3 ms·

If they want people to agree with them, they can only present the fact and maybe encourage people to educate themselves and be inquisitive. They can't trick peo

If they want people to agree with them, they can only present the fact and maybe encourage people to educate themselves and be inquisitive. They can't trick people into "believing". You don't "believe" in science. We don't need more religions. One very telling thing I always find extremely jarring and annoying is the term "climate change denier" as if it's some sort of a fucking belief system, a church, or a religion.

nkrisc 5y ago
If someone chooses to not believe the moon landings were real, fine. But when it comes to the climate, we’re all in this together whether you believe it or not, so there’s a little bit more urgency to get everyone on board. So no, I don’t think just laying out raw facts with no context and explanation and simply hoping everyone educates themselves is good enough. Ideally, the storytelling around the data is the educational part. It should explain what this data means and why people should care by releasing it to things they do understand.
- throwawayswede 5y ago
  > So no, I don’t think just laying out raw facts with no context and explanation and simply hoping everyone educates themselves is good enough. Again, it's not a matter of belief. When you call them "unbeliever" you're inviting doubt into it. This also goes to another vexing thing on the issue of how the general uneducated public deals with "climate change", the likes of online warriors and talking-point media personality and politicians, which is to say that the "science is settled", againt acting as if it's an undeniable fact that their interpretation of the data and evidence is not questionable. This too will not help prevent further damage to the environment, no the opposite imo, it's one of the main reasons people continue to talk and talk and talk, and no actual preventative measures are being taken that actually can make a difference. All of this is because the issue was politicized by almost all sides from the beginning. This is exactly the kind of mentality that's giving fire power to the corporations and the people behind them that give two shits about the environment, the future of the planet, or life quality of next generations, to come up with counter propaganda that sways people the other way. So far it's working. It's beyond idiotic imo to think that bending facts or coercing an agenda will get us any good.

nkrisc 5y ago

If someone chooses to not believe the moon landings were real, fine. But when it comes to the climate, we’re all in this together whether you believe it or not, so there’s a little bit more urgency to get everyone on board. So no, I don’t think just laying out raw facts with no context and explanation and simply hoping everyone educates themselves is good enough. Ideally, the storytelling around the data is the educational part. It should explain what this data means and why people should care by releasing it to things they do understand.

throwawayswede 5y ago
> So no, I don’t think just laying out raw facts with no context and explanation and simply hoping everyone educates themselves is good enough. Again, it's not a matter of belief. When you call them "unbeliever" you're inviting doubt into it. This also goes to another vexing thing on the issue of how the general uneducated public deals with "climate change", the likes of online warriors and talking-point media personality and politicians, which is to say that the "science is settled", againt acting as if it's an undeniable fact that their interpretation of the data and evidence is not questionable. This too will not help prevent further damage to the environment, no the opposite imo, it's one of the main reasons people continue to talk and talk and talk, and no actual preventative measures are being taken that actually can make a difference. All of this is because the issue was politicized by almost all sides from the beginning. This is exactly the kind of mentality that's giving fire power to the corporations and the people behind them that give two shits about the environment, the future of the planet, or life quality of next generations, to come up with counter propaganda that sways people the other way. So far it's working. It's beyond idiotic imo to think that bending facts or coercing an agenda will get us any good.