|
|
|
|
|
|
by yongjik
1718 days ago
|
|
|
Ultimately, the problem lies in treating climate change as something that still needs to be proven. It isn't. Whether anecdote X "proves" global warming is only of academic interest because we already know it's happening. It's like someone walking in saying "Oh my god, the rain is really pouring down, I'm soaked!" Everybody nods and silently accepts the sentence. And then someone tries to say that doesn't prove it's raining, after all, yesterday I was also soaking wet after that incident with the sprinkler. And of course everybody's like, dude what's the matter with you, we can look at the window right now and see it's raining. |
|
|
Proof, or as close as science ever comes to that, isn't the issue. It's science communication that's the issue. New people are being born all the time and no one is born knowing climate science proofs, some people don't care until it hurts them, some people are naturally contrarian, there are opposing special interest groups etc. Because of this it's vital that the science is proven again and again, and any appearance of hypocrisy, being politically driven, and outright alarmism (i.e. crying wolf) is eliminated as much as possible. If scientifically settled proofs aren't demonstrated again and again then pretty soon regardless of how true they are we'll end up with an expanding contrarian movement. The global warming issue is a master class on how to grow a contrarian movement despite excellent evidence in support of it!