
World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice - cag_ii
http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
======
jfaucett
When it comes to climate science, I wish more people had at least a minimal
idea of what is going on. For a simple summary of relevant data, see
[https://www.skepticalscience.com/](https://www.skepticalscience.com/) which
has good summaries at a layman's level.

The thing that annoys me, and is exemplified even by this article in the title
which is "World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity", is that media and many
scientist themselves use a type of outrageous apocalyptic language when
discussing climate change issues.

Taking what we know at its most extreme predictions does not lead to a world-
ending i.e. catastrophic event by any stretch of the wildest of imaginations
within the next 100 years.

We should use precise unemotional language so we can clearly communicate and
effectively solve the problems in the public sphere.

Every time someone who doesn't accept climate change reads an article like
this, then waits 25 years (as the article mentions) and see's the world has
not ended and everything is continuing seemingly unchanged, they see it as
confirmation that the whole field is a joke.

There are/will be real problems over the next century - such as costal cities
needing to be evacuated, loss of biodiversity due to species extinction, and
irreversible increased global temperatures which will lead to increased
natural disasters such as droughts, fires, etc. And these will be greatly
exacerbated in the 22nd century if we don't develop solutions now.

Finally, I think if we want to persuade the public and politicians, we need to
show parameters that people care about. In this article they show metrics for
ozone depletion, deforestation, and co2 emissions. But no one cares about that
because it doesn't directly effect them at all, and is thus virtually
meaningless to them. We need to show statistics that are relevant to human
flourishing such as deaths/sickness due to climate change induced famine and
disease. Homeloss due to climate change induced flooding and rising sea
levels, lower rates of all types of innovation due to loss of biodiversity,
etc.

It could be some organizations/individuals are taking the IMHO correct
approach here, but if so, I haven't come across them yet.

