Totally right that what matters is greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Tackling them, however, is going to take all our muscles. Many climate deniers have used the 80% of primary energy from fossil fuel figure as a way to claim it's too hard to do anything about the problem or to say there's been little progress. That's misleading and I wrote the article to explain to correct that narrative.
>That's misleading and I wrote the article to explain to correct that narrative.
There is your first mistake, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to. There are literally people denying covid is real/serious while they or their love ones drown in their fluids.
I don't think this is a useful way to think about it:
1. You don't need to convince literally everyone. There are still some people who believe the Earth is flat and probably always will be, but it is not super-relevant to collective actions because they are a tiny minority
2. People do in fact change their minds on things. It usually just happens on larger time scales so while one article isn't moving the needle, the accretion of many articles and arguments can change population-wide beliefs.
3. The population of people with an opinion on any given topic is not static. Even if any individual never changes their mind, the composition of the population can change if new people are forming opinions in one way more often. Science progresses one funeral at a time and all that....
The harsh reality is a facebook "meme" about how climate change is a hoax created by "globalist" to take away your rights is way more effective than a nuance article from the "lamestream" media trying to explain the energy efficiency of coal power plants.
If the goal is to convert science deniers or correct their disinformation this was a complete and utter failure.
