I need to know the most diplomatic way to say “well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but you should really stop denying that it conflicts with the clear scientific evidence.” This need usually grips me in the depths of a civil discussion about global warming. You know the ones.
Many people perceive a scientific controversy where none exists. Naomi Oreskes has documented the extent of the scientific consensus, and I recently discovered she’s done further work looking at where these beliefs come from. Her answer, which takes up the latter half of that video, is that the controversy doesn’t come from within science, but from concerted PR campaigns by nonscientific lobbying organisations. A good watch if you’re a media/environment/science geek with a spare hour.