People that say this often have little or no grasp of the science and are using denial to avoid having to face a danger.  Fix the denial mechanism by showing them this list of sustainable/green technologies.  Then make them read this consensus and say the following quote out loud:  "I don't know anything about science, so given the choice of trusting 99.9% or 0.1% of the experts, I'll go with the 0.1%".  If still they don't think that sounds silly and they don't start to ask questions then you are wasting your time trying to educate them.  This ratio is correct because there are 12,301-14,305 members of the AGU and who knows how many European experts on climate.  As Eli Rabbet says "if you ain't a member of the AGU you ain't no damn climate scientist in the US, just like the AMA".  Also keep in mind that with the tens of thousand of climate change skeptics on the planet if only %1 of them are corrupted by the $10,000 payment (or bribe) currently being offered by Exxon through AEI then you will have at minimum 200 skeptics/deniers.  So far 200 skeptics/deniers have not turned up.

        The basic concept is simple.  High quality science comes from both amateurs with no formal training as well as highly trained time researchers.  The same goes with poor quality science.  Just because somebody went has a Ph.D or went to Oxford doesn't mean what they are saying is correct.  And just because someone lacks a Ph.D. doesn't mean you should disqualify their work.  What is important is to look at the entire library (scientists make mistakes too) of peer-review journals, the National Academy of sciences, and the general scientific consensus.

Update: Arnold Schwarzenegger has his own version of this argument.










If you would like to contact us, suggest a topic to be covered, contribute a relevant commentary,
or be part of this effort on a more permanent basis, please email:




Unique IP visits: