Record Number of Americans See Climate Change As a Current Threat (axios.com) 383
An anonymous reader shares a report: More Americans are very worried about global warming and say the issue is personally important to them than ever before, according to a new poll released Tuesday. The polling may indicate that extreme weather events -- coupled with a series of grim scientific findings -- over the past year are starting to change peoples' minds about climate change, which could have significant implications for any significant climate legislation passing Congress. The key finding from the new survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication is that Americans increasingly view global warming as a present-day threat to them, rather than an issue that will affect future generations. Nearly half of Americans (46%) said they personally experienced the effects of global warming -- a 15-point spike since March 2015.
Headline should be : (Score:3, Informative)
"Denialist pollution source owners' propaganda efforts failing, American idiots slowly pulling their collective heads out of their asses and realizing changes must be made quickly, or this is going to get much worse."
Re:Headline should be : (Score:4, Insightful)
Or rather, the more often a lie is told, the more people believe it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hot summer? Climate change!
Wetter than usual? Climate change!
Drier than usual? Climate change!
It has gone far beyond the point of idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
I figured it is the following.
1. Old people are just dying off. (The Damn Government just wants to take my car away from me, just so I can't drive to the pooling place and vote)
2. Greener solutions such as Solar Energy, and Electric Automobiles are becoming affordable and practical. (There are solutions available now that require less sacrifice)
3. Higher Oil prices. (sure they are lower now) ($4.00 a gallon hurts a lot, I need to find a better source of energy, well being green isn't so bad)
4. A lot of re
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Where do you pay $4/gallon for gas? I generally pay about $2. Which, adjusted for inflation, is about what my father paid as a youth....
Alas, weather isn't climate. And even unusual weat
Quickly (Score:2)
would have been 30 years ago!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If they would not own them, someone else would own them. ...
Owning stuff does not create pollution.
Burning fuel does
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The EU started reducing CO2 output decades before the US and is still on a strong way continuing.
No idea on what planet YOU live.
Well, yeah! (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember back in the 80s when the warning came out with the predictions of what would happen.
We're living it.
I'm not interested in "Liberal" vs "Conservative" bickering or what is "fake" or not.
From everything I have seen, doing what I can to reduce human caused climate change means a better way of life for me. Less pollution. Less money being spent. Healthier lifestyle. A better way of life for my children and grandchildren. Less wars. Less migrations and the trouble that causes.
If we could just stop these bullshit wars that cause people to migrate. I cannot blame any Syrian who wants to leave. The same for every other country over-run with assholes who want to take over everything for whatever reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Sad part is, that's how it's being marketed, when reality is the diametric opposite. To combat global warming, we have to cut down wealth of people, making them less healthy.
The current argument is literally "how many hundreds of millions to billions of people will need to be sacrificed in developing countries to meet the goals". Because developed countries are increasingly irrelevant in this discussion. We'll push our emissions down, but we're but a tiny fraction of the population. Majority of the populati
Re: (Score:2)
So now you're suddenly against genocide? :D
Re: (Score:2)
Do elaborate.
Re: (Score:2)
To combat global warming, we have to cut down wealth of people, making them less healthy.
No we have not. We only have to reduce CO2 output, and stop it completely sooner or later.
Wow that was easy.
What the funk has health and wealth to do with global warming or stopping it? Oh, the oil barons earl less? And thats it ...
Re: (Score:2)
When you're so deep up the ideological rabbit hole, you call someone who builds premise on the fact that global warming is real and needs to be addressed a "denier".
Are you dumb or insane? Or both?
P.S. My country has socialized medicine. It's probably one of the reasons I'm not as mentally fucked up as you.
Clownshow (Score:2, Interesting)
Outfits like Axios desperate for some climate change 'action.' The narrative is complete; if you want to save earth, socialism based on carbon redistribution/control. If you're against that, you're a denying Earth Hater. Did anyone notice the latest 'tipping point' narrative drop in the Times a few days ago? They've been tipping the point for twenty years over there lol.
In other news, Brazil told the cult to hold their Carbon Con 2019 somewhere else. Somehow, that's not in the news.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically to tell, you'd need a world with the chemicals and one without. But that test is only half the story because the world without would be progressing more slowly technologically, causing deaths itself from this lag.
You...probably don't wanna do that analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern nations can do more than one thing at a time, and effectively.
Re: (Score:2)
Life IS chemicals, Princess. Anyone that tells you otherwise is selling something.
Well. yeah. (Score:3)
When you have real living versions of cartoon anti-environmentalist villains as the ruling members of most big nations for as many years as we have - you start to worry more than compared to when the circumstances seemed more sane.
This isn't some "oh, I'm so concerned about the electrical wire waves on my kid's braces" style worrying - it's "yeah, we've had 20 rounds of studies showing that the base of our food chain won't function nearly as well in a couple of decades" kinds of stuff.
And why? Because we've tied everything together, made politics this absurd game where everyone plays to these massively overloaded crisis scenarios, basically recreating the worst crisises of late-era Roman conditions, and at the same time eliminated the same kinds of things placed in order to prevent non-violent elections from becoming justifications for revolution.
Well, all that largely to feed money and power to the already rich and powerful. And yes, I do significantly blame those that supported the Citizens United outcome.
So, nothing but the focused interests of the those with the plurality of power at the moment get anything now - and compromise is only punished with nigh-permanent reductions in power.
Is it any wonder that the very environment that allows us to live gets sacrificed consistently with that as the game we use to make crucial decisions?
We need a system where the best decisions on any given issue are made without being gummed up with these absurd and artificial ties to these games of retribution and greed.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like you've actually though about this, so I'll address your "personal favorite":
3000PPM is still only 0.3%. The amount of oxygen is not appreciably affected - in fact, oxygen levels were *also* much higher at the time, about 30% versus the current 21%, which is why insects could grow so much larger than today (without a circulatory system their size is limited by ambient oxygen concentration)
As for why it'd be a big deal - Earth's global climate toggles back and forth between two states. There
WHich lalf? (Score:2)
Look at who can't afford to be disingenuous (Score:4, Interesting)
BREAKING NEWS: Push Poll Gets The Answer It Wants! (Score:4, Insightful)
A hurricane slap upside the head will do that. (Score:2)
Makes sense, some of the most heavily climate-denying areas have been hit with terrible hurricanes over the last few years. You can see how someone might stop denying the reality of global warming after it knocks their house down.
But (Score:3)
Are they worried enough to change their own behaviour? Are they driving small cars (or none), travelling only when essential, and choosing to live in smaller more energy-efficient houses? Are they deliberately buying less manufactured stuff, or cutting back on beef consumption?
Or are they just worried enough to want "someone else" to pay for changes?
I support climate change science but ... (Score:2)
... are these unbiased sources?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, so you cannot see any evidence that global warming and climate change is affecting you, even though the evidence is there, it is overwhelming and the effective is very significant.
That's fine, so here is how it is affecting you in your daily life. Another people are concerned about the massive impact that fossil fuels are having on the world, that economics is changing and their lifespan as a viable source of energy is limited. So, everything that you do that depends on fossil fuels is already and wil
Re: (Score:3)
It's about pollution, not lifespan of available fossil fuels, which keeps getting pushed out further and further even as use increases.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way so many people could observe "climate change" impacting their daily life is if they think climate and weather is the same thing. The only solutions for climate change I see being put forward are massive, regressive, economy-stunting taxes on the poor. I'm not interested in living in a world where only the rich can afford heat and motorcars.
Re: (Score:2)
How about we focus on bigger, more easily solvable problems, like single-use plastic waste? There are much more important, easier problems to solve.
That is an easy one - simply block the garbage outflow from 9 rivers in Asia and you're done. Next?
Doesn't matter if Climate Change is affecting him (Score:2)
Said it before, say it again: Until we fix the economy for working class Americans all this talk of climate change is just talk. Climate change is years from now but rent's due today.
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:5, Insightful)
The right are so old that they'll die before or during a climate change problem would kill them: lack of food/water, weather being too hot/cold to handle by current buildings, power issues from the additional strain for compensating for erratic climate, species of important ecological impact on food production dying. These issues won't happen this year unless you live in a desert yet, but will slowly creep out from the deserts and into normal population centers and then shit will really hit the fan.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The right are so old that they'll die before or during a climate change problem would kill them:
After dealing with a number of people, I must say there is some truth to your statement. I'd add to it that many of these people are smart enough to understand the issue.
I think they just like it warmer.
And as we enter the once coldest part of the Winter, the last week in January, first week of February, we have flood watches here in Pennsylvania. I mean, it's just weather, but after a while, just weather ends up being just climate.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the liberal I know survive on the government dime, while the Republicans and libertarians all have their own business, have lots of food stocked, own guns, and some even have bunkers. I'm not sure you're correct on who will win. When my government paycheck stops, I'll probably starve to death. You think the hunters and preppers will?
I will hunt them.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot. Here's some educational material for you, if you wanna know my citations:
2015-2017 are the hottest years on record on Earth. Citation: https://public.wmo.int/en/medi... [wmo.int] and multiple countries and weather stations confirmed this
2018 is looking to be #4, but not 100% confirmed yet; but last April was the third warmest on record: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/... [nasa.gov]
The higher temperatures are affecting all crops, but their effects are most pronounced under Middle East and African Desert countries currentl
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it then predominantly only the left t
Nearly everywhere in the world, climate change is a non-partisan issue. Climate change denial is mostly relegated to small, and usually extreme, parties. The US is the great exception.
There are several reasons, but the root of the general anti-science position of the Republican party originates from peddling to fundamentalist Christian creationist voters. To be able to maintain the more brain-damaged forms of creationism, you need to reject a large part of modern science - and also a large part of the institutions of modern science. Once this "scepticism" has set in, it's easy to extend it to other aspects of science.
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:5, Insightful)
I like how people discount the measurements and observations thousands of scientists take day in and day out as they apply their PhDs and livelihood to observe what is happening to the world. They have worked full time or more for decades on end to come to these conclusions.
You think these fucking scientists love being holed up in a shotty little observation pod in Antarctica away from their families the majority of the year? No they're doing it so that they can report to humanity their findings and give us warning and advisement if need be.
To ignore their warning on the basis of "you just feel they're wrong", or "it's political" is a display of self destructive and ignorant hubris.
Seriously you'd have to be deluded or have a mental illness to think you know better than the worldwide scientific community. The worst part is your ignorance will destroy the world for our grandchildren.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it then predominantly only the left t
Nearly everywhere in the world, climate change is a non-partisan issue.
Tell that to the Yellow Vests in France...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it then predominantly only the left that pushes the cataclysmic effects of climate change, while those on the right tend not to see it as a dire threat (if they acknowledge it exists)?
It's a matter of temperament with each group. At the risk of over-generalizing, leftists support progress, reform, internationalism, whereas rightists support order, tradition, and nationalism. More here. [wikipedia.org]
Is it the those on the left are just so wise, and those on the right are dumb?
No and no. There are lots of dumb leftists and smart rightists. As I said, it's more an issue of temperament than intelligence.
Or is it that the left has been attaching climate change to all of their favorite other ideas, making it even less of an attractive/plausible issue to those on the right?
The left and the right have been known to agree on many things. Generally they just don't seem to do so on this one. I don't think the right is less inclined to deal with climate change because the left has the opposite view. Rather, they see the effort to deal with climate change as disruptive of a status quo they are comfortable with.
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. We've had about 4 decades of exactly that, with the rich taking more and more from the poor. Redistribution in the other direction can't come quickly enough.
Re: (Score:2)
"All men and women die; no amount of free healthcare will change that, it will only make the misery in the mean-time worse."
What is the implication of the qualifier "free" in that sentence? Do you think that *paid* healthcare can change the fact we all die?
Because if not, you seem to be arguing that all healthcare is futile. Which is a pretty fucking stupid argument. The purpose of healthcare is not to prevent death, but to add years to life, and life to years. Technically, compression of morbidity and a ri
Re: (Score:2)
This is the ultimate discovery of the far right. Majority denial trumps science and physics.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sort of...
I'm on the right. My reasons for disagreeing with most of the suggestions made by the left on this subject is that they tend to always increase the size and impact of government which I see is generally bad. Also, the majority of the suggested efforts largely ignore the geo-political impact of the proposed solutions will have as we unilaterally destroy our economy and thus reduce our ability to maintain our standards of living and freedoms.
Let's face it, there is zero chance we can have ANY ef
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
More Do-Nothingism.
"Both China and Russia would be more than willing to keep burning fossil fuels for a competitive advantage over the free world..."
Yeah, except for the Paris Agreement of 2015, the Cancun Agreement of 2010, the Copenhagen Agreement of 2009, the Bali Action Plan of 2007, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, and the Rio Accord of 1992. All of which were systematically undermined and rejected by the political Right in the US.
China and Russia are on board. It's you who are not on board. After years
Re: (Score:3)
It's a dial, not a switch. The more each country does, the better.
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:5, Insightful)
The left and the right have been known to agree on many things. Generally they just don't seem to do so on this one.
Prior to about 1988, conservatives pretty much did agree that climate change was a problem, and the science was not at all controversial. For instance, it was well understood through the 60s-70s that CO2 was the greenhouse gas that made the surface of Venus so much hotter than Mercury, and conservatives weren't inclined to dispute it.
When it came to the point of deciding what to do, certain corporations used their lobbying arms to reset opinion amongst the conservatives, framing it along typical lines around controversy and the threat of socialism, in order to protect the profits of those corporations.
I don't think the right is less inclined to deal with climate change because the left has the opposite view. Rather, they see the effort to deal with climate change as disruptive of a status quo they are comfortable with.
And by not participating in the discussion about what to do about climate change conservatives have created the impression that they do not have a solution, so we instead need to look to the left to solve it. Which is ridiculous, like every problem, there is a spectrum of approaches we can take.
You can't negotiate with the physical reality of climate change, it's not a matter of opinion, You can, however, advocate for more 'right friendly' ways of resolving the issue, and if you truly believe that 'right friendly' solutions are the best and most efficient, the right should be confident in advocating for those solutions.
The right saying that climate change is a socialist conspiracy is saying that only socialism can solve a class of global problems, which is not only incorrect it also invalidates the right wing altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
A man once fell off a tall building. As he was falling, at each floor he thought to himself, "so far so good!"
A frog found himself in a large pot of water over a hot fire. As the minutes ticked on, he thought to himself, "this warming isn't so bad."
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
....of my life being effected that can be 100% linked undoubtedly to Global Warming.
How, exactly is this touching me in my daily life?
Hmm...I just can't think of an example of my life being effected that can be 100% linked undoubtedly to cancer.
I suppose cancer isn't a problem if it isn't affecting me directly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well....yeah. If cancer isn't affecting me directly, it's not a problem for me. Why should I care if other people have cancer? Same as climate change. So far it isn't directly impacting my life in any way that matters, so I don't care about it.
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:4, Informative)
Droughts and abnormal temperatures also affect crop yields, which affects the price of everything at the grocery store. Sure, there are other factors that affect grocery store prices, but climate change is certainly a contributing one.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Just because your life doesn't appear to be directly affected doesn't mean the lives of others aren't. Rising sea levels are affecting island nations.
I see this all the time, but I haven't seen any actual proof? Which island nations are losing area, are ending up underwater?
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:5, Informative)
Which island nations are losing area, are ending up underwater?
Miami Beach, FL
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's Miami Beach, which is not Miami, and which is comprised of islands. Miami itself will end up mostly under the waves at a somewhat later date.
Your linked article does not say that it is sinking faster than sea levels are rising, just that it is sinking. They do say that sea levels on the East Coast are currently rising at 3mm/year and accelerating.
Since people in Miami Beach are already wading through the streets at high tide on calm days, their situation is going to be pretty dire within a few decades
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, since the oceans are the primary source of oxygen, and acidification is hard on a lot of the species that produce that oxygen. Specifically, diatoms, the single largest source of oxygen on the planet.
As I suspect that you enjoy breathing as much as I do: Yes, we should care.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right now? Probably not a hell of a lot unless you live in California or the southeast US. The worst is that you're likely needing to run the A/C a bit more during the summer and pay a bit more on your electricity bill.
Let's assume you don't think climate change is a problem, or at least not enough of one for the government to take action because of negative economic effects.
Consider then what happens in the future, even the near future. Climate change is linked to changing weather patterns and an increa
Insurance (Score:2, Interesting)
The insurance companies take global climate change seriously and they are planning for it - i.e. charging you more.
There is also the human health issue - your employees/co-workers will get sick more.
There is also the costs associated with agriculture. Those heat waves or harsh winters that will become more common makes your orange juice - like you have for breakfast - and the coffee - like you have for breakfast - more costly.
And then there is the migration issue. If you are scared of the evil hoard comin
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How, exactly is this touching me in my daily life?
Depends how old you are, I suppose.
If you're going to be around for several more decades, you'll see food shortages and growing areas that are no longer arable - Leading to riots and disruption.
Have a job?
You'll see economic disruption and collapse as millions and millions of Americans move north as large parts of the south become too hot to be habitable - You'll also see tens-of-millions of latin americans massing on the southern border as they too mi
Re: (Score:2)
Past 10? That wasn't even a 2.
They're discussing a few of the absolutely predictable, short term expected outcomes of the "best case" amount of climate change that's already realistically unavoidable. The sort of things we've see happen countless times throughout history in response to much more localized climate changes.
Where it has the potential to get interesting is if we instead keep burning fossil carbon like it's going out of style, and absolutely predictably keep the process going for a century or
Re: (Score:2)
Yer basic problem is that you do not understand probabilities and statistics.
Re: Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:2)
Must not live on the east coast I'd guess. Weather has a way of slipping you a convincer when your house washes away.
Re:Hmm...I just can't think of an example... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If sufficient amount of people have been convinced of it being a threat, it begins to dictate how much of economic activity is conducted. Things like price of electricity, certain taxes and so on are paid by everyone, and the more people believe that climate change is a "current" threat rather than a threat "in a hundred years", it means you get to pay more for the same things that you could get for less yesterday. There's also availability of some products that will be severely impacted by this belief.
Re: (Score:2)
....of my life being effected that can be 100% linked undoubtedly to Global Warming.
How, exactly is this touching me in my daily life?
Well, obviously you are not looking at the yearly weather stats... I'm seeing fewer tornados where I live in tornado alley. Also a lot fewer sunspots than I expected to see too.. Hmmm....
Re: (Score:2)
2. "Since it's not happening to me directly, it must not be happening anywhere!" idiocy
How do you even have the brainpower to figure out how to use the Internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: baaa baaaaa baaaaaa (Score:2, Interesting)
Please tell us how climate change, which has been a constant since this rock cooled and has taken huge swings up and down before humans even existed, is a by product of man. And then tell me how I as an American should give a shite when America has done more to curb its polluting ways than any other major industrialized nation (looks at India, China and Russia).
Sure, the climate maybe changing, but I havenâ(TM)t seen one bit of rock solid evidence that is the fault of man and not related to increase/de
Re: (Score:3)
What is unprecedented today is the rate of change - Dramatically faster than during the previous warming periods we can measure.
For example, it took ten-thousand years for the earth to warm after the last ice age.
Rate of change is dramatically faster than that now.
Re: (Score:2)
Every older measurement technique is laced with subjectivity.
Incorrect, Anonymous Coward. By examining annual layers in ice cores, as well as studying the decay of Uranium from U238 to U234 we can very accurately measure the length of past ice ages.
There have been very rapid changes in the past that match today.
Also incorrect - The current rate of change is unprecedented.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the matter, summary too long for you?
Re: (Score:2)
No, they should ask, give up 10% of your standard of live, are you willing to spend 10% of your income, downsize everything in your life by 10% in order to Combat Climate change starting...now. The percentage will increase over time.
Or are you to have your 1/2 of your standard of living cut for you, 1/2 of your income cut for you, and have everything about your life downsized by 1/2 for you, as a result climate change in 10-20 years....probably. If could be less, or it could be more.
You can choose to help n
Re: (Score:2)
No, they should ask, give up 10% of your standard of live, are you willing to spend 10% of your income,
In the US the news has many stories of people who are simply devastated because they have missed one paycheck -- which would be considerably less than 10% of their income.
Or are you to have your 1/2 of your standard of living cut for you, 1/2 of your income cut for you, and have everything about your life downsized by 1/2 for you, as a result climate change in 10-20 years....probably.
The problem with doom and gloom predictions is that the emotional impact of them wears off as deadlines are missed or pushed back. Or, put another way, "Malthus was wrong."
I think the increasing numbers in the polls can be attributed in some, perhaps large, part to the tendency of people to tell pollsters the "right" answer. This should
Re:They are asking the wrong questions! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not even close to being enough. First thing that will have to go is commercial flights. Those simply cannot be tolerated. Interconnected world the way we know it today simply cannot exist. It has to end.
Next thing to go is uninterrupted electricity for everyone. That means no reliable internet either. That's the other link that makes people care to some extent about "outsiders" far away from their nations.
Finally you'll have to accept that your very culture is dysfunctional, because we're not ready to commit genocide on the level that would make Hitler, Stalin and Mao look incredibly benevolent in comparison. We will have to cull most of the population in Africa, Asia and South America, because as they will desire to increase their wealth, they will become much more polluting per capita, easily nullifying all the cuts made in the West. We'll have to be the most brutal mass murderers to have ever existed.
It's the last part that most people genuinely are afraid of addressing. It's factually true that most of the people who either deny global warming, or just don't care about it are the overwhelming majority of humanity who are living in poor countries, and who thanks to the internet now know just how wealthy of lifestyles compared to theirs we have. And they want to be like us. And their lives are being uplifted at rapid rate, as globalization has shifted wealth to developing countries at incredible rate. This will have to be severed and destroyed, alongside the masses who already got a taste of better lifestyles afforded to them by the economic growth. Because they can't afford to care about a threat that might materialize in a hundred years. They have to care about immediate threats, like medicine so their children don't die, food so their children don't end up with stunted growth, housing so they actually have a home to be at, social security of some kind so they can afford to think of more than their next meal.
It's a genuinely impossible equation. To make people care about things like global warming, you need to eliminate most of other threats in their lives - disease, food security, energy security, housing, social security, etc. And to do so worldwide, would require CO2 emissions that would make current emissions look absolutely tiny in comparison. Therefore, the only way to equalize the two would be to conduct genocide of unforeseen proportions.
Re: (Score:2)
EUREKA! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder, do any slashdotters answer their phone for unknown numbers and engage in long conversations?
And if they do answer and have time to waste on such stuff, do any of them have any compunctions against telling the telemarketer/pollster the most outrageous stuff just for fun? I sure don't. They're wasting my time, and if I'm going to spend it talking to them I'm going to have fun while doing it. "Yes, I think climate change has a direct impact on my life. It's killing my pet fish Eric."
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, do you think that Hitler did anything wrong? Or Stalin? Mao?
Because you'll have to top all of those people put together, several tens of times over for your murderous desire to succeed. You'll have to become someone who people will think of as "Hitler was pretty bad, but at least he wasn't [Anonymous Coward]" in the future.
Are you actually prepared to go that far? Are you truly that far gone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Liar
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Re: (Score:2)
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Shut up and calculate.