I like this argument, RR--it clearly demonstrates human ability to accommodate contradiction without blinking:

You're not a miner--or geologist, or hydrographer, or seismologist.  But you uncritically accept the claims of a mining investment firm that their ill-conceived project is "safe".

Likewise, you're not a climatologist, meteorologist, geophysicist or ecologist, yet you reject their claims out-of-hand concerning climate change.

Since you've eschewed actual INFORMATION as a basis for decision-making concerning these issues, kindly tell us on what you DO predicate your decisions and the arguments derived there-from.  Inquiring minds wanna know...