Quote:
Originally Posted by glenluceskies
I'm more than happy to believe in either side of the argument, and as I said, I do believe they're is an strong element of truth about climate change.
My only issue is that it is now being clouded so much by elements from each side who are now pushing lies and false data. So what's the result for a lot of the population They get tired of listening to it and move on to more pressing day-to-day issues.
What has to occur is all the so-called experts must provide 2 balanced viewpoints in a well-presented, easy to read format (not pages and pages or cited references and publications, such as on this forum), for the avarage person to absorb and understand. Only then will the average member of the public start supporting the cause. Because any climate change action is not going to occur at government levels.
And yes, your comments do make a lots of sense, as do many others in this thread.
As I said, I'll leave this thread to all the experts.
|
The danger in trying to simplify the science to put it into terms that the public can easily digest is that the science can lose its meaning and a lot of data which is crucial to explaining what's going on can be lost in the translation. It can also be open to further abuse. It's precisely what's happening in the media now.
The general public are not scientifically literate, most probably only barely passed science at school, if they did any at all in senior high. In most cases, trying to explain complicated subjects like global climate will be ignored for the most part because it's science and most people feel it's too hard to understand in any case. Plus, it's also attitude which is important...many people would rather deal with the immediate concerns of life, as you have said, rather than worry about what might happen in the future.
If you want to impress people with an idea, hit them where it will hurt the most...their finances and their families. How do you think the environmental lobbies do so well with their campaigns...they play on people's immediate concerns and emotions. In other words, a scare campaign. They know full well that people are generally ignorant of the nitty gritty, but they will make decisions based on an emotive response to a particular issue before they make a more considered response, from a position of knowledge. It's how pollies operate as well. It's an effective tool for social engineering, it's also one that's all too often abused.