Climate Change is by no means a 'settled' science, one of the most important questions scientists must answer is what the Climate Sensitivity is to CO2. There's a wide range of answers to this question by scientists, depending on which climate model you use, as well as many other factors.
Popular science articles misrepresent the science and ignore the variance/complexity, in the end hurting the cause in the eyes of those who don't agree with the prescribed policies to address it.
You'll be at the mercy of whichever out of 3,000 moderators ends up passing judgment on your post, whether they are liberal or conservative, whether they are having a good day or not, etc.
I don't see this going well for Facebook.
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
So what exactly is this one side that 99% of experts agree upon?
The only disagreements are on extent to which we will be fucked - will we see hundreds of millions of climate refugees, or billions.
This simply isn't true, it's outlandish even, and is part of why moderation is tricky. Why do you believe this?
We are not 'fucked' even at the worst estimates.
In 1990 almost 2 billion people were on less than $2.00 per day.
Were we 'fucked' in 1990?
Are we currently 'fucked' with 700 million people on less than $2.00 per day.
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."[0].
There are plenty of misinformed people that will gladly tell you there is no such thing and if there was human activity has no effect. Pretending that there aren't and even if the issue is complex there isn't a set of clearly wrong opinions is disingenuous to the extreme.
[0] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/26589529219124838...
Are you saying these concepts are equivalent to the aforementioned 99% of scientists and experts?
I'm really not trying to act dense, just figure out what it is people even believe about this topic.
They aren't, though.
It appears this is the wrong place to get an answer to that question.
This is getting off topic, but do you consider asking that to be impolite?
And if that's true, then it's possible there's no grand conspiracy and at the end of the day, either the evidence isn't strong enough or the case isn't being made well enough to get everyone on board. If the debate is being lost before they even start telling people how dramatically their lifestyles will have to change to have a meaningful impact on the issue, what possible hope could they have when those realities are laid out?
But that's probably not true, so don't worry about it. Now are you with us or a denier?