Our study examines how individuals decide which scientific claims and experts to believe when faced with competing claims regarding a policy issue. Using an experiment in a public opinion survey, we test the source content and credibility hypotheses to assess how much confidence people have in reports about scientific studies of the safety of offshore oil drilling along the California coast. The results show that message content has a substantial impact. People tend to accept reports of scientific studies that support their values and prior beliefs, but not studies that contradict them. Previous studies have shown that core values influence message acceptance. We find that core values and prior beliefs have independent effects on message acceptance. We also find that the sources of the claims make little difference. Finally, the public leans toward believing reports that oil drilling is riskier than previously believed.