Floating round the edge of the news for a short while has been the news that some Australian astronomers have found an exo-planet that has large parts of it composed of diamond. Which is pretty cool. Though i'm still more impressed with the idea that we can now figure out the compostion of exo-planets.
Then I saw this. One of the astronomers wrote this brilliant wee piece talking about how it's been unvirsally positive for him (though not particularly significant in terms of astonomy) and how it could have been a lot worse. Short answer: They could have been climate sicentists. They've followed the same general process as climate scientists, studied their models, compared their models to obcservation, had everything peer reviewed and the press has lauded them. The climate scientists do the same thing and they get attacked and written off as people of dubious ethics in it for the money (ha!) amongst other things.
It's enough to give one the impression that people are willing to accept what science tells them, as long as it doesn't conflict with their world view. Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. It is about finding out about the world regardless of what we want the world to be.