Well, it all depends on the issue. As an example, superconductors were a huge interest in the 1990s, for obvious reasons; but, all efforts failed to produce high temperature superconductors--the materials simply do not allow it. On the other hand, take a look a climate change, this 'theory' has social engineering written all over it!

I think media reflects more the wishes of the Elite and their own desires.

Are these wishes truly scientific?

Well, it all depends on the issue. As an example, superconductors were a huge interest in the 1990s, for obvious reasons; but, all efforts failed to produce high temperature superconductors--the materials simply do not allow it. On the other hand, take a look a climate change, this 'theory' has social engineering written all over it!

Dear Luisiana,

Do you think the popular 'greenhouse theory' you mention is impossible from a geophysical point of view?

Some statements

'the temperature rises above and beyond the surroundings by virtue of heat being trapped by the special greenhouse gases, much like an actual greenhouse or conservatory, where the Sun’s rays are allowed to pass through glass, but somehow prevented escape.'

'It is known that some seventeen percent of the incoming energy from the Sun is emitted in the form of thermal infrared radiation and about twelve percent of that energy does escape to space, hence, that leaves a paltry five percent of thermal radiation to account for in Earth’s regal energy budget. Since the activity of thermal radiation is distributed among all those participating chemicals in the atmosphere proportional to their aliquot makeup, also, proportional to that spectrum uniquely enjoyed by each given chemical, and since carbon dioxide represents about four parts in ten thousand parts of atmosphere, then one can only conclude that this gas, carbon dioxide, contributes very little to the overall phenomenon; moreover, one may also conclude, given the scant amount of any other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, that the vast majority of the five percent thermal radiation must be attributed to water vapour, which, by the way, is born out by experiment, for water vapour is known to be roughly four percent makeup of the atmosphere, on average. And, so, we are done. . .water vapour constitutes the major greenhouse gas—am I now to understand water a villain?'

'It is curious to understand how a few gases, water vapour and carbon dioxide, represent the majority of the heat in our atmosphere, yet nitrogen and oxygen, which combined makeup some ninety nine percent of our atmosphere, play no role whatsoever, at least, according to the supposed consensus among scientist. All the energy absorbed into the atmosphere, by whatever means, is shared among all the chemical constituents in the atmosphere and given the vast majority of the atmosphere is comprised of nitrogen and oxygen, then it is to them we owe our thanks and gratitude for such a hospitable planet. It would seem the tendency to misplace merit and credit has infected our learned panel, the State sanctioned synods of scientists, to pass right over the two most important gases in our atmosphere and place the crown upon the most insignificant—carbon dioxide.'

Human psychology/human/ anthropology:

When a "theory" sounds good for a non-specialist (e.g. the media, a scientist judging an unfamiliar research field), it must be a good "theory"?

An example?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32399909

Dear Marcel,

We cannot deny that media plays an important role in the funding of different research projects. The media also shapes and molds a "common path" for peoples and cultures and this is well known. 

The effects are felt in the amount of monies which goes to research projects by way of rallying people to boycott said contributors in a market funded research or to donors of universities through private contributors of certain research.

The ultimate answer Marcel is yes to both an increase in funding and also a decrees in funding. For example governmental and private funding for stem cell research dropped dramatically in the past two decades after a long media campaign against such research. 

Meanwhile, some social research projects and environmental projects rose due to media "approving" and promoting of such research.

Yes the 4th estate has a lot of power and is not afraid to use it here in the U.S.

Douglas

Dear Marcel,

Dear All,

 I try not to consider the media impacts. Mainstream media has mainly commercial interests which do not matter for me. Sometimes (rather rarely) media fights for progressive principles but its approach is too cunning. I try to avoid the media and its cases.

What would be the link between science and citizens without media? Books?

Dear Marcel,

It depends what you understand on media? I consider that media is willfully manipulation of people for political and business interests.

 Is the media important in guiding science-based research directions? The media is important, but it should not be termed guiding. The media is used to influence funding decisions. The influence comes from activist groups, politicians, and research institutions. Activist groups and research institutions have public information departments whose sole activity is to publicize their desires and activities. Politicians and other funding agencies are influenced by the pressure exerted on the media. This pressure does not guide research but slants research to respond to the pressure. We daily hear of important break-troughs in areas like cancer research. How much effort and cost is expended in press releases? Perhaps research will become the writing of press releases.

Human psychology-Human anthropology (the study of humanity in anthropology...):

Is (at least some) research on mechanisms underlying Climate Change an example of the Concorde fallacy? Under what conditions media-scientists wish to accept past errors? 

Marcel

The media is as guilty of the Concorde fallacy as are governments, research institutions and scientists/engineers. Failure to admit failure and need to keep the funding flowing causes more beating of the drums to promote the cause. Anything and everything fits under the umbrella of a catch-phrase, Climate Change, Sustainability, Environmental Justice, Cancer Cure, ... The difference between the Concord and the catch-phrases is there is no single target. How do you know you have gone too far in the wrong direction if there is lack of direction?

In my opinion, media does not influence research direction nor the funding pattern especially in science. Science is very highly intricate - it may have technological applications but then the specialists if rightly chosen have enough knowledge to assess at least better than average media persons the scope and funding and feasibility of a project. Media only takes up the issue to popularize it. In that sense the role of media is limited to awareness and politicizing.

Very often media gets money in order to promote and have favorite research. 

  https://www.amacad.org/pdfs/scienceMedia.pdf    It's characteristic of "information war" (not only on the planetary, but also on the local level), where the main principle "money rules supreme", which causes geopolitical chaos, "messy political food fight", mind control in the correlation "media-policy-makers-public-education-science". Poverty may be the reason for indifference of some groups of people to scientific facts. Ordinary people fight for surviving and live for the moment. Thinking human beings try to achieve "civic scientific literacy", analyzing events and facts according to the humanistic position, seeking for scientific explanations. "On issues of great public import, from energy policy to climate change, from how to teach evolution to how to fight disaster, a lack of  scientific knowledge undermines progress". Unfortunately, "science policy has become a part of the political agenda".  

It is a game of recognizability: the more they see you in media, the more what people believe about your value.

My modest opinion is that we have not to give so much attention to mass media and their top 10 of scientists...

But then how to reach a huge population of citizens?

What are the concrete efforts that scientists educate science to journalists?