"My question would be: how can I convince my fellow scientists that people who think that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, believe that the second law of thermodynamics should (does not?) not exist, can't fathom that HIV has a viral origin, and still believe that global warming is either a hoax or, at most, just a climatic aberration that will produce minor problems, are not just fringe lunatics but also very powerful people interested in a pre-enlightenment world?
It is very difficult to convince them that some people in your group are not lunatics but a have a clear agenda to discredit science and enlightenment values. A world where facts do not exist (it is just "scientific consensus"), evidence is irrelevant (because, oh my Lord. scientific ideas depend on a "minority that speaks louder") and where words like "freedom" and "liberty" are twisted to favour one's particular religion (in the case of the author, a particular deluded version of economic and human reality) over bothersome facts, are the common talking points behind people promoting the narrative you present in this article.
But somehow my fellow scientists refuse to believe that you are anything more than a scientifically challenged person. What can I do to convince them that you are really serious about what you are saying? How can I convince them that you really mean it, that you really want to explain to the world that those pesky facts are nothing to worry about, that taking action to prevent highly likely catastrophes is dangerous enviromentalism, that scientists should be aware of the political implications of what they say but at the same time we should not politicize science?"


I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears