3 ms·

> A large number of people now think they've experienced the reality of climate change. Over 40 percent say they've experienced extreme weather and/or extended

> A large number of people now think they've experienced the reality of climate change. Over 40 percent say they've experienced extreme weather and/or extended heat waves, while 30 percent say their region has gone through drought and another 20 percent cite major wildfires. In all these cases, 80 percent of those who said they had experienced these problems suspect that climate change has contributed to them (as, in many cases, it has). Emphasis mine. This to me is a subtle admission that most people who think they've experienced the effects of climate change have in fact not experienced them, or at least, not in the ways they think. Otherwise it wouldn't simply be in many cases, but in every case or at least, in the vast majority of cases. But still, it implies that this is a good thing. The data about the direction of the country appears to me to speak particularly about energy policy. The effect of climate change related regulation that is most prominent in people's lives is the price of fuel at the pump. Of course people think we are going in the wrong direction, their lives are getting significantly harder. And perhaps they're right, we all know that climate change policy is about balancing the needs of a population with it's impact on the environment with an eye to a good resolution, and perhaps the current cost of fuel is emblematic of a bit too aggressive approach. One issue I take with a lot of these articles is the conflation of environmental policies with the subset of specifically climate change directed policies. I doubt most Americans are happy with the current set of regulations on chemical pollution in waterways and want more stringent restrictions. Most people would probably agree that logging woodland should be rotated. Most Americans wildly support environmental policies and regulations, but significantly less support the current policies aimed at fighting climate change.

ncmncm 4y ago
Not to put too fine point on it, BS. In most cases where people are experiencing effects, we still can't definitively say yet that this particular or that particular one is definitively traceable to global climate disruption. But we know with certainty that, in aggregate, they are. This term "climate change" that they still use is a problem. It is neutral, but we know that it is an imminent, looming catastrophe that, if we do not mobilize an overwhelming response, will engulf us and could well end with civilization collapsing and billions starving. The exact mechanism of collapse is of course hard to predict. Will it be via ocean ecosystem collapse as dissolved CO2 increases, pH falls, and shells cannot be grown, eliminating much of the world's access to protein? We already see effects. Will it be via widespread crop failure from drought and flooding leading to mass migration of refugees? We see that, too. Or from heavily populated areas becoming literally fatal to be outdoors in, on certain days of the year? We see clear trends toward it. Will it be sea level rise flooding places millions live, who must then move? Sea level rise is quite unevenly distributed. Will it be when ocean currents change routes, causing huge changes to local climate well beyond average global change? Two things are certain: (1) people will not stay put and die, and (2) the places they would need to move to or through already have people, in many cases also threatened. Historically, mass movement has resulted in the ascent of fascist-like government, something already well along in the Philippines, Poland, Hungary, Brazil, and Russia, and threatening India, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, and the US. Rise of fascistic government is always followed by escalating war, leading by steps big and small toward global thermonuclear war. With or without nuclear holocaust, the international balance of forces grows unstable, and collapse comes more and more easily. We have seen big impacts from tiny supply chain hiccups already. None of the individual steps are certain or inevitable, and the future is certain to deliver many surprises, but the direction is clear. How far down the path does it seem smart to go?
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  So you're talking about what needs to be done to fight climate change, and what the outcome is if we don't. I did not say anything about any of that. All I did was comment on the article, specifically talking about public sentiment.

ncmncm 4y ago

Not to put too fine point on it, BS. In most cases where people are experiencing effects, we still can't definitively say yet that this particular or that particular one is definitively traceable to global climate disruption. But we know with certainty that, in aggregate, they are. This term "climate change" that they still use is a problem. It is neutral, but we know that it is an imminent, looming catastrophe that, if we do not mobilize an overwhelming response, will engulf us and could well end with civilization collapsing and billions starving. The exact mechanism of collapse is of course hard to predict. Will it be via ocean ecosystem collapse as dissolved CO2 increases, pH falls, and shells cannot be grown, eliminating much of the world's access to protein? We already see effects. Will it be via widespread crop failure from drought and flooding leading to mass migration of refugees? We see that, too. Or from heavily populated areas becoming literally fatal to be outdoors in, on certain days of the year? We see clear trends toward it. Will it be sea level rise flooding places millions live, who must then move? Sea level rise is quite unevenly distributed. Will it be when ocean currents change routes, causing huge changes to local climate well beyond average global change? Two things are certain: (1) people will not stay put and die, and (2) the places they would need to move to or through already have people, in many cases also threatened. Historically, mass movement has resulted in the ascent of fascist-like government, something already well along in the Philippines, Poland, Hungary, Brazil, and Russia, and threatening India, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, and the US. Rise of fascistic government is always followed by escalating war, leading by steps big and small toward global thermonuclear war. With or without nuclear holocaust, the international balance of forces grows unstable, and collapse comes more and more easily. We have seen big impacts from tiny supply chain hiccups already. None of the individual steps are certain or inevitable, and the future is certain to deliver many surprises, but the direction is clear. How far down the path does it seem smart to go?

betwixthewires 4y ago
So you're talking about what needs to be done to fight climate change, and what the outcome is if we don't. I did not say anything about any of that. All I did was comment on the article, specifically talking about public sentiment.