This list is courtesy of Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

How to cope with critical issues without actually engaging in solution-based action:

1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than by the accumulation of evidence. Look for Arabs and aliens in every shadow.

2. Use fake experts to support your story, creating a smokescreen of credibility. Remember the TV ads with actors in white lab coats with stethoscopes around their necks advocating a certain brand of cigarette?

3. Cherry-pick the evidence. There is no tolerance in the ignorant mind for uncertainty or probability or contingent evidence. Oh, and evidence that has been disproven? Continue blaring it out; repetition lends credibility, as any good propagandist knows.

4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more (this is called moving the goalposts). Negation can be perfect and total; positive attributes/information are always subject to modification.

5. Use logical fallicies (this is my fave). If Hitler opposed smoking, then smoking must be OK. If someone else has done wrong, then I am absolved for doing the same thing. If it's not perfect, then it's totally wrong and the opposite is true.

6. Manufacture doubt. Insist that "both sides" be heard equally, even when only one demagogue is that other side. Portray scientists as divided (letting personalities cancel out the data); therefore, no action should be taken until everyone is on board and no modifying or contradictory data exists (an impossible situation). Until then, reject the preponderance of the evidence.

The above items will enable denial and allow head-in-the-sand persons to remain comfortable despite their ignorance and fear. Wrestling with difficult questions, making an informed decision, and taking action can be avoided.

Hurrah for denial!