Scientists have had a pretty good record on this, compared to the general public, industry, and policymakers. I am happy to not throw them under the bus.
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1498317086157774866
Similar to last year, too, the media takes that emphasis, reports it as absolute reality, and then starts the campaign of fear ("red alert") on the public, arguably, to whittle down their critical thinking skills for the sake of political gain.
The whole thing is circuitous to a painstaking degree.
Dr. Pielke's work on climate change effects has been criticized by Dr. Stephen Schneider, who said that with Pielke "one consistent pattern emerges-he is a self-aggrandizer who sets up straw men, knocks them down, and takes credit for being the honest broker to explain the mess-and in fact usually adds little new social science to his analysis"
Source: http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2012/07/31/stephen-schneide...
The IPCC has consistently understated the risks to prevent general panic. That is actually what this submitted article is about.
I will have to live with that, I'm sorry you are disappointed. I can't vet every source and if someone is a known bad source, there are usually many, many alternatives to invest my limited time reading.
Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”[10] He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."[11][12]
From his wikipedia page
What I _don't_ agree with is intentionally distorting the truth to scare people which, despite the claims that it motivates people, accomplishes nothing (objectively, as those "nudges" are rarely backed by concrete steps/plans—just more hyperbole and fearmongering to stoke the political fire).
We're crossing the point of no return as the younger kids have no concept of a world where "doing it for the clicks" wasn't a thing. Once they become adults, all hell will break loose because they don't know how to think, only emote.
Unfortunately these are not scientists. This just one example, but they are ideologues and activists first who wear science as a skin and bully scientists into submission. We saw how disastrous this was for Covid response with how science was treated as religion ("Believe Science"). The first thing we must do is eject the ideologues and re-establish the scientific method and rigor if we are to have any chance of actually solving climate change.
Are we really at the point where we are going to claim that the IPCC aren't scientists? This seems to be little more than reactionary backlash at a sound observation of the social impact of climate change on communities (and the report does a great job of elaborating which communities and what impacts.) Must we "eject" every scientist who observes a social impact that someone disagrees with? Should the IPCC stop the discussion the human impact of climate change to avoid offending certain sensibilities?
When you are trying to convince people to believe in something they don’t want to believe in, it’s a bad move to insult them or inject inflammatory political views into the discussion.
This kind of language about colonialism, inequity, etc. is going to alienate a lot of people — just like the smug self-righteousness of “I believe in science” (which implies that anyone who disagrees with the speaker doesn’t believe in science) alienated millions of people and made the anti-vax movement stronger.
No it doesn't. My argument is that if the scientists start bringing more politics into this, they make the political situation even worse than it is now, and they give people even more reasons to resist listening.
The fact that climate change is human caused is deeply political in the US. Should the IPCC suppress this fact too to cater to a tiny minority of science deniers?
1. Be open to making real personal changes ourselves. Not just going with the flow and waiting on policy makers. We have individual choices we can make.
2. Look at all the things having an impact. Including the uncomfortable ones. The food supply chain is the one I've most recently become aware of. Take personal action on areas and support policy makers in pushing for changes. They need support because some things are hard (as in making the change means they won't be re-elected)
3. Learn the details. There is a lot of hogwash being thrown around. We should know the details and be able to speak well with people about them. In a persuasive way.
4. Understand people. For example, the #1 cause of death in the US is heart disease. An overwhelming majority of that is based on lifestyle. Most people just ignore future consequences compared to immediate feelings. Expect people to be this way and work with it.
A lot of people won't ignore that statement; they will latch onto it and it will blind them to the rest of what is being said.
Politicians will point to that statement to make climate change look like a fake left-wing issue that is using the climate as a trojan horse for wokeism. That's already happening to some extent; the last thing scientists should do is give more ammo to the people making those arguments.