Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why listen to the politicians in the first place, instead of to the scientists who have been as united about this as they have ever been about any major subject? There is some fringe but the consensus is extremely clear.
The problem isn't listening to politicians, the problem is listening to talk show hosts with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry. The problem is you can tune into those hosts with a simple AM radio. Getting access to the scientific literature is somewhat more difficult, especially if you are a tech illiterate.
Almost every paper that I've seen could have been more direct, less obtuse and more transparent, especially when it comes to the presentation of evidence that is in doubt or marginal.
If you read papers from the beginnings of science they are such a breath of fresh air compared to the stuff that is produced today. There are some exceptions but they are few and far between.
Obviously science itself has developed, things have gotten far more complex and so on. But that's not really my point, the point is about the language used itself, which seems to be more related to attracting the next round of funding than it is to moving the needle in a scientific way. And those papers that do end up moving the needle tend to be remarkably blunt and precise in their findings.
There is a parallel here between scientific papers and start-up decks. Those start-ups and those scientists that know they have a live one don't need to fluff it up or polish the numbers, they can just present the cold hard truth and you will know it for what it spells out when you read it without any kind of embellishment.