#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

# Sceptics POV on the Azimuth project?

JB has already explained at length that Azimuth is not about politics, and not about convincing sceptics. Here is my dilemma: When I read Eaarth, my first impression was "saying we live on a 'new planet called eaarth' is a nice rhetorical trick to convince the audience that dramatic climate change has already happened and is going to increase". My second thought was "all sceptics will interpret this trick as a clear indication that the whole book is pure propaganda".

Maybe it's just me: working as just another engineer in a big company, I have to understand all possible POV and objections to any idea I utter, and adapt accordingly. Therefore, I'd like to explain on the Eaarth page that - despite the propaganda - its still worthwhile to read the book and think about it.

What would be the appropriate way to do this?

Comment Source:First of all, you could just say "despite the propaganda, it's still worthwhile to read this book". And then the best way to explain why it's worthwhile might be to summarize a bunch of the good ideas in it &mdash; particularly the ideas that are novel and/or backed up by solid evidence. In the process, you might try to downplay the rhetoric a bit, or criticize it when you think that's justified. McKibben is, after all, trying to lead a grassroots political movement, [[350]]. But at Azimuth, we're trying to provide reliable information, point scientists and engineers to open questions, and generally catalyze research and the development of ways to solve problems.