US climate history from 1958 to Katrina- 4 key moments that brought global warming to national attention; Borderless Timeline channel short report w transcript, Heating Planet blog [Review for holiday dinner conversation w MAGA relatives]
You might be tired of hearing about climate change. Sometimes it feels distant or exaggerated. I get it. We live in a world overflowing with headlines, opinions, and arguments. It's easy to feel overwhelmed or just tune out. But what if we pause the debate just for a moment and ask ourselves, what kind of world do we want to leave behind? This isn't about guilt. It's about clarity because the conversation around climate change has been happening for decades. And yet somehow we're still stuck in doubt.
Climate change isn't new. Let's rewind.
The first major warning about climate change in the US hit the front page of New York Times in 1988. NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congress, saying with 99% confidence that global warming was already happening. And that wasn't the beginning. Scientists have raised concerns since the 1950s. Exxon's own researchers warned about fossil fuels and warming oceans in 1970s. So why does this still feel like a debate? Journalism versus activism versus denial. Here's where things get tricky.
Journalism is supposed to inform. Activism is meant to persuade. In denial, denial is designed to confuse. Journalism aims for a balance of evidence. But in the 1990s and 2000s, many outlets gave equal weight to climate scientists and fringe skeptics, creating a false sense of controversy. Activism pushes for a change. Think Greta Thunberg. Climate marches or documentaries like an inconvenient truth. Denial often comes from fossil fuels interest or groups. It doesn't, it's not just from disagreement. It's disinformation.
The problem on social media.
hese blur lines. How social media amplifies doubt. Social media doesn't reward accuracy. It rewards engagement and outrage. Spreads faster than nuance. A 2018 study found that false news spreads six times faster on Twitter than true stories. Climate denial content often uses emotional language, memes, or conspiracy framing, making it more sharable. Algorithms on platforms like YouTube and Facebook have been shown to recommend increasingly extreme content over time.
This isn't about bad actors. It's about how the system is managed. So why do people still doubt climate change? Pychological distance. It feels far away in time, space, or relevance. Identity protection. Accepting climate change science might feel like betraying your political tribe. Information overload. With so many voices, it's hard to know who to trust. And when journalism, activism, and denial all show up in your feed looking the same, it's easy to tune out.
So, what can we do?
First, recognize the difference between skepticism and denial. Skeptics often ask questions. Denial ignores answers. Second, support journalism that investigates, not just amplifies. Look for outlets that cite sources, show data, and correct mistakes. Third, be mindful of what you share. Every post is a vote for the kind of conversation we want to have.
Climate change isn't a hoax.
It's not a hoax. It's a story about how we want to live, what we value, and who we care about. We've been talking about it for decades. Maybe it's time we start listening. END
No comments:
Post a Comment