https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13902727_10154317654467492_721667688260698782_n.jpg?oh=9098d579a5166daf42defc27bc19ea5d&oe=5858DBB2
By one of our members; Frankie Sikes https://www.facebook.com/groups/Savetheearthnow/permalink/1024889647631849/


The problem with relying on science as the main convincer in any issue where there is divided public opinion is that: a) scientifically conducted studies can arrive at very different conclusions and: b) sometimes the conclusions arrived at seem at odds with common sense. Neither of these things give people much confidence that science holds the key to finding the "truth" of a particular issue.

For example in the last few years I have read reports of studies stating that DNA evidence proves that neolithic farmers largely displaced the incumbent population of the British Isles and others saying that DNA evidence proves that they were largely assimilated.

The widely held view, (based in science), that people are healthier and live longer in the contemporary age is an example of a scientifically arrived at conclusion that contrasts with common sense observations. Many isolated tribes people regularly live well in to their nineties and the record holders for longevity are typically from similarly isolated farming communities. When applying common sense, few people would say that the average American citizen is healthier than an Amazonian tribes person or Kalahari bushmen and yet hardly a week goes by without this view being expressed in the popular media as a self-evident "truth".

A couple of years ago the idea was circulating amongst "rational" people that overpopulation was a myth. In this case the obvious correlation between the doubling of the human population and the halving of the animal one was dismissed as not proving a "cause". What drives people to believe one view of what's happening rather than another has little to do with "truth". When a view is believed in, a correlation will be taken as convincing evidence, when a view is disbelieved in the same people will often claim that correlation is not sufficient proof of a cause.

The river Effra runs passed my door in London. I can't see it because it's hidden in a culvert buried under Effra Road. If it was visible I am sure people would care for it. They would discover any pollutants in it, trace them to their source and campaign to force the polluter to desist. The problem with the modern world is that it hides environmental damage. It's buried underground or out at sea... or it's in a remote location in another country or... (as in the case of man-made climate change), it's so big and so abstracted that it becomes divorced from every day observation and common sense.

I don't know about the "truth" of man-made climate change but I do know that the focussing of the world's environmental problems on this issue has been a complete failure. It hasn't created a popular movement for change and it has played right into the hands of the very same, polluting corporate entities who can then position themselves as the saviors of the planet with huge scale technological fixes, (like geo-engineering), from which they can again profit without worrying about what problems they are setting up for future generations.

People who think they are in the know need to give up the dream that the reason that other people aren't onboard is because they don't yet understand the science. It isn't about that.

A completely different focus and approach is needed imo.

What could that be?