Thank you for posting this. I wanted to read a reasonable voice for a while, and I couldn't find anything. Search engines, traditional and LLM-based (ie ChatGPT) will actively censor all dissident voices, and it's just so tiring being unable to have a conversation with someone or read an article that's based on some common ground, some common assumptions between you and the writer.
A "reasonable voice" is a geology professor who works for the fossil fuel industry and has no background in environmental science?
What a giant surprise that someone like that is taking the position of "ignore all the trends in extreme weather events, changing weather patterns, unprecedented ocean warming, and mass extinction. It'll be fine, we just have to adjust to the warming."
Replace "climate change" with "vaccine safety", would you write that same response? Watch me get downvoted for even mentioning the word let alone express a dissenting opinion.
Well, I would, but there's not that many of us. By 'us' meaning people who are willing and able to leave emotional attachments out of the fact-seeking process.
I don't think your statement is controversial at all, as I imagine climate change skeptics and vaccine safety skeptics to be largely overlapping sets of people.
The real issue in terms of rational decision making, in the US and elsewhere, is the formation of the correct group and the incorrect group for pretty much anything, and their corresponding echo chambers. It looks like this recommended book at least attempts to break away from this trend.
