> climate change, vaccines, genetically modified (GMO) foods and evolution On all four I happily defer to the experts in the scientific community who study the

> climate change, vaccines, genetically modified (GMO) foods and evolution On all four I happily defer to the experts in the scientific community who study the relevant fields. On none of these do I suspect a breakdown of science because the sample of diverse specialists I have queried in each field reinforce the wider notion that there is a clear scientific consensus. Furthermore, the conversations I've had with specialists don't reveal any lack of consensus, while in my experience specialists usually seem quite happy to talk about scientific controversies. On these topics let's call it "appeal to diverse set of authorities." Throw me a denier from any of the four topics and my only tactic will be to agree on a method of randomly choosing one of the thousands of experts to whom I delegate my opinion. The doubter must then either agree to argue with that expert or be forced to argue their position as the great conspiracy of the 21st century. As long as you discuss these topics face-to-face, you'd be surprised how quickly even some of the hard core deniers' positions shift. Edit: clarification