 “In a democratic society, you can't control people by force. Therefore, you've got to control what they think.”  -Noam Chomsky, author of Manufacturing Consent, describing a premise first put forth by journalist Walter Lippmann.

 1. Keep an open mind  2. Ask the right questions  3. Cross check  4. Consider the source  5. Weigh the evidence  In other words… “Think Critically”

 Most of us have biases, and we can easily fool ourselves if we don’t make a conscious effort to keep our mind open to new information.

 What should we do with “new information”?  In short, be prepared to potentially… “change your view”.

 The great English economist John Maynard Keynes was accused of being inconsistent by his critics because he had changed his views on an economic issue.  He responded with the following quote;  “When I get new information I change my position…what sir, do you do with new information?”

 Psychologists have shown over and over again that humans naturally tend to accept any information that supports what they already believe, even if the information isn’t very reliable.  Humans also naturally tend to reject information that conflicts with those beliefs, even if the information is solid.

 Which does the average voter prefer… An Inconvenient Truth or A Reassuring Lie?

 These biases are powerful.  Unless we make an active effort to listen to all sides we can become trapped into believing something that isn’t so, and won’t even know it.

 Don’t accept claims at face value, test them by asking a few questions.  Who is speaking, and where are they getting their information?  How can I validate what they’re saying?  What facts would prove this claim is wrong?  Does the evidence presented really back up what’s being said?  Who has the most to gain monetarily from this?

 Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming.  The gold standard of science is the peer- reviewed literature.  If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

 Don’t rely on one source or one study, but look to see what others say.  When two or three reliable sources independently report the same facts or conclusions, you can be more confident of them.

 When two independent sources contradict each other, you know you need to dig more deeply to discover who’s right.

 Not all sources are equal.  What is peer-review, and why is it important?

 When a paper has been peer-reviewed, that means it has been evaluated by a number of qualified scientists and found to have followed legitimate scientific methods.  Most of the claims that are made by global warming skeptics on TV, in print, and online are not based on legitimate science.

 An internet website that offers primary source material is more trustworthy than one that published information gained second or third hand.  Chain s are notorious for containing bogus claims which fail to cite any sources.

 Know the difference between random tales and real scientific data from controlled studies.  As a top climate scientist has stated… “The plural of anecdote is data”  Avoid common errors of reasoning called “Informal Fallacies”  Informal fallacies are commonly heard statements that are based on faulty or weak reasoning.

 A common fallacy committed involves creating a false cause in which you assume one thing caused another simply because the two happened one after another.  Does a rooster’s crowing cause the sun to rise?

 Voters aren’t highly knowledgeable about government to begin with.  And voters, once deceived, tend to stay that way despite all evidence.  Nearly half in a 2008 poll (46 percent) agreed that Saddam Hussein played a role in the attacks of September 11, even though no solid evidence has ever emerged to support this notion.

 Nobody has done a better job of exploiting the public’s inability to avoid deception than the Tobacco Industry.

 Starting in the 1950’s and 60’s, Big Tobacco figured out that you don’t have to disprove the science behind smoking and cancer.  Instead, simply “manufacture doubt” in the mind of the public to keep them from recognizing the truth that the science was revealing.

 The tobacco industries goal was to fabricate holes in already established scientific conclusions in an effort to persuade average citizens that they had nothing to fear and the real science shouldn't be trusted.

 This public relations (PR) strategy has been used repeatedly over the last half century in regards to the dangers posed by acid rain, ozone depletion, DDT, the dangers of lead and most recently global warming.

 If you don’t want to take my word for it regarding the politics behind “manufacturing doubt”…Then I suggest you follow the steps below and find out the answer for yourself…  Keep an open mind  Ask the right questions  Cross check  Consider the source  Weigh the evidence