I often see believers-in-climate-change ricule and name-call deniers. These days convincing deniers is at best "Look at this computer print-out!"[0] or at worst

I often see believers-in-climate-change ricule and name-call deniers. These days convincing deniers is at best "Look at this computer print-out!"[0] or at worst "You bonehead" or "Look at this dying polar bear." Almost nobody has adequate tools to see and verify the effects of climate change. Yes we have computer printouts and scary media images. But we don't have the equivalent of the weather forecast: you see concrete predictions about n days from now, and by waiting n days, you verify their predictions. Nobody is a weather forecast "believer" or "denier"--we just see the prediction and adjust. By making tools for understanding dynamical systems, "climate change" will lose its religious clothing and become something we merely see. I'll make another loose analogy. Everybody believed that Aristotle was right about everything for a thousand years during the middle ages. Only academics had copies; they'd be called heretics for pointing out flaws in revered works. But after the printing press was invented, everybody got copies of Aristotle, Galen, the bible, and everybody saw they disagreed. This contributed to the Renaissance: dissatisfied with Aristotle, Galen, and the bible, people sought new answers. My point is: You can't expect people to change their views unless they see things differently. Our task as technologists is to enable different seeing. [0] I'll ridicule again computer print-outs and graphs as explanatory devices. Everybody has a feel for how statistics lie. The reason the weather forecast works is the tight-coupling between prediction and verification. Making an appeal-to-computer-print-out to a non-believer is like appealing to another religious text. It's not persuasive.