Well, I think you have part of your answer contained within the article.
The work is based on a public opinion survey of 1,475 Californians to assess whether people trust safety studies on offshore oil drilling. It predates this summer’s massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, but offshore oil drilling has been a hot political issue in California for years.
The analysis from professors at the University of California at Santa Barbara found that people tended to disregard much of what the safety studies found. The limited amount they did believe tended to be the parts that showed dangers were worse than they had feared...
But we did see a catastrophic spill in the gulf that was never supposed to be possible [which is why there was no way to manage the leak]. Beyond that, we see people desperate the dismiss the whole thing as inconsequential, while the science says that we have no idea how much damage has been done, but it could be profound. So here we see people leaping to "safe" conclusions that are in direct opposition to the science. So here we see a counter-example to the conclusions of the report.
In part it becomes a matter of trust based on past peformance. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
One personal example: I was taught that the expansion of the universe was, beyond any doubt, slowing down. Then, like magic, it was suddenly accelerating and always had been! What I was taught as fact, was patently false. Will I ever have the confidence in science that I once did? Not a chance. While it may be true that those working at the highest levels understood that acceleration was within the margin of error for the meausrements on which the models were based, to the best of my knowledge, this was
never once conveyed to the public. It is probably fair to say that the facts about this were misrepresented in every, or nearly every textbook in the world. Not to say it was due to any kind of conspiracy, but the fact remains that we were taught false information as a fact. I for one will never forget this.
If someone gives us good information, there is no instictive response for self-preservation. If the news is bad, then we might feel the need to protect ourselves. The former requires no action, whereas the latter may required immediate and definitive action. From there, when can we feel confident that there is no threat; when 1 scientist says so; ten; a thousand? When can we have the confidence required to say that there is no risk, so I have no need to protect myself and my family? If there is one guy out there screaming that the world is about to end, dare I ignore him when everything could be at risk? It is a pefectly natural response to be skeptical about claims that all is right with the world. We all exist today because our ancient ancestors were paranoid.
.