The approach of "scientists were wrong if we do as they say and the end doesnt come"is for really stupid people, which unfortunately there is a lot around.
As for myself, growing up in the 80's I remember all the problem with the ozone layer and all the efforts that were made to avoid using certain types of gases that we knew at that time were harmful and it seems to me today the layer is almost rebuilt. Although I never studied the subject to understand how much of those efforts were relevant for the layer to rebuilt itself, for me it's a clear sign the scientists were correct and we did right in follow their instructions.
But today, with social media and other stuff, and a MUCH MORE corrupt and one sided media, it's more difficult to make an assessment on climate change. Also stop using certain types of deodorants as much easier than in a few years cease to use fossil fuels completely as expert Greta wants.
In the end, I could maybe summarize like this:
If you want to make people change and accept your ideas, you need to understand that you need to keep clean, never lie, never hide data, learn how to rebuke their rebuttals, never nick pick. You need to keep the high ground all the time and never try to cause division, separating people into groups like "the deniers", and on top of that, make your cause a scientific cause and not an escuse to insert OTHER political objectives into the discussion.
Yes, the ozone layer is a very good ecample. We adapted and therefore allowed it to heal. This shows that we indeed can make a change if we want to.
I agree that social media is terrible and that so many bullshit is circling around it. It is very hard to tell apart what is genuine and what is malicious anymore. Also, as everyone can share an opinion, a lot of dumb and silly opinions are treated just equally like professional researches. I am not a fan of this progression, but then again we can't just cut it off since that would be considered as censoring and oppression. Tough topic.
Greta might also be a topic for another thread, I guess. Even if you may not like her and if her ideas are very drastic, I don't think she is lying, honestly. Let's just leave it at that, shall we.
That last paragraph implies that science lies to us. I can maybe see some few scientists who might have shady intentions, since there will always be bad eggs in every basket, but generally speaking science can only describe, not dictate. I think you're rather talking about politicians, right? Many politicians tend to only accept science if it backs their ideas. I hope that someday the general level of education rises high enough so that more people can see through such schemes. But who am I kidding, huh. That is even more unrealistc than coming unharmed out of this ecological crisis.
Gameplay > Graphics
Substance > Style
Art Direction > Realism