> You’re making an appeal to authority Yes, what is wrong with that? You cannot rationalize the climate change discussion. The information density of the argum

> You’re making an appeal to authority Yes, what is wrong with that? You cannot rationalize the climate change discussion. The information density of the argument cannot be much compressed than what is tomes of scientific literature. So you need to build trust in authorities and just believe them. This is better than believing your or soembody else's train of thought in an online discussion. > What else can they do? No, why do you need to investigate on your own? Nobody does that, and they shouldn't. Heck most people would have a hard time finding the federal code which says that you have to stop at a stop sign. The good thing is that you don't need to because it says Stop and people you trust such as a driving instructor told you. > The root issue is that the article and more broadly media discussing science. No, the article is giving statements by scientists that are meant to be approachable to lay-people. There isn't anything bad with that. In particular, the OPs point that a statement such as "maybe the worst drought since 1200 years" (which might as well be) is doing a disservice to fighting climate change, is troubling. It is as if the firefighters are telling you to get out of your house because it is burning, but you are staying because they used bad grammar in their request to you.