I don't think we can change the fact that people generally listen to what actors (and other charismatic people) have to say.

This is nothing new. For a local example, San Francisco's John Reber, and the plan he pushed to turn the Bay into a freshwater lake (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i70wkxmumAw is a good video to watch). For a state (California) example, there's Arnold Schwarzenegger. For a national (US-level) example, there's Ronald Reagan.

For what it's worth, Harrison Ford seems to be a stand-up guy. For example, his reaction when he accidentally landed his private plane on an airport taxiway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzy9jCFk0Iw

So, rather than saying "Stop listening to <insert charismatic group here>", it's better to engage with and educate them.

This was only a small part of his speech.

Most of the speech was an appeal to support "nature," specifically building up habitats for aquatic and terrestrial plants, which he claims represents "30% of what needs to be done to avoid catastrophic warming." Just focusing on emissions won't solve the problem.

https://youtu.be/FuxHDD_pLf0?t=17121

He further claims that giving power to indigenous people to use their historical knowledge will help.

I'm not so sure. Burning forests has been used for centuries by indigenous people in the Americas. It transformed the landscape radically, as described in the book 1491 by Mann.

There's currently speculation that the "Little Ice Age" of (ca. 1600s-1700s) was actually a rebound event caused by the mass extinction of indigenous peoples from the Americas due to smallpox and other plagues brought by Europeans:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european...

In other words, wiping out the people who were burning forests regularly caused reforestation and uptake of CO2 large enough to cause global cooling.

In a sense, Ford is right - reforestation has the potential to reverse the trend of rising CO2. But in another sense, Ford is wrong in that turning lands over to indigenous people could actually accelerate the release of CO2 and loss of forest.

There are no good choices. Part of the problem is that the ideal course of action is murky at best, and will involve mass displacements at worst. There is no "science" of global terraforming, and we only incompletely understand all the factors influencing climate. Imagining otherwise won't solve the problems.

It is the contention of Mr Ford of Hollywood that every science denier must be shaken out of modern politics, as one would shake moths and dust off of an old coat. What does he imagine he will have left? If you rid the pool of electable candidates of scientific illiterates you will be left holding the empty air.

Won't work.

If we ask Ford to talk about how science is better helping explain to us the state of advancement in pre-birth babies, he will oddly take the other side. (Just a decade or two back, the baby was largely a mystery. Today, we know much, much more about how that baby is developing.) Harrison will likely call the fully-developed human a 'clump of cells', standard leftist euphemism for what is increasingly clearly a small human.

I wish celebrties would just stick to their strong suit. They aren't Subject Matter Experts (any more than the next person) and they are frequently hypocritical in some form or fashion. (See DeCaprio and his yacht vacations or private jet travels. Not a good spokesperson for climate change issues.)

I really appreciate what celebrites do, I love entertainment. I just wish they had a little humility around topics where they shouldn't have more voice than the average person.