One of the things I almost never see mentioned in the various climate debates is the observation that Earth is historically on the cooler side and is rising from that very low base.
The planet has historically gone through multiple cycles of not having polar ice caps and then having them again, etc. Over millions of years. There's been a really long-term feedback loop there.
I'm not a climate scientist by any stretch, but I just find that general omission in public discussions around it to be interesting.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
What I almost never see is any humility regarding uncertainty.
There's a chasm of difference between definitive certainty and making a best guess based on the available data. Particularly regarding such a complex system, a high enough uncertainty in the data that's not yet available could easily result in the exact wrong best guess. It seems to me that scientists are capable of a lot more humility in this uncertainty than the scientific journalists who report on them.
Intetestingly, I have found that primary sources do handle assumptions and uncertainly reasonably well, buy then corporate media reports worst case scenarios without the nuance. Similar to when nostr:nprofile1qqsw4v882mfjhq9u63j08kzyhqzqxqc8tgf740p4nxnk9jdv02u37ncpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9uju6mpd4czuumfw3jsz9nhwden5te0wfjkccte9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsq3yamnwvaz7tmsw4e8qmr9wpskwtn9wvql3tqm goes on podcasts and presents a nuanced economic narrative, and then the video title extracts the most sensational lines out of context. There are exceptions of course (Michael Mann should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell for example) and the politicization of the system eliminates viewpoints that don't support global socialist takeover of the economy - but I don't think the lack.of nuance on the part of climate scientists is a significant part of the problem.
