I really appreciate this angle, but I have a few counter-arguments: - The ongoing replication crisis has shown that experts and entire areas of study can be co

I really appreciate this angle, but I have a few counter-arguments: - The ongoing replication crisis has shown that experts and entire areas of study can be completely wrong for a long periods of time. People are rightfully distrustful when economists put out a "model", so it shouldn't be so crazy to expect natural skepticism elsewhere.( I don't think that applies to climate change - you should be able to look with your own eyes and see that it's real. ) - There are actually several distinct arguments people have to accept for climate change: 1) It's really happening 2) It's caused by greenhouse gases 3) It's man-made 4) There are bad consequences 5) There are achievable solutions. People are often expected to "buy in" to all of these arguments at once, but some experts do not even buy into all 5! - At this cultural moment, facts do not matter. Or they only matter when "our side" wants them to. This is true for climate, but it's also true for other topics like gender, diet, economics, guns, nuclear power, etc. There are a lot of areas where people willfully ignore or set aside "facts". So it should be no surprise this one gets treated the same way. I myself do not live my life according to the best paid experts - I drink, I eat red meat, I listen to music too loud, I stay up to late. So I will act with a touch of grace when other people don't listen either.