Yesterday, the Washington Post ran yet another advocacy piece pertaining to catastrophic global warming. In part, the article states, The “science communication problem,” as it’s blandly called by the scientists who study it, has yielded abundant new research into how people decide what to believe — and why they so often don’t accept the expert consensus. "Consensus" has nothing to do with science. Science is about what can be proven and reproduced in an objective manner. The article goes on to say, How to penetrate the bubble? How to convert science skeptics? Throwing more facts at them doesn’t help. Liz Neeley, who helps train scientists to be better communicators at an organization called Compass, says people need to hear from believers they can trust, who share their fundamental values. "Convert"? "'Believers' they can trust"? "Share their fundamental values"? This is the language of religion, not science. Of course, the...