Consilience2 didn't write that _at all_. His/her point is that non-scientists, who usually lack access to scientific journals (because of paywalls), must rely on science journalism (reports, usually written by journalists with little scene background). Lack of access, combined with an endemic ignorance re. scientific practice, has led to persistent and usually misguided suspicion of the findings. See, for example, posters such as Grady below, who believe that common sense trumps scientific findings - when even a glancing acquaintance with the history of science (or just plain history) would indicate how fallacious that belief is.