Can someone explain Latour’s idea of ‘Matters of Concern’

– Would it be correct to say that treating an issue such as climate change as a matter of concern as opposed to a matter of fact would be the difference between questioning the evidence for the sake of questioning it and recognising that the specifics of the evidence don’t matter in the face of the danger it poses?

– I would say yes. As he writes in the essay, if you’re worried about climate change as a matter of fact, then you worry about establishing this fact scientifically. But as he points out, the conservative climate-change deniers don’t really care about the scientific fact, they only pretend. So our response to these deniers should not be to insist that climate change is a fact, but to insist that it matters (i.e. is a matter of concern).