2 ms·

Do Texans still largely live in denial of climate change?

reaperman 3y ago
No. Most Texans believe in "climate change" and consider regional warming effects to be axiomatic. The primary debate is: 1) Is it s/anthropomorphic/anthropogenic? (Caused by humans). 2) Is it really that bad for the Earth? (Does the heat help and/or can the ecosystem adapt). Most of the debate has moved from "is it happening" to these other questions.
- pengaru 3y ago
  > 1) Is it anthropomorphic? (Caused by humans). nit: anthropic. anthropomorphic would be giving it human traits, like the climate has opposable thumbs and road rage.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    Anthropogenic seems like the best word.
  - t_luke 3y ago
    It’s actually ‘anthropogenic’ (as in caused ‘generated’ by humans) if we’re going to be pedantic
    - pengaru 3y ago
      I'm indifferent, it's just definitely not anthropomorphic. FWIW I did actually check before I commented, but just using my local dict install. Anthropogenic seems to be often used in the news WRT climate change, but the definitions left me with the impression anthropic seemed more correct (brevity bonus too): > From WordNet (r) 3.1 (2011) [wn]: > > anthropic > adj 1: relating to mankind or the period of mankind's existence > [syn: {anthropic}, {anthropical}] > > anthropogenic > adj 1: of or relating to the study of the origins and > development of human beings [syn: {anthropogenetic}, > {anthropogenic}] >
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > FWIW I did actually check before I commented, but just using my local dict install. Anthropogenic seems to be often used in the news WRT climate change, but the definitions left me with the impression anthropic seemed more correct (brevity bonus too) You may need to look beyond definition 1 (though in many, but not all, current dictionaries, you wouldn't have to), “anthropogenic" is clearly correct and the most specific adjective for human-caused climate change, and is quite often the example shown with the relevant definition. See, e. g., https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/anthropogenic https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/anthropogenic “Anthropic” would not be a wrong adjective for climate change somehow associated temporally or causally with the existence of humanity, but would be less specific.
gottorf 3y ago
Not a Texan here, but let's steelman the argument a bit. I think a lot of people who say "climate change isn't real" (or similar) actually mean that they disagree on what to do about it. Especially in terms of things like: - What to do about the developing Global South, whose carbon emissions are only going to rise - The lack of viable alternatives (with current technology) for many things that currently depend on the high energy density of hydrocarbons - Strong skepticism against proclaimed emergencies that urgently require more centralized government authority and taxation (which is a playbook as old as history, after all...) - The opportunity cost of implementing green/renewable energy sources, given that all resources are finite and have alternative uses The existence of people who literally mean that "climate change isn't real" shouldn't take away from this important discourse. Fundamentally, and zooming out of Texas, there is a divide between people who see the climate issue (or any other big issue) as a categorical imperative to deal with and the people who see it (or any other) as another factor in an ever-changing ocean of constraints and incentives that humanity faces. It's a fascinating divide.

No. Most Texans believe in "climate change" and consider regional warming effects to be axiomatic. The primary debate is: 1) Is it s/anthropomorphic/anthropogenic? (Caused by humans). 2) Is it really that bad for the Earth? (Does the heat help and/or can the ecosystem adapt). Most of the debate has moved from "is it happening" to these other questions.

pengaru 3y ago
> 1) Is it anthropomorphic? (Caused by humans). nit: anthropic. anthropomorphic would be giving it human traits, like the climate has opposable thumbs and road rage.
- gottorf 3y ago
  Anthropogenic seems like the best word.
- t_luke 3y ago
  It’s actually ‘anthropogenic’ (as in caused ‘generated’ by humans) if we’re going to be pedantic
  - pengaru 3y ago
    I'm indifferent, it's just definitely not anthropomorphic. FWIW I did actually check before I commented, but just using my local dict install. Anthropogenic seems to be often used in the news WRT climate change, but the definitions left me with the impression anthropic seemed more correct (brevity bonus too): > From WordNet (r) 3.1 (2011) [wn]: > > anthropic > adj 1: relating to mankind or the period of mankind's existence > [syn: {anthropic}, {anthropical}] > > anthropogenic > adj 1: of or relating to the study of the origins and > development of human beings [syn: {anthropogenetic}, > {anthropogenic}] >
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > FWIW I did actually check before I commented, but just using my local dict install. Anthropogenic seems to be often used in the news WRT climate change, but the definitions left me with the impression anthropic seemed more correct (brevity bonus too) You may need to look beyond definition 1 (though in many, but not all, current dictionaries, you wouldn't have to), “anthropogenic" is clearly correct and the most specific adjective for human-caused climate change, and is quite often the example shown with the relevant definition. See, e. g., https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/anthropogenic https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/anthropogenic “Anthropic” would not be a wrong adjective for climate change somehow associated temporally or causally with the existence of humanity, but would be less specific.

gottorf 3y ago

Not a Texan here, but let's steelman the argument a bit. I think a lot of people who say "climate change isn't real" (or similar) actually mean that they disagree on what to do about it. Especially in terms of things like: - What to do about the developing Global South, whose carbon emissions are only going to rise - The lack of viable alternatives (with current technology) for many things that currently depend on the high energy density of hydrocarbons - Strong skepticism against proclaimed emergencies that urgently require more centralized government authority and taxation (which is a playbook as old as history, after all...) - The opportunity cost of implementing green/renewable energy sources, given that all resources are finite and have alternative uses The existence of people who literally mean that "climate change isn't real" shouldn't take away from this important discourse. Fundamentally, and zooming out of Texas, there is a divide between people who see the climate issue (or any other big issue) as a categorical imperative to deal with and the people who see it (or any other) as another factor in an ever-changing ocean of constraints and incentives that humanity faces. It's a fascinating divide.