,
19 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
You don't *need* to understand any climate science beyond these two facts:
1) fossil CO2 accumulates in the environment
2) the more there is, the worse the future will be
If you understand that, you are qualified to be active about the issue.
1) fossil CO2 accumulates in the environment
2) the more there is, the worse the future will be
If you understand that, you are qualified to be active about the issue.
If you *want* to know more, there are plenty of resources explaining these points.
These are things about which science is as certain as about cigarettes causing cancer.
These are things about which science is as certain as about cigarettes causing cancer.
But if someone challenges you about your understanding, which is correct, you should tell *them* to go study up on it.
For most people it is not your job to know how or why cigarettes cause cancer. It's enough to know *that* they do.
For most people it is not your job to know how or why cigarettes cause cancer. It's enough to know *that* they do.
If you don't want people smoking in your restaurant, you don't need to be able to participate in peer review in oncology journals.
If you don't want people screwing up the viability of the only planet that can support the lives of the people and creatures that emerged upon it, you don't need to participate in scientific discourse on statistics or geophysics or paleontology.
On the other hand, you *do* have a *right* to expect those disciplines to be as open and informative as feasible, in case you want to know more. You have the right to patient explanation and active exploration. Your interest should be welcomed.
And here is where the deniers come in. Because they are engaged in a "denial-of-service" attack on the relevant sciences. They ask questions and *don't listen to the answers*. 
The expert presented with your inquiry has work to do, not only to establish how much you know and how scientifically skilled you are, hence at what level to address the response. But also, in "postnormalcy" to determine whether your query is based on curiosity or hostility.
There are few experts and very many people taking an interest, and quite a few trolls spending their lives generating fake inquiries. So it's extraordinarily difficult to get solid answers on a retail basis. This is partly happenstance & partly a direct result of hostile attack.
Consequently, it is very hard to get good answers to your questions. And occasionally someone gets a "false positive" on the troll-o-meter and gets accused of being a denier when merely curious. This is a terrible result, as it tends to create a denier.
But engaging with people whose only intention is to troll, to obfuscate, to embarrass, and to posture; this is a terrible waste of the time of the few people with a good grasp on one or another aspect of the science.
I can imagine some partial solutions to this problem, but they will take time and resources to organize. My first attempt did not succeed, Maybe I will find the gumption to try again.
Meanwhile, please understand the situation.
Meanwhile, please understand the situation.
People challenging you on the science rather than the policy are attacking you for doing the right thing. You don't need to understand the science beyond the basic points.
It's us. We're sure. It's bad. We can fix it.
If you DO want to know more...
It's us. We're sure. It's bad. We can fix it.
If you DO want to know more...
Please understand the very peculiar and uncomfortable position that the experts find ourselves in.
Do what you can to educate yourself using public materials. Use REAL skepticism. Don't trust any single source. Establish a hierarchy of credibility. Look for consistency.
Do what you can to educate yourself using public materials. Use REAL skepticism. Don't trust any single source. Establish a hierarchy of credibility. Look for consistency.
If you are just beginning, please understand that any sudden insights you achieve are almost certainly either well-known or just wrong. Apply skepticism to your own thought first, lest you become yet another crackpot.
It is extremely rare for someone who has not studied a science for a decade at least to contribute materially to it. If you think you have done so, think again.
Don't place demands on scientists' time. Feel free to make polite and interesting requests, you might get lucky with an interesting engagement. But understand that you are making requests on a limited resource.
And if a scientist is short with you, mistaking you for an attacker, please be patient. We are under extraordinary pressure, and our field did not develop in such a way as to prepare us for it. Remember we are human, and we didn't go into science because we like to have enemies.
Thread continues here:
