rights are more likely to reject scientists' findings when it comes to climate change. They see the conclusions of climate science as critical of our current energy system, which they favor. And the policy solutions proposed for climate change, including energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements, can strike these individuals as limiting people's freedom to use energy as they see fit. Conversely, people who want a more even distribution of wealth and who favor community needs over individual rights are much more willing to accept what scientists have to say about climate change. They are more likely to be critical of large corporations, including many oil and coal companies. And they see value in protecting the global community against climate change, even if that means changing how we use energy here at home. For me, the lesson from these studies is clear. It's not worth getting into endless arguments about whether or not climate change is real. It's far more productive to directly address the values that inform most people's opinions on climate change. So instead of trading emails back and forth with a climate skeptic about whether or not climate change is real, it's better to ask them, "How do you see the debate over climate change policy impacting you personally?" You might be surprised by the answer you get. And you might then be able to have a conversation about how new technology like smart metering, energy efficiency and fuel efficiency can increase the options consumers have, not