Do you believe it when people say "Scientists say"?

I'll only believe if it a source is cited, and it confirms with the claim the person makes.

"Why, in the 21st century, is news more trivial, deliberately misleading BS than ever?"

There is a thing called independent journalism - it doesn't always rely on media.

No, anyone (including scientists) can pull stuff out of their ***.

Thought this quote by G.K. Chesterton fit in well with your question:

"For the modern world will accept no dogmas upon any authority; but it will accept any dogmas on no authority. Say that a thing is so, according to the Pope or the Bible, and it will be dismissed as a superstition without examination. But preface your remark merely with "they say" or "don't you know that?" or try (and fail) to remember the name of some professor mentioned in some newspaper; and the keen rationalism of the modern mind will accept every word you say." ~GKC: 'The Superstition of Divorce.'

"Scientists can get paid to smudge research all over the place"

You seem to have never heard of peer review - a major cornerstone of the scientific method.

So - can you give any examples of bad science getting past peer review and staying there? Do YOU have any citations to back up YOUR claims?

I believe it when the scientist have the research to back up what they say. I'm wondering what widely accepted belief the scientist are researching to oppose? Pray tell, what is it you are referring too?

This is why I check science based news stories against the journals they cite in their sources.

You're reading the wrong articles if they don't ''give you some idea of where to look for it''.

If you get several scientists that have tested theories and came up with the same conclusion, I do. It sure beats believing a book written by goat herders!

You're confused bud. I believe you mean "Preachers" and "Priests" instead of "Scientists".

Also, in the modern era of the 21st century, it is very sad that there are still some militant theists, such as yourself, who refuse to accept the theory of evolution because of your own religious bias against evidence and logic.

Thousands of highly trained scientists working in hundreds of biological science departments in a hundred countries produce dozens of scientific papers each week for you to read. Use Google Scholar and type in "EVOLUTION". Not that hard is it?

It depends on whether the scientists are Micky Mouse scientists or the real McCoy.

Here are some real ones:

The computer language Pascal is named after Blaise Pascal. Boyle’s Law is named after Robert Boyle. Listerine is named after Joseph Lister. Stensen's ducts of the salivary gland are named after Nicolaus Steno. Degrees Kelvin are named after William Thompson Kelvin. Morse Code is named after Samuel Morse. Carver's Hybrid Cotton is named after Geroge Washington Carver. Parkinson's Disease is named after James Parkinson. Euler's Constant is named after Leonard Euler. The Joule-Thompson effect is named after James Joule and his associate, William Thompson Kelvin. The unit of energy in physics, the Joule, is named after James Joule. Weyl's Postulate is named after Hermann Weyl. None of these scientists are evolutionists.

Not totally, because it's easy to BS stuff all the time. Where I DO believe scientists is when they offer evidence and explanations for their ideas.