So much off-topic opinion is posted in the thread that has nothing to do with anything. The younger generation isn't naive or weak, which is a good thing since they'll be dealing with the problems left behind by those too stubborn to acknowledge them or the problems they ignorantly created and then like children denied.
Can't disagree that activists often hurt their own causes and it dovetails nicely with what Murphey was saying.
Unfortunately, the opinion piece is colored by the authors beliefs and has two fundamental flaws. First, it assumes a perfect world where paid-for misinformation campaigns aren't actively out to discredit the people and the science. That does far more harm than any activist and should be more the focus of ire than a child stepping up to do her part because she thinks grown-ups need a reminder to be responsible adults.
Secondly, that there isn't a neutral international body (i.e., the IPCC) that assembles a huge swath of data from scientific reports to make sense of the data for the world. It's ridiculous that
Terror is used to promote acceptance of censorship. When I was a denier I wasn't censored, and certainly, no one here checks a word they type or feels censored. The panic that believers might feel isn't about censorship, the panic is about the realization that the world is rapidly changing and why aren't we doing anything about it? Certainly from this thread, the people saying climate change is a hoax are far more numerous, vocal, and rude than those that believe it is real. They do that without any facts to promote their cause, and put down/disbelieve all actual facts as they "must be lies" since it goes against their world views. Yet they think they have open minds and doing people favors, such is the power of misinformation. There are quite a few
papers on the phenomena.
Do scientists feel censored? Yes. A study finds that when Trump was in office they omitted keywords in the hopes their studies would be approved:
It's also not just in the U.S.:
There's a third factor in the opinion piece I frequently see in thread, that somehow it's a hoax so the rich can make money off it or it gives them more control. The opinion piece says:
But compare that to the lucrativeness of the fuel burned to make that ton of CO
2. There's literally no comparison in terms of profit.
Plus consider that carbon capture isn't even lucrative. I'm not sure what the price was in 2018, but it's still over an average of $100/ton (
ref):
That doesn't mean it couldn't become profitable. For example, the 2021 Forbes
article on how it might someday be profitable as technology improves. But credits only exist to get the technology moving. Once they actually start making money it'll get capped.