Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I still am I have portraits of Washington,Lincoln,Hamilton and Jefferson in my back pocket

And you fart in their general direction.

In my mind, "scientists" who willfully ignore evidence to guarantee that cigarettes do not cause cancer or that Deepwater Horizon is not a big deal** should not be called scientists. They've exited that realm and have become consultants.

The vast majority of climate scientists forming a concensus (interpretation) that world climate is changing, that it's due to increasing atmospheric CO2, and that this is man-made is not of this ilk. 

The vast majority (nearly all, I bet) are making Conflict Of Interest disclosures for their universities or the journals they publish in. And those COIs are probably public access, if you want to look into them.

**(I'm not sure the BP example is like the tobacco example, though. A company can buy scientists, sure. But its talking heads can also lie on their own about scientific content without asking a scientist at all. In the tobacco industry example, the faulty "scientists" were front and center)

It's pretty rare, I bet, for any "scientists" or "doctors" wearing white coats in commercials to actually be scientists or doctors.

Excluding infomercials. Many of those are real scientists/doctors, though they are typically not in line with evidence-based mainstream opinions.

There is a ton of silliness about items we consume, food especially, when to me some simple guidelines are all we really need.

I saw a wine label that said Gluten Free.

I don't mind that as much though. It's manipulative. But it's guaranteed true and no one can get hurt. There are many supplements for which that isn't the landscape.

NASA's James Hansen had a bad rep at one point for being less than truthful.  The Mann "Hockey Stick" graph has been attacked as misleading at the very best.

I'm on the road and can't access any stories I might have saved about those two scientists.

There's perhaps no group where canonizing, demonizing, or judging-them-in-between more misses the point than with scientists**. Where the workers matter less because the ideas and evidence are completely capable of standing on their own. The scientific method succeeds because it is impersonal, emotionless.

**(I'd say philosophy and theoretical law, as in constitution- and country-making law have similar "ideas">>>"people" dynamics)