Thread by @drvolts

Deep existential sigh. anthropocenemagazine.org/2021/09/people…

I know it's nobody's fault & probably couldn't have happened otherwise, but there are some real drawbacks to the fact that climate change entered the public consciousness via the hard sciences & has always been draped in scientism & festooned with scientific jargon.

Just want to say for the record that I did NOT pay this guy to come along & illustrate my point so perfectly.

https://twitter.com/dersuasion/status/1435716737119318018

People now telling me other, better ways to explain "the science of climate change," but why "the science of"? Why the presumption that broad scientific understanding must precede concern? It's not true on any other public policy issue!

Like, here's what I understand about "the science of Covid" -- it's a contagious virus that I can get if infected people breath on me.

Is there some compelling reason I or any other member of the public *needs* more scientific grounding than that?

I think starting with "the science of," no matter what comes next, is going to turn people off & tune them out. Ordinary people just don't think about science much & don't hear threat in "the science of" something. It's a needless intermediary.

Similarly it drives me batty that journalists still write "the majority of scientists say" the atmosphere is warming. People hear "scientists say" & they hear ... debate among boring people about boring stuff. The saying is not the thing. The THING is the thing.