I agree, and more so, it's something that most people feel more confident in assessing. Put yourself in the position of someone that genuinely doesn't trust th

I agree, and more so, it's something that most people feel more confident in assessing. Put yourself in the position of someone that genuinely doesn't trust themselves to assess scientific evidence. One scientist article says one thing one week another the next, and they all feel vaguely related and unrelated. If you can't trust yourself to weigh and understand the evidence yourself you instead look to the institutional pressures you think you understand. In all the topics there is a well-constructed 'Them' * GMOs: the FDA is largely controlled by the agriculture industry themselves, across parties and administrations. It's not irrational to fear that the FDA is not adequately regulating food. * Vaccines: similar fears about the pharmaceutical industry are valid. Both those industries have paid scientists, government regulators, and news organizations to spin data for their benefit and to avoid justice of different kinds. *Global warming: the same people that seem to be overly concerned about cute owls and monkeys are "the liberals" which control the universities/research. Sure smog is bad, but (as one Denver taxi driver said to me once) "it smells like money." Sure they mean well, but they are likely to blow the issues out of proportion. That's a system someone thinks they understand while who knows what an ice core really means. TFA indicated that avoiding indicating identity/allegiance might help, but I'd like to see that study actually done.