The public opinions of Global Warming and Evolution are cited as examples of science poorly communicated. Could the problem be that the public hears lots about these topics from people who are not practicing scientists. In the case of global warming, the presentation of science has been co-opted by political activists (Al Gore) who want to emphasize human activities as a contributor to observed temperature increases and push their public policy agenda. The case of evolution is marginally better as the most vocal advocates, for example Richard Dawkins, have a science background. However, I see most of these science advocates tell the public to believe our conclusion because we are scientists. This appeal to authority in our presentations as opposed to simply communicating the evidence and logical leading to our conclusions will only undermine societies faith in scientists as honest brokers of knowledge. Lastly, the public recognition that science contributes to society is based on the advances made by experimental science (physics, chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, etc.) as opposed to the more modest contributions of the historical sciences (geology, aspects of evolution, aspects of global warming). I believe that the public appreciates new medicines, communication technologies, etc. more than a scientists view of the origin of life or how today's temperatures compare to those 200 years ago.