I watched the interview with Gina McCarthy, former head of the EPA, on climate change policy. I was most surprised by her saying that climate change is the only area of science where people question whether predictions with uncertainty attached will actually happen. In particular, her comparison to how highly trusted doctors are when giving predictions of heart attack chances was striking. I found this line of reasoning interesting overall, as it led to her next argument working in the policy sphere, that the solution is to talk about solutions that are positive regardless of the future, instead of potential negative outcomes. This suggestion of not educating the public on the true science and statistics behind predictions, but rather reorienting them towards a way they are more comfortable thinking productively in, was fascinating.
At one point in the interview, McCarthy discussed how climate scientists and policy-makers like her are trying to build credibility by borrowing that of doctors and even clergy or faith leaders, who are deeply trusted within their communities. I would've asked McCarthy how her experience with this process has been, and how successful it has been in convincing people to trust climate predictions and/or work towards solutions nevertheless. I'd also be curious as to whether she thinks it reflects a deeper problem with the climate science community or education that so many people are distrustful of these scientists in comparison to doctors and religious leaders.