I think part of the problem is that "the calm scientific approach" may be apparent to people who work with scientists, read original research study reports, sometimes listen to NPR for entertainment, and generally move in egghead circles.
However, to the general public, science looks like the mild hysteria or sensations attached to every new study by the mainstream media that reports on them. The mainstream media is how the general public consumes their science, and so it's through a deliberately ignorant and sensationalistic filter that wants their engagement and enragement, not their thoughtful and curious discussion.
But hey, it's been about the same for a long time. Remember Greenpeace, and the rainforest controversies in the 70s and 80s? Remember the hole in the ozone layer? There's always room to panic over the environment, calm scentific approach be damned.
However, to the general public, science looks like the mild hysteria or sensations attached to every new study by the mainstream media that reports on them. The mainstream media is how the general public consumes their science, and so it's through a deliberately ignorant and sensationalistic filter that wants their engagement and enragement, not their thoughtful and curious discussion.
But hey, it's been about the same for a long time. Remember Greenpeace, and the rainforest controversies in the 70s and 80s? Remember the hole in the ozone layer? There's always room to panic over the environment, calm scentific approach be damned.