| I am not saying there was concern over nothing. This default reactive stance causes pointless arguments and discussion as I'm trying to demonstrate. Yes there were 200% valid concerns. But this lead more to something close to hysteria than actual communication. These concerns turned into teaching kids that the environment is going to die. The "unless nothing changes" gets lost in the discussion with 90% of non science teachers. In the same way that "emmissions have fallen" is on page 23 and is not front-page news. The net result of this, although well intended. Is that most people are taught the headlines which turn into "watch out for acid rain". And now 40 years on they are even more confused and distrusting given the inconsistent messaging around this. (News flash the oceans are still getting more acidic, almost no effort has been made here imo, but I digress) Bad communication on these topics is more dangerous than not getting public approval. Bad communication around fossil fuels spreads distrust on the topic of conversation. (Again I remember well meaning teachers saying fuels would dry up by 2010 when I was in school) Bad communication on climate change or global warming (notice how they don't use that latter phrase in outreach now) causes distrust here. Same goes for healthcare, 5G and the list goes on. There will always be people who disagree. Trying to reach 100% is also futile. The communication should be straightforward clear and consistent and it's falling short of that by a long way. The "just trust the science" is exactly the same call to authority as "this book says throw them off buildings". It helps nobody. But it happens at _all_ levels of outreach and bad education because people get afraid to say "good point, I don't know". |