results than would be to explain the drilling results on the corporate conspiracy view.

The only point that is surprising to me is about the ISS, but that discrepancy is small and I suppose the answer depends on whether the question was if the station had any benefits at all at any time or if with all the investments considered it is being an overall worthwhile effort. If the discrepancy was bigger, a corporate conspiracy model might come into question but as such with the large discrepancies of climate change and drilling, more questions would be raised than answered on that model.

Help with reading the biomedical data:

safe to eat genetically modified food in a lab by geneticists as opposed to being bred by inbred farmers looking for maximum yield.
favor use of animals in research as opposed to no or little research (nostrums, mercury and leaches used to work just fine and we never wasted any on animals)
safe to eat foods grown with pesticides as opposed to foods not even pests will touch