# trust vs science (yet another global warming catfight) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 29, 2015, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trust-vs-science-yet-another-global-warming-catfight/729303 "2015-08-29T17:13:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 31
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trust-vs-science-yet-another-global-warming-catfight/729303/31 "2015-09-01T03:32:14Z")
> [@anthonymortadella](#): > > …you shouldn’t have to “trust” anybody when it comes to a scientific subject. It shouldn’t be looked at as having to “trust” experts on a matter of science. Nor should someone take the attitude that scientists must bend over backwards, contort themselves into impossible shapes and beg and plead with doubters to accept the massive evidence that supports the evidence-based position. Doubters should instead approach the outlier view on a subject for which there is an overwhelming scientific consensus, by demanding that the _outliers_ work overtime to make a convincing case that they’re right and that they deserve your trust. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Whether it’s climate change, genetic modification technology, the cause of AIDS, immunization, whatever - make that tiny minority of scientists/pseudoscientists who preach denial prove themselves beyond doubt. No good their shouting “shill!”, saying “science wuz wrong before!”, yapping about Galileo - nope, they must show their facts (such as they are) and try to make a coherent case. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trust-vs-science-yet-another-global-warming-catfight/729303)._