Those who don't believe in climate change/global warming should still understand the simple obvious point that keeping polluting water, air and land is no benefit to anybody - except for big corporations.
14
That first map really interests me since I have lived in 5 of those 80% states up in the NE corner - NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, have two daughters who lived in VT while taking degrees at UVM - and a son in ME.
So 80% want to end coal burning. This could have been done decades ago and could be done now by doing the following at every level:
Use solid waste - that fraction left after recycling gets rid of high % of plastic - as fuel as a natural resource.
Convert biowastes to biogas.
Use the full-range of heat pump technologies
In other words, make New England - New York Sweden (or Denmark or Norway). All of the above are large-scale and routine in Sweden, for example.
Final observation: The last time the NYT used the phrase "heat pump" was in 1955 in an article that told readers that New England was going to become the heat-pump-user center of the USA! My botanist daughter tells me that Ground Source Geothermal Heat Pump system was present long ago at the Kellog Center west of New Haven. What happened?
So each of you 80 percenters, time to act.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
So 80% want to end coal burning. This could have been done decades ago and could be done now by doing the following at every level:
Use solid waste - that fraction left after recycling gets rid of high % of plastic - as fuel as a natural resource.
Convert biowastes to biogas.
Use the full-range of heat pump technologies
In other words, make New England - New York Sweden (or Denmark or Norway). All of the above are large-scale and routine in Sweden, for example.
Final observation: The last time the NYT used the phrase "heat pump" was in 1955 in an article that told readers that New England was going to become the heat-pump-user center of the USA! My botanist daughter tells me that Ground Source Geothermal Heat Pump system was present long ago at the Kellog Center west of New Haven. What happened?
So each of you 80 percenters, time to act.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
6
@ myself LL - but backup reply to jljarvis just below me - 13 h apart!
jl is a perfect sample of the people I would like to hear from, someone who is well informed, probably concerned with climate change, and therefore a person whom one might expect to act, particularly as concerns home heating and cooling.
I file this after filing a reply directly to jljarvis and file this as a backup. jl is a perfect candidate with that Burlington VT address, home of Bernie Sanders, the Senate's expert on Ground Source Geothermal Heat Pump technology, a renewable energy system never mentioned in the Times except in my countless comments.
jl is a perfect sample of the people I would like to hear from, someone who is well informed, probably concerned with climate change, and therefore a person whom one might expect to act, particularly as concerns home heating and cooling.
I file this after filing a reply directly to jljarvis and file this as a backup. jl is a perfect candidate with that Burlington VT address, home of Bernie Sanders, the Senate's expert on Ground Source Geothermal Heat Pump technology, a renewable energy system never mentioned in the Times except in my countless comments.
5
So, global warming will hurt people in the United States but not me. OK.
4
Ski country (the Rockies, Sierras & Cascades) may not be as "concerned" as you would think (not this winter anyway), but at least they talk about climate change more in those locales (I'm in Western Montana).
2
Would that this article had pointed out that per KW/H generated, coal and natural gas both produce the same CO2. And so do wood pellets or chips, where they're used. What is different are the SOx and NOx and particulates.
The reality is that natural gas is the cleanest fuel available, and the easiest for generating plants to use.
But that detail aside, the head-in-the-sand posture of our president defies logic, and typifies his ignorance on this, and so many other issues.
Sea level rise, while slight on the atlantic coast thus far, is a very real risk.
So is the continual sluicing down and sinking of coastal muck...much of which lies under Mar-a-Lago.
One can only hope that the 48% who didn't vote in 2016 get their heads out of the sand and actively participate in the 2018 mid-terms, and 2020. The present administration is careening from one ignorant and disastrous position to another. It needs to be brought to a swift end. Fix Congress first...that's the real problem. Then dump Trump.
The reality is that natural gas is the cleanest fuel available, and the easiest for generating plants to use.
But that detail aside, the head-in-the-sand posture of our president defies logic, and typifies his ignorance on this, and so many other issues.
Sea level rise, while slight on the atlantic coast thus far, is a very real risk.
So is the continual sluicing down and sinking of coastal muck...much of which lies under Mar-a-Lago.
One can only hope that the 48% who didn't vote in 2016 get their heads out of the sand and actively participate in the 2018 mid-terms, and 2020. The present administration is careening from one ignorant and disastrous position to another. It needs to be brought to a swift end. Fix Congress first...that's the real problem. Then dump Trump.
24
@ jljarvis Burlington VT - you were in print 13 h ago and now at 10:12 EDT my comment is the first to follow yours. The juxtaposition is remarkable. Take a look at my ikon. and then I would appreciate it if you could read my comment and even reply, preferably via Email (Gmail address at blog below). Why?
My comment is directed at you (as one of the 80%) even though it was written before I read your full comment. I had read the first sentence and spent time looking for a Swedish source that challenges your assertion about NG but have not yet been able to find it.
As I remember it, a Swedish study found that as a renewable energy fuel, solid waste from high-level recycling operations (Linköping SE for example) where much of the plastic (produced from petroleum) is recycled is better than natural gas. Too complex to discuss here. So several questions to you.
1) How do you heat and cool your home?
2) Have you expressed concern about natural gas pipeline emplacement, the long lines of tankers down at Burlington Harbor, and maybe solar emplacements or wind turbines.
3) Did you know that Bernie Sanders held a full-day symposium in 2013 on Geothermal Heat Pumps (see my comment)?
That is enough. My home here is heated by fjärrvärme hot water (see latest blog post), my neighbors by Ground Source (also blog), and in Göteborg my other home by air-air heat pump.
Hope you can reply
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Visit our bench on Mt. Philo!
My comment is directed at you (as one of the 80%) even though it was written before I read your full comment. I had read the first sentence and spent time looking for a Swedish source that challenges your assertion about NG but have not yet been able to find it.
As I remember it, a Swedish study found that as a renewable energy fuel, solid waste from high-level recycling operations (Linköping SE for example) where much of the plastic (produced from petroleum) is recycled is better than natural gas. Too complex to discuss here. So several questions to you.
1) How do you heat and cool your home?
2) Have you expressed concern about natural gas pipeline emplacement, the long lines of tankers down at Burlington Harbor, and maybe solar emplacements or wind turbines.
3) Did you know that Bernie Sanders held a full-day symposium in 2013 on Geothermal Heat Pumps (see my comment)?
That is enough. My home here is heated by fjärrvärme hot water (see latest blog post), my neighbors by Ground Source (also blog), and in Göteborg my other home by air-air heat pump.
Hope you can reply
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Visit our bench on Mt. Philo!
4
IMHO, Americans are mostly content with heads in the sand, until the personal experience of local tornado or hurricane dislodges this perspective. Even then. After all, if I'm reading this article from the comfort of my perch, it hasn't happened to me as yet. A few more climate extremes each successive year may possibly tip opinion, but as long as I can escape via 4K reality and the wall socket is still feeding my reverie, why worry?
3
But tornadoes are caused by an angry God, not climate change. Not just head-in-the sand... sometimes head in non-science books...
6
I'm tired of attacks on climate scientists, and claims that there is a conspiracy to lie about climate change. I would like to see a survey that asks "Do you think climate scientists are mostly doing their best to understand climate?"
10
How do you argue with politicians who live on 'alternative facts'?! You don't! Just go to the ballot box and vote these 'alternative minded politicians' out of office! There are quite a few!
13
Hard to imagine that the 48% of eligible voters who sat home on election day can be moved to swing by the ballot box anytime soon.
6
Exactly
3
Americans, clearly, don't "think" about climate change or, it would seem, about anything of substance.
18
Other than a coal executive, who wouldn't support co2 limits on power plants? It's like asking if you support puppies. The cost of answering yes is zero. To remove the politics and get an idea where America really stands on the issue you need to ask what the respondents are willing to pay for limits on power plants and other environmental measures. Would you pay 25% more for your electricity if it would reduce co2 levels by 10%? Would you pay 2x the price of gasoline if it would slow the increase in atmospheric co2 by 7%? Etc. Not only would that give a more accurate picture of where Americans stand on the issue, it would provide lawmakers with a convenient consumer surplus benchmark for purposes of establishing a carbon tax. You'd also find that people with more disposable income who are less sensitive to energy cost increases - read: urban elites - will tolerate much higher increases in energy costs merely because they can.
6
I don't know if it's denial or hope, but I admit that coming to terms with the fact that New Orleans will be almost entirely submerged within 30 years, no matter what efforts are made, is almost impossible to wrap my head around. Please don't characterize people who will have to deal with this tragedy as stupid. If you haven't already done so, imagine how you would react if you had to face the inevitable destruction of your own most loved city and the chaos that follows.
2
Eli: Not to worry, the Dutch have shown the way with their giant seawalls that reclaimed thousands of acres for habitation. The same can be done in New Orleans and environs. However, 30 years is too short a time for such to happen. Try 130 years.
1
Massive ignorance and denial on display. See the second illustration with two maps side by side: "Most people think that climate change will harm Americans, but they don't think it will happen to them."
That is so insane that I'd laugh but it hurts too much. Only a very, very few places get that climate change will harm them personally. The entire rest of the United States (60% and up) think they will not be harmed. Just a stunning display of non-think. And an illustration of what Henry Ford is reputed to have said: "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is why so few people engage in it." We sure aren't.
Climate change is here, no doubt. The real argument is: do humans and their activities matter? Are they REALLY the MAJOR cause or could it be another of nature's cycles which humankind has endured for millennia? To which we may make a contribution. Can we, and if we change, will it be enough to make a difference? Will we? I'm a doubter.
I remember when the articles were screaming about "Global Cooling" in the 1950's. The 49/50 winter was brutal. I was delivering 150 papers through four-foot snow drifts in Bellingham, Washington.
Wisdomlost, Texas, has it right in his second paragraph, in fact, throughout his post. Also, our country has more forests now than when we arrived from Europe. They soak up massive amounts of CO2 and emit-----O2, which you and I breathe. Maybe we should all die to save the planet? (sick joke)
That is so insane that I'd laugh but it hurts too much. Only a very, very few places get that climate change will harm them personally. The entire rest of the United States (60% and up) think they will not be harmed. Just a stunning display of non-think. And an illustration of what Henry Ford is reputed to have said: "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is why so few people engage in it." We sure aren't.
Climate change is here, no doubt. The real argument is: do humans and their activities matter? Are they REALLY the MAJOR cause or could it be another of nature's cycles which humankind has endured for millennia? To which we may make a contribution. Can we, and if we change, will it be enough to make a difference? Will we? I'm a doubter.
I remember when the articles were screaming about "Global Cooling" in the 1950's. The 49/50 winter was brutal. I was delivering 150 papers through four-foot snow drifts in Bellingham, Washington.
Wisdomlost, Texas, has it right in his second paragraph, in fact, throughout his post. Also, our country has more forests now than when we arrived from Europe. They soak up massive amounts of CO2 and emit-----O2, which you and I breathe. Maybe we should all die to save the planet? (sick joke)
1
"... our country has more forests now than when we arrived from Europe."
Where in the world did you get that idea? Even if it were true, which I sincerely doubt, the worldwide trend has been major deforestation.
Where in the world did you get that idea? Even if it were true, which I sincerely doubt, the worldwide trend has been major deforestation.
6
Robert---you are right and I am wrong. The actual fact is that the cover is now 70% of what was here since 1630. However, the composition has vastly changed. The forests that are managed are mostly "new" and new forest suck up much more CO2 and release vast quantities of O2. Old forests do less of both because they are no longer growing. Thank you for the challenge, it caused me to check my facts.
https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/ForestFactsMetric.pdf
https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/ForestFactsMetric.pdf
It'd be interesting to repeat this research in other countries. In Australia, our conservative coalition government believes in clean coal. The rest of us call them the COALition. Meanwhile, our farmers know the real score. Americans talking about climate change seem to live in the drier states.
1
Pretty dam' hot in Australia this year. You have my sympathy. Not to mention the recent floods, which resemble California.
1
Polls aren't news. They're tools.
These polls are about how well the press and policy-makers have convinced people of their positions.
Why doesn't the mid-west talk about climate, when they are arguably the people closest to the actual climate? Because they have seen the ebb and flow of WEATHER cycles over decades, and understand that there is way too much alarmist news out there.
Why do people seem to think that CO2 is pollution? I don't know. That one escapes me. If CO2 is polution, then polar bears, koalas, pandas, and every endangered species should be wiped out to prevent them from polution the Earth with all that evil CO2 they breath out. Idiocy.
Why do people believe we should restrict CO2 from coal plants? Because they have been convinced that coal plants are bad, and by extension, anything from a coal plant is worse than your average polar bear. CO2=CO2, regardless of where it originates. CO2 from coal is no worse than any other. Yes, coal burns dirty, and has a lot of bad stuff in it, but that has nothing to do with restricting the CO2 from coal.
Disclaimer: I don't condone harming endangered species, even if they are contributing to global warming/climate-change/weather. Just hug a tree. It's actually doing the job of removing all that CO2 polution those endangered species are spewing.
These polls are about how well the press and policy-makers have convinced people of their positions.
Why doesn't the mid-west talk about climate, when they are arguably the people closest to the actual climate? Because they have seen the ebb and flow of WEATHER cycles over decades, and understand that there is way too much alarmist news out there.
Why do people seem to think that CO2 is pollution? I don't know. That one escapes me. If CO2 is polution, then polar bears, koalas, pandas, and every endangered species should be wiped out to prevent them from polution the Earth with all that evil CO2 they breath out. Idiocy.
Why do people believe we should restrict CO2 from coal plants? Because they have been convinced that coal plants are bad, and by extension, anything from a coal plant is worse than your average polar bear. CO2=CO2, regardless of where it originates. CO2 from coal is no worse than any other. Yes, coal burns dirty, and has a lot of bad stuff in it, but that has nothing to do with restricting the CO2 from coal.
Disclaimer: I don't condone harming endangered species, even if they are contributing to global warming/climate-change/weather. Just hug a tree. It's actually doing the job of removing all that CO2 polution those endangered species are spewing.
3
The writer has probably not completed a high school chemistry class. Yes CO2 = CO2, but the amount of energy from combusting fuels (and thus producing CO2) varies widely from fuel to fuel. With coal, we get, by far, the least amount of energy per CO2 formed. Quite simple, and not a result of any poll.
Please do your homework.
Please do your homework.
The depth and breadth of ignorance displayed in Wisdomlost's post is utterly astounding. Complete lack of understanding of the difference between weather and climate. Sheer ignorance of the huge amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by human use of fossil fuels, and the effect it has on climate. Pointing out that CO2 from an animal breathing is the same as CO2 from a coal plant entirely misses the point. Trees and other flora might be able to keep up with the CO2 from animals, but not the release of carbon into the atmosphere by human use of fossil fuels. Saying that they are no different, that's idiocy.
12
You don't understand how carbon works. We consider carbon dioxide a pollutant when it reaches dangerous or unnatural levels in the environment. Polar bears are part of the carbon cycle. They exhale carbon dioxide but they don't add new carbon to the environment; the carbon merely cycles through them the way water does in the water cycle.
Burning fossil fuels adds carbon from below the ground to the environment and increases the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. As any substance, including water, can be a poison if too much is ingested, any substance can become a pollutant.
I suppose, if you take the broadest view possible, carbon is only a pollutant from the point of view of organisms living on Earth. Some life will thrive in the presence of more carbon. Eventually, though, if too many greenhouse gases are added, the Earth would resemble hothouse planet Venus--not conducive to life. Is Venus polluted? No. It's all a matter of perspective, but I would prefer to live on an Earth-like planet with liquid water. I'm not saying Venus-like warming would ever happen to our planet merely by burning fossil fuels; I'm just using it as a thought experiment.
Burning fossil fuels adds carbon from below the ground to the environment and increases the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. As any substance, including water, can be a poison if too much is ingested, any substance can become a pollutant.
I suppose, if you take the broadest view possible, carbon is only a pollutant from the point of view of organisms living on Earth. Some life will thrive in the presence of more carbon. Eventually, though, if too many greenhouse gases are added, the Earth would resemble hothouse planet Venus--not conducive to life. Is Venus polluted? No. It's all a matter of perspective, but I would prefer to live on an Earth-like planet with liquid water. I'm not saying Venus-like warming would ever happen to our planet merely by burning fossil fuels; I'm just using it as a thought experiment.
7
I'm guessing significantly more people would have said yes if the question about personal impact had been "Climate change will affect my generation's grandchildren" instead of "me personally,"
7
I wish the survey had asked how people expect that climate change will affect their grandchildren.
12
I don't think Trump cares what people think. We voted for him to stop this GW madness. No amount of headlines is going to change the stance or the rollback of the rules and regulations put in place by Obama.
Which will bring back pollution of air, water and land - yet no jobs!
Good job genius.
Good job genius.
4
"problem of risk perception ... not highly motivated to act against slow-moving and somewhat abstract problems" Hence why so many live near active volcanoes! Flood prone valleys and streams, avalanches, tornado allies, tsunami beachfront properties, high rises on earthquake faults, etc. Global warming "seems" so distant and less harmful, compared to the risks we are already accepting to live over sink holes.
At least the solution is to move somewhere else. Under global warming, though, the effects will be massive - even global - where do we move to then?
At least the solution is to move somewhere else. Under global warming, though, the effects will be massive - even global - where do we move to then?
One can believe that climate change is occurring and that it is caused by humans AND that it will eventually cause great problems I. This country say in the next 35-50 years but still believe that in their life time, where they live, they will suffer no consequences. There in NOTHING inconsistent with these views or which misunderstands the risks which scientists say we gave.
Except for one simple problem. It is already affecting our food supply, our weather, and our power supply. Ignorance is not bliss, and waiting for the evidence to reach your dooryard is unwise and dangerous.
17
Global-out-of-control-population-growth is the greater threat to humanity. It's an unrestrained ponzi scheme that's going to negatively harm the climate far more than the worry of carbon emissions.
But it's more pc to sanctimoniously blame the West for global warming than it would be to apply similar scrutiny to third-world population growth problems.
But it's more pc to sanctimoniously blame the West for global warming than it would be to apply similar scrutiny to third-world population growth problems.
7
I agree, Michael. Look at what Melinda Gates is doing to get birth control to women in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, the areas of greatest population growth. The women want it, but because of tribal religions, many can't get it. That's why they opt for injectable birth control that lasts 3-4 months, so their husbands don't find out. I think people in the West won't talk about overpopulation because they can't see a world view.
6
People in the West talk about consumption because they consume up to 100x more energy than someone in Africa.
4
Yes, Michael, that out-of-control population growth is the root cause because they mostly all have cell phones, etc., and see our lifestyle and want it for themselves. So, until we agree to share more of our wealth (See Piketty on wealth inequality in the world) while they have fewer children, we are in for a Rough Ride. The EU's native Caucasian population is already imploding and were it not for immigration they would be facing the Japanese problem that is closing dozens of schools every year because children are not being born and they allow virtually zero immigration.
The Caucasian populations in general are not replacing themselves and it is only immigration that is hiding that fact. Russia in general and most especially the Eastern part, is losing Caucasian population which is being replaced by Asians of various extraction. China has abandoned its one-child policy, India and Africa are fecund beyond need, as is Central and South America. So, we can quit blaming the West for everything about GW.
I'm sure someone will point out that we use more energy but the wood fires world wide contribute, too. And China's smogs are indicators of their contributions. I doubt mankind is going to change very much.
When the polar caps are gone, maybe the earth, like Mercury, will flip on its axis and start things all over again. Ponder that.
The Caucasian populations in general are not replacing themselves and it is only immigration that is hiding that fact. Russia in general and most especially the Eastern part, is losing Caucasian population which is being replaced by Asians of various extraction. China has abandoned its one-child policy, India and Africa are fecund beyond need, as is Central and South America. So, we can quit blaming the West for everything about GW.
I'm sure someone will point out that we use more energy but the wood fires world wide contribute, too. And China's smogs are indicators of their contributions. I doubt mankind is going to change very much.
When the polar caps are gone, maybe the earth, like Mercury, will flip on its axis and start things all over again. Ponder that.
We're still in the "Trump Zone" as far as public opinion goes on this matter. Wait for the truth to come out as to just how dysfunctional Trumpism is and has been to date. I wouldn't give "analysis" a blip of credence until the truth of just who-what-why the Donald is until the dust settles.
Too soon to considered this settled business.
Do due diligence, oh members of the fourth estate. Don't get lazy. Do what Bob and Carl did. Dig, dig, dig, and then dig some more.
Too soon to considered this settled business.
Do due diligence, oh members of the fourth estate. Don't get lazy. Do what Bob and Carl did. Dig, dig, dig, and then dig some more.
4
The dates of the surveys range from 2008 to 2016, correct? I don't think this is related to your so called "trump zone"!
Not everything is due to the president...it may simple be that people aren't all that convinced of the dire danger predicted. As other comments mention, pop growth is much more likely to doom us. If the robots don't do us in first. :)
Not everything is due to the president...it may simple be that people aren't all that convinced of the dire danger predicted. As other comments mention, pop growth is much more likely to doom us. If the robots don't do us in first. :)
If many see GW as a reality, then why did some vote for Trump who sees GW as a fantasy?
1
Lots of germans voted for Adolf Hitler in 1933. So what could
be your point here? Some people can always be fooled but
not everyone is a fool.
be your point here? Some people can always be fooled but
not everyone is a fool.
3
To some climate change is a clear and present apocalyptic event; to others it is a concern that can be addressed in the distant future!
The battle is between science and political doubt; scientific fact versus non-scientific empiricism. Record Snow fall and record frigid cold temperatures are the empiric facts the doubters use. Beneath these observations, science shows the winter season, because of man made accererated climate change, become harsher but shorter; summers longer and harsher in forms of wildfires, drought and coastal flooding. Scientists argue against a non-science based industry that creates doubt and uses sophistry, obfuscations and prevarications to cloud the scientific fact of global warming and its effects. To individuals, regardless of political affiliations, it is humans versus nature; a right to feed one's family by any means. America was founded and settled on the primary belief that our resources are infinite and individuals must provide for their needs presently; and that the needs of the earth are secondary. Global warming is seen as a future threat; but by then many believe the issue will be resolved or slowed down for future generations to resolve!
The battle is between science and political doubt; scientific fact versus non-scientific empiricism. Record Snow fall and record frigid cold temperatures are the empiric facts the doubters use. Beneath these observations, science shows the winter season, because of man made accererated climate change, become harsher but shorter; summers longer and harsher in forms of wildfires, drought and coastal flooding. Scientists argue against a non-science based industry that creates doubt and uses sophistry, obfuscations and prevarications to cloud the scientific fact of global warming and its effects. To individuals, regardless of political affiliations, it is humans versus nature; a right to feed one's family by any means. America was founded and settled on the primary belief that our resources are infinite and individuals must provide for their needs presently; and that the needs of the earth are secondary. Global warming is seen as a future threat; but by then many believe the issue will be resolved or slowed down for future generations to resolve!
1
It is a standard tactic of fake skeptics to insist that it is either apocalypse or no problem.
Ordinary scientists, observant people, and those on the front lines (the military, insurance) see problems and threat multipliers, and are eager to alleviate the damage and mitigate the cause.
By the way, I am a Sandy survivor. Nothing unreal about that! Missouri floods, plains wildfires, food source problems, mideast unrest, California drought and floods, Arctic melt, those are all real. And as to sea level rise, I have three decades of pictures, believe me that's real.
Ordinary scientists, observant people, and those on the front lines (the military, insurance) see problems and threat multipliers, and are eager to alleviate the damage and mitigate the cause.
By the way, I am a Sandy survivor. Nothing unreal about that! Missouri floods, plains wildfires, food source problems, mideast unrest, California drought and floods, Arctic melt, those are all real. And as to sea level rise, I have three decades of pictures, believe me that's real.
4
Great presentation. More please!..........including a map of projected world wide impact, and degree of impact.
3
It may not harm us in obvious ways, but clearly it will in less obvious ones:
Certain lands have and will continue to disappear below rising sea levels, forcing some populations to relocate elsewhere (i.e., the island of Vanautu).
Melting glaciers will effect Artic wildlife (i.e. Polar bears)
Bird migration patterns have already begun to change, which in turn has an effect on plant life in the areas where different birds live during various times of the year.
Hotter and longer summers affect native plant life, and also result in longer, more intense sprints of air-conditioning use.
All of this has many unconsidered domino effects....
Certain lands have and will continue to disappear below rising sea levels, forcing some populations to relocate elsewhere (i.e., the island of Vanautu).
Melting glaciers will effect Artic wildlife (i.e. Polar bears)
Bird migration patterns have already begun to change, which in turn has an effect on plant life in the areas where different birds live during various times of the year.
Hotter and longer summers affect native plant life, and also result in longer, more intense sprints of air-conditioning use.
All of this has many unconsidered domino effects....
4
You conflate climate change and global warming. Global warming is one aspect of climate change. Climate change is broader. Using the phrase 'climate change' enables conversation about extreme and volatile weather patterns. The phrase 'climate change' also enables rational discussion about why not all places on earth are warming at the same pace, or with the same consequences. Please, dear editors, do make sure your headline writers and the authors of your articles practice the rigor of using the phrase that best corresponds to the data and analysis provided.
You realize the term "climate change" was coined by Republican Frank Luntz to keep the sheep in the Republican party from accepting that global warming is occurring?
1
Heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions are accumulating in our atmosphere, increasing the energy (heat) in the system (global warming) which is resulting in a disrupted planetary circulation (climate change).
We have to use language, and both these terms are approximations. That said, Miz is correct about Luntz's diversionary tactics. Interestingly, Luntz now agrees that climate change/global warming are real.
We have to use language, and both these terms are approximations. That said, Miz is correct about Luntz's diversionary tactics. Interestingly, Luntz now agrees that climate change/global warming are real.
5
One thing I noticed is how unconcerned Utah is. I grew up in a religion (not Mormonism) that taught the world will end as we know it during our lifetime. So far Armageddon is 40 years overdue, but they still teach this. So....why worry when god will take care of things before it's too late. Sad.
4
It has already affected us here in the suburbs of New York: this year, the back yard ice rink produced a total of two days and one morning of skate-able ice. Depressing. The neighbors like the optimism of continuing to build it every year with diminishing returns. But that's really all it is ... an expression of hope and optimism. Will it be an empty one? Or can we bring hockey, and the planet, back?
1
Like many people posting her, you are describing weather, not climate.
3
Yeah, 30 years ago, we made a snowman in our front yard, with all the snow in the yard. It was 16 inches tall! It didn't melt for 2 weeks!
Now, we don't even get enough for a snowball.
Of course, we typically never get much snow, and I can only remember having snow accumulate twice in my life.
Local isn't global. A warm day doesn't mean the world is catching fire. I kinda remember major winter storms in the NE area the last few years. Was that global cooling, or just a few cold days?
Now, we don't even get enough for a snowball.
Of course, we typically never get much snow, and I can only remember having snow accumulate twice in my life.
Local isn't global. A warm day doesn't mean the world is catching fire. I kinda remember major winter storms in the NE area the last few years. Was that global cooling, or just a few cold days?
And you're taking the comment out of context. It's not just weather when you consider the trend over many years, and Marko Maglich's post referred to the "diminishing returns" over time. The lack of cold weather this winter was merely the most recent in a warming trend over many years.
There is a clear agreement among climate scientists that even the worst potential consequences of climate change will result in either no change, or positive results for people in certain areas of the country. Those along the coast have reason to be more concerned, but the Ohio and Tennessee valleys will tend to see warmer winters with similar summers. Sell those coastal properties while they still have value and buy in the less or un-affected areas. You'll get far more for your money in Louisville than Miami anyway.
This is just plain not true.
Flat statements are not evidence.
Flat statements are not evidence.
7
For thousands of years, human population remained fairly steady at under 1 billion. Since the Industrial Revolution, malaria drugs and sanitation, we've seen population rise to over 7 billion. You can say fluctuations in climate are normal, but when one, very large species destroys the others (1/5 of all animals are now on the brink of extinction and the oceans will be barren by 2050 because of overfishing and pollution), through destruction of animal habitat, that is NOT normal. The culling of the human herd will happen, and it won't be pretty. Wouldn't birth control be a kinder option?
3
The funny thing is, Global Warming is already affecting people personally. Have you seen the price of protein lately? How's about the cost of an ear of corn? That is just the little stuff. Notice how the areas who don't believe Global Warming will affect them are the ones going to run out of water first. (The Olalla ground water basin is almost gone but that is a slightly different issue. However, the hotter is is, the more water gets used.) Global Warming is now on a runaway feedback loop. It isn't slowing it now that should concern people, it is surviving it.
2
There is a map error in the map titled "Global warming will harm people in the United States". The white state boundary lines are offset to the north several degrees.
Interesting hypocrisy in these comments. The NYT and Leftists seem to be concerned a changing climate, and how that affects species' populations. However this is selective concern. While I see tears for the polar bears, I see none for the deer ticks. Why are Leftists only concerned with the health of certain species? Do only mammals matter? Why should we not be rejoicing in the success of insects with these changes? This is my main issue with "climate change." Who/what is it hurting, and how much would we have to hurt ourselves in order to affect how much change?
1
turn up the thermostat in your house by 10-20 degrees and leave it untouched for a full year, THEN tell me you aren't convinced that the changes will harm you.
1
This looks like a Civil War map -- only this time the division is between the East and the West.
I am very afraid of the imminent destruction which global warming will bring. The flooding, the inability of our country to provide its survivors with food and other necessities imperative for survival. And then I judge climate-deniers who ignore all scientific data, yet happily check the daily weather forecast. But, yes, there is a disconnect in all of us.
1
This just struck me as part of the larger problem with our politics. It has an oblique connection to the ignorance in our adult population.
“like the Tea Party — can shape politicians’ approaches to issues like climate change. “Those are the ones who can take you out at the next primary,” he said. He lost his primary in 2010 to Trey Gowdy, a Tea Party candidate who attacked his climate views.”
If that is what your concern is you should not be in office anyway. The concern should be for what is best period. If you can’t convince your people of the truth you have bigger problems in your district than global warming, you have massive ignorance in people whom one can assume at least did 6 grades of education and should not be that ignorant.
If the GOP gerrymandering were countered this sort of thing would not be a danger that would ever come up as there are not enough of them or concentrations of them to honestly elect enough people to wield the power they do. They are only able to use the threat of “primary” because of gerrymandering. Naturally there would be a very limited number of honestly drawn districts where they would have that ability.
Coastal or inland, from flood to drought to wild weather it will affect us all everywhere.
“like the Tea Party — can shape politicians’ approaches to issues like climate change. “Those are the ones who can take you out at the next primary,” he said. He lost his primary in 2010 to Trey Gowdy, a Tea Party candidate who attacked his climate views.”
If that is what your concern is you should not be in office anyway. The concern should be for what is best period. If you can’t convince your people of the truth you have bigger problems in your district than global warming, you have massive ignorance in people whom one can assume at least did 6 grades of education and should not be that ignorant.
If the GOP gerrymandering were countered this sort of thing would not be a danger that would ever come up as there are not enough of them or concentrations of them to honestly elect enough people to wield the power they do. They are only able to use the threat of “primary” because of gerrymandering. Naturally there would be a very limited number of honestly drawn districts where they would have that ability.
Coastal or inland, from flood to drought to wild weather it will affect us all everywhere.
2
And the Republicans were able to gerrymander because Democrats don't vote. If we don't vote we end up with Trump et al. Period. And, while we're all out there marching and "resisting" today, in the most recent elections--Democrats, once again didn't show. If people don't vote, you end up with Trey Gowdy and the rest of the bully party.
1
Miz,
If that were true the GOP would not have to gerrymander. Check out David Daley's book on the issue. They did it by conspiracy and secrecy not by DEM's not paying attention.
If that were true the GOP would not have to gerrymander. Check out David Daley's book on the issue. They did it by conspiracy and secrecy not by DEM's not paying attention.
None of this has seemed to slow down waterfront development or the purchase of beach side palaces. Nor has the driving of personal vehicles slowed. There is no voice of those who would like to see more public transportation or safe bicycle lanes/paths. Alternative energy is an afterthought. Too many people. For every person who comes into the country they eventually consume 10 times the amount of energy than that of someone in Africa or other poor countries. Think about this factoid if you're all so pro-immigrant. Pound for pound, Americans destroy the climate more than any other nation. Inviting millions more is not prudent. Plus we do have a water shortage in many parts of the country. Or jobs, or housing or .....
2
Americans' ignorance of climate change isn't helped by local TV meteorologists who urge us to "enjoy the beautiful weather!" when we've had no rain for six weeks and temperatures 10-15 degrees above normal. I'm not asking them to forecast doom and gloom, but a segment every so often on why only 5 days of cold weather and an inch of rain every three months is not a good trend in most places.
5
First the news media and our educational institutions by political indoctrination saturates the minds of the masses for over two decades that the earth is warming and that a primary cause is human consumption of fossil fuels. And the social activists masquerading as "climate scientists" say "pay no attention to that glowing ball in the sky". You know, in Wizard of Oz-speak.
And then you take a poll. Glorious.
Dear New York Times, contrary to the social activists masquerading as "climate scientists", it is the sun, the whole sun, and nothing but the sun that determines the earth's solar powered weather and eventual long-term weather dubbed "climate". Anyone who "believes" otherwise is merely following a religion and not scientific fact.
And then you take a poll. Glorious.
Dear New York Times, contrary to the social activists masquerading as "climate scientists", it is the sun, the whole sun, and nothing but the sun that determines the earth's solar powered weather and eventual long-term weather dubbed "climate". Anyone who "believes" otherwise is merely following a religion and not scientific fact.
2
And I am not an AGW climate change "denier". I am a climate change "truther".
So how do you like them apples??
So how do you like them apples??
2
God I hope people like you are affected directly by climate change. Really affected. Then come back with your glib non scientific bologna and tell us your sad story.
2
@ Miz
So I guess you want your climate gods to smite poor ole' norcalguy?
So I guess you want your climate gods to smite poor ole' norcalguy?
The strong beliefs of climate deniers constitute a seemingly insurmountable obstacle in the push for clean-air regulation.
However, the strong beliefs of climate deniers also identify them as willing investors in an investment company (mutual fund) that makes big bets counter to the prevailing wisdom. For example, climate deniers should be willing to pay more for low-lying properties adjacent to the ocean than everybody else.
If convenient investment vehicles of that nature were offered to climate deniers, and they put their money where their mouths are, then their politics would immediately change.
Those investments would align their personal financial interests with a stable-improving environment. They would worry about "their" land being underwater and "their" air being fouled.
Current opinions are not etched in stone. If people don't have a compelling reason to become informed, they don't. Really all we know is that climate change will happen "one of these days" and will happen "somewhere." That is simply too vague to incentivize many people to incur costs or endure lifestyle changes.
By giving climate deniers the opportunity to benefit financially when their logic is proved right, a mutual fund developed for them would also involve them negatively if air quality worsens and ocean levels rise. Specific personal involvement in the issue would transform their ephemeral and uninformed notions about the environment into thoughtful consideration of profit and loss.
However, the strong beliefs of climate deniers also identify them as willing investors in an investment company (mutual fund) that makes big bets counter to the prevailing wisdom. For example, climate deniers should be willing to pay more for low-lying properties adjacent to the ocean than everybody else.
If convenient investment vehicles of that nature were offered to climate deniers, and they put their money where their mouths are, then their politics would immediately change.
Those investments would align their personal financial interests with a stable-improving environment. They would worry about "their" land being underwater and "their" air being fouled.
Current opinions are not etched in stone. If people don't have a compelling reason to become informed, they don't. Really all we know is that climate change will happen "one of these days" and will happen "somewhere." That is simply too vague to incentivize many people to incur costs or endure lifestyle changes.
By giving climate deniers the opportunity to benefit financially when their logic is proved right, a mutual fund developed for them would also involve them negatively if air quality worsens and ocean levels rise. Specific personal involvement in the issue would transform their ephemeral and uninformed notions about the environment into thoughtful consideration of profit and loss.
1
Unless 1 is blind,deaf and dumb climate change,i.e.,adverse one is real, clear and pres danger.Folks there know the weird way the Clim swung between drought and flooding in CA and elsewhere.In 2011 in Somalia next door from here Ethiopia, about a Mill died of famine and the drought +the famine ( not necessarily a corollary to drought, a dysfunctional state let alone a failed one, makes it so).U c drought, if the World's climate weren't screwed up by human folly should have occurred in a 10 yrs cycle.Just Mr Trump+ his extremist misguided backers, just to erase anything the O.s and Clints advocate, chose 2 deny it it doesn't mean it won't exist.Every morning I brew 1 of the most exquisite Ethiopian coffee then I leave the residue out in a dish bowl with a couple of glasses of water to wash it later.When I get back few hours later the water have evaporated and the residue is baked partitioned by cracks.In the past not even 1/2 of the H2O evaporates, all these in a Tropical land.TMD.
These maps make it super easy to pick out where Douglas County, KS is. The one sane county in Brownbackistan.
Thank you for this. How disheartening to see how few people think climate change will affect them. I wonder if this has to do with the perception of weather vs. climate change. One we tend to try to adjust to; the other has worldwide implications that are difficult to predict and to grasp as they are not immediately at hand.
I hope with this information available to the media that news coverage can be more tailored to addressing that issue.
I hope with this information available to the media that news coverage can be more tailored to addressing that issue.
1
There is much more to environmental issues than just climate change, and we are fooling ourselves if we reduce environmental issues to “global warming”. I think it’s confusing to generalize around an “unseeable bad thing” so instead why not examine this holistically? Nikolas Kristoff wrote here 2 weeks ago about endorphin inhibitors getting into the environment and affecting human fertility. Last week the BBC ran a story showing plastic getting into the food chain. And we know that rates of colon cancer are on the rise in younger than expected people. We know that there are general ‘problems with the environment’ but how will we address the problems unless they are also discussed?
I think it’s important to look at ALL of this from an economic standpoint. How is money going to be spent? Do fossil fuel projects really need taxpayer funded incentives? Is cutting the EPA going to lead to losses in the form of more health care demands because chemicals & plastic in our food were ignored? What about lawsuits down the road? Etc.
I think it’s important to look at ALL of this from an economic standpoint. How is money going to be spent? Do fossil fuel projects really need taxpayer funded incentives? Is cutting the EPA going to lead to losses in the form of more health care demands because chemicals & plastic in our food were ignored? What about lawsuits down the road? Etc.
1
Virtually every scientist agrees that atmosphere CO2 has a warming effect in that it inhibits the radiation of energy in the IR range some what. This was established back in the 19 th century by Tyndall and Fourier.
Nowhere near 97 percent of scientists competent of understanding atmospheric and sea thermodynamics think that the Earth is going to become Venus next century.
At one time the Earth has an atmospheric concentration of CO2 of 6000 ppm, fifteen times the current concentration. Life on Earth flourished. Earth never became anything like Venus....
Nowhere near 97 percent of scientists competent of understanding atmospheric and sea thermodynamics think that the Earth is going to become Venus next century.
At one time the Earth has an atmospheric concentration of CO2 of 6000 ppm, fifteen times the current concentration. Life on Earth flourished. Earth never became anything like Venus....
1
Doesn't need to be Venus to be less viable for humans. Your evasion of the heart of the issue is telling.
2
97 percent of scientists do not think Earth is going to become Venus in the next century. It is bad science statements like this that make it so easy for the other side to say we don't have a problem.
We do have a problem and going to panic extremes is not going to solve it. We will need at least 50 years to completely transition away from combustion technologies. But even if by some miracle we solved the problem tomorrow it would take 100 years to get the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere back to 1950 levels. That is why we should really get serious now, and not procrastinate or rely on solar and wind generation. They simply will not do for industrial economies unless accompanied by large capacity energy storage technology which we currently do not have. We have fission technology and the latest designs are modular and use passive cooling so that we can avoid a Fukishima Dai Ich type misfortune. Go nuke. Steady power. No CO2.
I always love a geographical heat map. Geography can tell such complicated stories so simply. Even without reading the text, you can tell the United States suffers from an awareness gap when discussing climate change. Awareness doesn't align with literacy.
The gap narrows as you get closer to high risk areas. There are obviously other factors at work but watch the distance between the perception of climate change and the perception of personal harm. You don't need a scientist to tell you where climate change is having an impact.
Fortunately, the good doctors at Yale made their data publicly available. There's even a nice interactive graph on their website. I wish we could extend the survey globally though. I'd bet money the pattern isn't unique to the United States.
In which case, we really need to teach this stuff in schools. A simple conceptual outline followed by a documentary on the Little Ice Age should cover it. You can debate the cause however you want but the message is clear: Environmental concerns are global.
Your future kids. Tell your parents.
The gap narrows as you get closer to high risk areas. There are obviously other factors at work but watch the distance between the perception of climate change and the perception of personal harm. You don't need a scientist to tell you where climate change is having an impact.
Fortunately, the good doctors at Yale made their data publicly available. There's even a nice interactive graph on their website. I wish we could extend the survey globally though. I'd bet money the pattern isn't unique to the United States.
In which case, we really need to teach this stuff in schools. A simple conceptual outline followed by a documentary on the Little Ice Age should cover it. You can debate the cause however you want but the message is clear: Environmental concerns are global.
Your future kids. Tell your parents.
1
Teaching about climate change in school is a wonderful idea. Too bad so many Republican congressmen and women are dutifully requiring schools in their communities to RIP OUT PAGES CONCERNING GLOBAL WARMING in school textbooks. The Christian right in this country and their brethren in congress who care only about money and power don't seem to care that their grand children and descendants are inheriting a great big mess. If only the Inhoff family and their successive generations could be hit the hardest. Unfortunately, the richest among us have already begun making plans. I hate to wish ill on anyone but until the Republicans in this country begin to be affected they'll continue to do nothing or even worse. Climate should not be a political issue.
7
"Humans are hard-wired for quick fight-or-flight reactions in the face of an imminent threat, but not highly motivated to act against slow-moving and somewhat abstract problems, even if the challenges that they pose are ultimately dire." I've heard this many times, and it makes we wonder: Am I simply not wired correctly? Are other people normal, but not me? Why am I and many of my friends highly motivated to #ActonClimate?
Humans evolved to become the most dominant species because of our ability to reason and solve complex problems. I tend to think that this "genetically hard-wired" argument is a cop-out to excuse the influential fiction-makers who cling to immoral corporate profiteering or propagate an ideological certainty that our 20,000-year-old world has entered biblical end times.
We are excellent and highly adaptable learners. Our problem, particularly in the U.S., are the influential cultural teachers who cynically undermine our civilizational foundation built on fact-based reasoning and reality-based solutions. Don't blame it on our genes.
Humans evolved to become the most dominant species because of our ability to reason and solve complex problems. I tend to think that this "genetically hard-wired" argument is a cop-out to excuse the influential fiction-makers who cling to immoral corporate profiteering or propagate an ideological certainty that our 20,000-year-old world has entered biblical end times.
We are excellent and highly adaptable learners. Our problem, particularly in the U.S., are the influential cultural teachers who cynically undermine our civilizational foundation built on fact-based reasoning and reality-based solutions. Don't blame it on our genes.
7
Let's quit making excuses (assessing that kind of risk is "hard-wired" into our ability to assess risk), and call it what it is - a willful choice to ignore the impacts THAT ARE ALREADY OCCURRING (93% of great barrier reef bleaching - meaning it is in the process of dying). We are fully capable of assessing risk. We just don't want to. Some of us need to pull our heads out of the sand (or an orifice just below their waistline) and get real. Let's start by getting (back) political leaders who care and are willing to do something.
7
93% of the Great Barrier Reef is not bleaching. The Great Barrier Reef is very large. A part of it is severely affected to this degree. The rest of it is fine. Reefs go through life and death cycles. The Caribbean is full of dead reefs. Early settlements in the coastal Carolinas had houses with foundations made from towering reefs of dead coral, all now completely gone due to its exploitation for construction, to clear harbors and shipping lanes, and use as ballast. Climate as well warms and cools and always has. This alone will not make anyone move away from fossil fuels - although we should for reasons that go well beyond warming and cooling trends measurable now, but only measurable well, since 1959, and only computer-analyzed since the 80's.
You might like to move to a place with a coastline before claiming reef knowledge. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-23/great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching...
"The sea surface temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef were the hottest on record during February, March and April last year [2016]— a degree or more above the long-term monthly averages….While coral can recover from bleaching, the most conservative estimates said once in every five years was the most they can tolerate, while it was more widely accepted that most recoveries took 10 to 30 years."
We are now looking at annual heatwaves & bleaching events - it won't have time to recover. This year was the hottest since records began c1850s, all around Australia. We're used to heat here: 3 days then a cool change. This year it was never-ending heat, day & night.
"The sea surface temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef were the hottest on record during February, March and April last year [2016]— a degree or more above the long-term monthly averages….While coral can recover from bleaching, the most conservative estimates said once in every five years was the most they can tolerate, while it was more widely accepted that most recoveries took 10 to 30 years."
We are now looking at annual heatwaves & bleaching events - it won't have time to recover. This year was the hottest since records began c1850s, all around Australia. We're used to heat here: 3 days then a cool change. This year it was never-ending heat, day & night.
1
As a whole, Americans may not think climate change is a problem for them. But assuredly, it will be for their grandchildren, great grandchildren, and beyond.
5
It appears that their children and grandchildren will have a greener planet. The additional CO2 has resulted in a huge increase in vegetation, 25% - 50% worldwide. The climate apocalypse folk seem unaware of that fact, the climate scientists certainly did not predict that large increase.
1
sjaco, just where did you find this information? Can you provide the source of the evidence for your extremely questionable claim? Given the extreme pace of deforestation, I doubt the validity of your statement. Are you aware that CO2 in the UPPER atmosphere is a problem, and that plants on the ground have no access to that?
1
I am wondering what difference, if any, these maps would show if they polled only eligible voters. Given the current make-up of climate deniers or at least global warming conspiracy apologists in Congress and other government positions, I would think it would skew towards non-belief or non-affect of climate change. I think a study with this set of participants would more accurately illustrate where our country's policies are heading and more persuasively convince lawmakers of these valid concerns.
1
Many years ago, the remaining of a missing English boat crew were found dead frozen in the arctic. Post-mortems revealed lead poisoning.
Everybody back then "loved" conserve lead cans because their convenient non-rust characteristics was handy. That was all what sea men could eat at the time.
The difference today is that almost 100% of global warming experts are scientists while none are deniers. Still, idiocy is more convenient.
We'll never change. Denial is not a river in Africa.
Everybody back then "loved" conserve lead cans because their convenient non-rust characteristics was handy. That was all what sea men could eat at the time.
The difference today is that almost 100% of global warming experts are scientists while none are deniers. Still, idiocy is more convenient.
We'll never change. Denial is not a river in Africa.
2
Few of the scientists agree with the "progressive" climate apocalypse. Does that make them "deniers"?
1
sjaco, "climate apocalypse" accusations are a formulation of the fake skeptic denialosphere. Scientists are rational. False claims are not honest.
3
I'm glad NYtimes wrote this article, as it highlights a great study and data set. However, the article left out some pretty incredible and revealing trends in the perception of climate change throughout the country:
The American people agree that "global warming is happening" (an estimated 70% of the population). They even support strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fire powered plants (69%), and overwhelmingly support funding renewable energy research (82%). But America is apparently less certain about whether "global warming is mostly caused by human activities" (53%). Surprisingly, a relatively large fraction of people "trust climate scientists about global warming" (71%). Except, and here's the kicker: only 49% of Americans actually believe that "most scientists think global warming is happening."
Reality: 97% of actively publishing climate scientist agree global warming is happening AND is likely due to human activities. (NASA)
Takeaway: scientists need to do a much better job at communicating with the public.
The American people agree that "global warming is happening" (an estimated 70% of the population). They even support strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fire powered plants (69%), and overwhelmingly support funding renewable energy research (82%). But America is apparently less certain about whether "global warming is mostly caused by human activities" (53%). Surprisingly, a relatively large fraction of people "trust climate scientists about global warming" (71%). Except, and here's the kicker: only 49% of Americans actually believe that "most scientists think global warming is happening."
Reality: 97% of actively publishing climate scientist agree global warming is happening AND is likely due to human activities. (NASA)
Takeaway: scientists need to do a much better job at communicating with the public.
44
Takeaway, the best advertisers and advocates are bought and paid for. Scientists are doing their jobs and are not necessarily expert communicators.
The firepower of industrial strength attacks and climate science denial use every weapon. Blaming scientists is blaming the victims.
If you want to help, here:
https://climatesciencedefensefund.org/
and here (among many others working hard to find a way past the blunderbuss of political and industry driven take skepticism)
http://www.ucsusa.org/
"We aim to document the impact of political interference in science on public health and safety, and to enable others to see patterns in Trump administration and congressional behavior. We’ve already seen quite a few attempts by the administration and Congress to dismantle the processes by which we use science to inform policy decisions. Only in recent years have we seen an uptick in the number of anti-science bills in Congress and many of them now have a significant chance of passing. This new political context is why UCS is devoting more resources to tracking and publicizing these wide-ranging and sometimes unpredictable attacks."
The firepower of industrial strength attacks and climate science denial use every weapon. Blaming scientists is blaming the victims.
If you want to help, here:
https://climatesciencedefensefund.org/
and here (among many others working hard to find a way past the blunderbuss of political and industry driven take skepticism)
http://www.ucsusa.org/
"We aim to document the impact of political interference in science on public health and safety, and to enable others to see patterns in Trump administration and congressional behavior. We’ve already seen quite a few attempts by the administration and Congress to dismantle the processes by which we use science to inform policy decisions. Only in recent years have we seen an uptick in the number of anti-science bills in Congress and many of them now have a significant chance of passing. This new political context is why UCS is devoting more resources to tracking and publicizing these wide-ranging and sometimes unpredictable attacks."
2
Then there is the subset of scientists that believe in the climate apocalypse as espoused by "progressives" which is <<97%.
Scientists believe it is important to reduce fossil fuels for a number of reasons. Most of these have to do with air, soil, and water pollution, not global temperature. These are killing ecosystems and humans independent of temperature. It's why there's lead and carcinogens in every water supply in the nation. It's why the entire United States is ridden with Superfund sites that, thanks to a lack of funding of the EPA that pre-dates Trump and even Bush, will never, ever be cleaned up. These range from refinery sites in Jersey to old silver mines in the Sierras. Industrial agriculture is one of the biggest decimators of life on Earth. But because scientists also know it is impossible to motivate the under-educated American public to generate political will without a vivid scare tactic, they choose the precautionary principle and envision Florida underwater and the air conditioning failing a lot.
We can't prove anthropomorphic climate change - we have only had satellites since 1959 and computer analyzed data since the 80's. Our data from the 19th century consists of weather reports from a relatively small percentage of the globe. Just like nuclear winter (never more than a model), scare tactics work. But spreading bad science is more of a problem now with the internet. The worst case scenario scientists chose to get their point across has made it too easy for the other side to attack man-made climate change and with it, any efforts at environmental responsibility.
We can't prove anthropomorphic climate change - we have only had satellites since 1959 and computer analyzed data since the 80's. Our data from the 19th century consists of weather reports from a relatively small percentage of the globe. Just like nuclear winter (never more than a model), scare tactics work. But spreading bad science is more of a problem now with the internet. The worst case scenario scientists chose to get their point across has made it too easy for the other side to attack man-made climate change and with it, any efforts at environmental responsibility.
The apathy is startling. Even the number of comments on this graphic shows that relatively few people are engaged on climate change, which is the critical issue of our time.
We are in a battle against ignorance and the time is short. It rips me apart to see polar bears in the Arctic swimming in a futile effort to find sea ice or to hear of tens of thousands of murres and auklets washing up on the shores of the Pacific Northwest due to starvation from warming Pacific waters. My wife and I work hard to do our part, reducing out consumption, waste and energy usage to the minimum, but it all seems lost.
We are in a battle against ignorance and the time is short. It rips me apart to see polar bears in the Arctic swimming in a futile effort to find sea ice or to hear of tens of thousands of murres and auklets washing up on the shores of the Pacific Northwest due to starvation from warming Pacific waters. My wife and I work hard to do our part, reducing out consumption, waste and energy usage to the minimum, but it all seems lost.
5
The concern about climate change and CO2 is one factor. The other being largely ignored in the discussion is the effects of emissions on our health. While some may feel they will simply be basking in the sun, they may do so with more cancer, respiratory problems and disease. Add in the effects on water, crops and the cost of healthcare resultant from those emissions and we are right back where we started from.
2
These data are not very surprising and underscore how the dunce cap Trump entered the Oval Office. We are all already being affected by climate change. Spring came three weeks early, but even in the Deep South we had a killing freeze last week that will wreak havoc on peach crops and other sensitive fruits that are vital to an agricultural economy. More Americans are suffering from serious sinus problems especially in the Eastern United States, prompting more time away from work, abuse of potent antibiotics, as well as a reduced quality of life. This is because the growing type for grasses, trees, and other pollen-inducing plants are more often in bloom late into fall as well as earlier in the spring. As more plants can be grown further north, allergy seasons will get worse, not only in Atlanta, but up the East Coast. This is but only one consequence of climate change that is happening now and do not take into account the effect climate change is having on rising sea levels, or more severe weather. Together the financial impact of these events will sink local and state governments. Longer and warmer summers will mean higher need for energy and in turn will sharply drive the cost of BTUs which the energy companies will pass onto the consumer, not themselves, or the federal government. In many ways Pope Francis' exhortation about 'our common home' is consistent Judeo-Christian teaching about man's stewardship of God's creation. The US, a good Christian nation!
2
This article is a prime example of why democracy is a failure.
Because any movement for positive change does not occur when "the masses" dictated it.
Because, the vote for women, labor rights, social security or civil rights did not come from a united call from our historically selfish, myopic masses, but from the actions of organized and determined minority of our citizens who saw had a vision and knew how to seize the moment and work the legislative halls of state governments and congress.
But, today we lack these visionaries because we think fatuous polling, echo-chamber social media outrage or purile protests like Occupy Wall Street are a substitute for the hard work of changing our laws, one piece of legislation at a time, which in the end is how things really get changed in our country.
Because any movement for positive change does not occur when "the masses" dictated it.
Because, the vote for women, labor rights, social security or civil rights did not come from a united call from our historically selfish, myopic masses, but from the actions of organized and determined minority of our citizens who saw had a vision and knew how to seize the moment and work the legislative halls of state governments and congress.
But, today we lack these visionaries because we think fatuous polling, echo-chamber social media outrage or purile protests like Occupy Wall Street are a substitute for the hard work of changing our laws, one piece of legislation at a time, which in the end is how things really get changed in our country.
4
Democracy can only be declared a failure in reference to governance offering something better. There is no such alternative on the horizon. Democracy is imperfect because conservatives among us implicitly do not believe in democracy. They believe in a more static rule and tradition-based mode of governance that is a legacy of human history; a more 'authoritarian' perspective; a more direct 'best guess' immediate cause and effect that runs the constant risk of 'all or nothing' decision making. This forces compromise on every decision to accommodate reticent or regressive thinking. In the process, we accept more incremental progress in lieu of stall or regression. One could say that is a dragging force that applies the gravity of traditions and experience against the forces of change. Since this force also has a tendency to ebb and flow, it doesn't dominate, but whenever it does, we, as a society become vulnerable to myopic insight and oversight. In effect, we lose our edge as we wait for conservatives to vent their angst against progress and change. We are suffering through one of those periods now. It is more dangerous because the conservative movement is world wide. Scared conservatives, with something to lose, are scrambling to protect themselves against global warming, the 'creative destruction' of their 19th and 20th century investments, and the enlightenment of the information age that is undermining the rules and traditions that they live by.
1
Brilliantly stated, Radx28.
The Japanese have linked climate change to disasters like the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, and are thus building resilience. Singapore's Channel News Asia aired an excellent documentary on it on March 11: http://video.toggle.sg/en/series/smart-cities-2-0/ep2/481630
2
The climate change issue single-handedly shows us that democracy will prove to be the worst idea humans have ever devised. Democracy will be the nail in our coffin.
3
No problem, Trump and the Republican Congress are taking care of that problem as we speak. The 'thing is' that I'm not so sure that they're going to be protecting anyone, but themselves. Democracy can be slow, but it does represent more than 1 million out of the 350 million humans in the country........neither Trump or Congress has any interested in the broader majority if it doesn't serve them personally, and directly.
1
If only we had a Marxist dictatorship you could save the world! Kind of the point of the climate apocalypse.
Putin along with the gormless GOP have decided to accelerate global Warming since they fiendishly understand tha most of the water will be overwhelming liberal resistance states such as New York, Massachusetts & California.
WE all call upon Al Gore, who invented the Internet, to take time out from his busy schedule to battle against the GOP-Putin water conspiracy and save the planet for our grandchildren and pets!
WE all call upon Al Gore, who invented the Internet, to take time out from his busy schedule to battle against the GOP-Putin water conspiracy and save the planet for our grandchildren and pets!
3
Interesting angle.......but he'll still need shipping. Gulf Coast States are probably threatened more than Atlantic and Pacific Coast States........where the Pacific States, may have greater odds of problems from Volcanoes and Tsunami.
In this very issue is the article about wild fires in Kansas and the destruction caused to ranches, livestock and livelihoods. This, of course, paired with a not too thinly-veiled message that they need the rest of us to bail out their agricultural lifestyle one more time. These abnormal fires in winter and spring have undeniable connections to climate change-driven drought. Yet, look at the views about climate change in Kansas portrayed in this piece. It is off their radar, and when asked, they are among the leaders in denial. When they vote, they vote to starve the government - of assistance for all but themselves apparently, as well as for scientific support that would help to better understand their environment.
42
It is Kansas. Just tell the citizens that huge tax cuts for the super rich will fix all the drought, and the people of Kansas will totally support it.
3
What Americans believe or don't believe has nothing to do with the truth. It only indicates how successful the media have been in getting them to believe it. Pat yourself on the back, NYT - they bought it.
3
A lot of the data here is upsetting and even shocking. But for shear weirdness, for shear numbskullery, what is the deal with Florida? Is it something in the water?
2
Astonishing that even the coal-mining districts of Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia show majority support for power plant CO2 limits. These are areas of some of the largest GOP gains, formerly Democratic, now 75-80% Trump and GOP, and this is commonly ascribed to climate policy and the "war on coal". What's going on here?
2
These maps are based on MODELED public opinion for generating a result for every county in the U.S. After the limitations that we discovered in modeled estimates about the outcome of the last election, we should probably be cautious in evaluating these findings.
1
Think Globally, act locally...
Maybe we should start using the term, "micro-climate change," to describe how Global Climate Change will affect us all on a local level.
I moved to upstate New York in part because I was LESS likely to be adversely affected by hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires than other areas of the country. ( Also less likely to be the target of a nuclear war.)
But I now that I am considering moving back downstate to the New York City or Long Island areas, how Global Climate Change played into Hurricane Sandy has me wondering how safe my children and grandchildren would be in the metro area...
Maybe we should start using the term, "micro-climate change," to describe how Global Climate Change will affect us all on a local level.
I moved to upstate New York in part because I was LESS likely to be adversely affected by hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires than other areas of the country. ( Also less likely to be the target of a nuclear war.)
But I now that I am considering moving back downstate to the New York City or Long Island areas, how Global Climate Change played into Hurricane Sandy has me wondering how safe my children and grandchildren would be in the metro area...
I'm surprised this article did not mention the results for the question "Do you believe that most scientists think global warming is happening?". The national average is 49%!!! That is mind-boggling, since surveys of actual scientists show that about 97% of scientists agree that global warming is happening. The fact that people's opinions are so far from reality on this question really indicates the source of the problem!
3
do you have a list of all scientist in the world? if not? how can you claim that 97% of scientist agree that is happening?
It was a survey of scientists. Of the scientists surveyed (specifically actively-publishing climate scientists), 97% believed global warming was happening.
Extrapolating from a sample to a population is a basic statistical principle. I have not observed every single time in history that a coin was flipped. But, from what I have observed, I can guess (pretty confidently) that 50% of all coin flips have been heads, and 50% have been tails.
Extrapolating from a sample to a population is a basic statistical principle. I have not observed every single time in history that a coin was flipped. But, from what I have observed, I can guess (pretty confidently) that 50% of all coin flips have been heads, and 50% have been tails.
Harm isn't the question to ask - impact would be a better word. The interpretation of harm may be purely physical to many people. The impact of GCC on ocean life and farming will effect the stability of our food sources. Storms may damage our homes without harming us. It's amazing to me that more people aren't talking about it - I think about it multiple times daily, most of the people I socialize with and work with bring it up regularly. It seems to speak to how incentive we've become to the world around us - the erratic weather patterns should be alarming.
2
This is stupid. The status quo approach as demonstrated by this article is that global warming is in the future with the typical question of what should we do about it. We are well into the effects of global warming and the beat down is well underway. Let me put this into better perspective; we are in ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE. All the sinks are saturated with pollution (air, water, land, living organisms) and the planets regenerative processes are degrading at an exponential rate (note the acceleration of events that were predicted not to occur for decades). The majority of Americans are completely disconnected and ignorant of how biosphere works. The NYT's is pathetic on the subject and science in general. Ask most Americans, and they will tell you how they are concerned about the environment as they jump into there precious automobile without notion of thought. Why not ask a real question: What is the largest ecological disaster bar none? That would be automobile culture and an entire economic system based on it. Pathetic.
7
Couldn't agree more. The economic system and the ways in which we have structrured the world make giving up the automobile almost impossible for most people.
1
It appears that counties with big state universities are also talking a lot about climate change: Champaign, Illinois; Madison, Wisconsin; Ann Arbor, Michigan; among others including some in the Deep South. And of course most big metro-areas are also in the purple column. I hate to say it but there appears to be an "accomplishment/education gap" here. But it makes sense. Pollution is a threat to the urban educated "elite" even though we drive (figuratively and literally) a great deal of the soiling of the air and water. In rural and resource-rich areas economic well-being is so undermined that everything is a threat including the promise that climate change requires economic retooling and dislocation. This follows decades of economic dislocation that left these people struggling just to get by. It doesn't require a masters degree to walk in their shoes and see why climate change isn't at the top of their list of worries.
2
There need to be continual and repeated media reminders of climate change as a national security issue, according to the Pentagon. From this perspective, we all have "skin in the game".
2
Any discussion of climate change must include overpopulation. For thousands of years, human population remained fairly steady, at under 1 billion. After the Industrial Revolution, malaria drugs, and sanitation standards were raised, the population rose to over 7 billion. 1/5th of the earth's animals are on the brink of extinction because natural land is cleared to raise cattle to feed humans. Overfishing and pollution have decimated marine life. The oceans have lost 50% fish and marine mammals, and will be barren by 2050. 1/7th of the world's population, mostly poor, eat fish to survive. If the oceans die, we die.
20
Too bad I can only vote once on the value of this comment! ALL fingers up, not just my thumb.
2
A movement has to start that unconditionally accepts the primacy of qualified, knowledgable people. When a scientist tells you something about the climate and Kelllyanne Conway says the opposite, every American needs to know instinctively that only the scientist is qualified to say anything.
I would take this a step further and prohibit anyone who has not served in combat from becoming president.
I would take this a step further and prohibit anyone who has not served in combat from becoming president.
1
How was/were the question(s) about harm phrased? If the question was simply "do you think you'll be harmed by climate change?"most folks would probably think only of the most obvious direct effects: storms & rising oceans. People wouldn't think "I'll be harmed by having to pay more -
-- for food."
-- taxes to pay for fire fighting, FEMA costs, and fighting more wars & terrorism."
And, unfortunately, we're all too prone to thinking "it won't be me that dies in a snowstorm/flood/heat wave."
-- for food."
-- taxes to pay for fire fighting, FEMA costs, and fighting more wars & terrorism."
And, unfortunately, we're all too prone to thinking "it won't be me that dies in a snowstorm/flood/heat wave."
5
Once a month, NYTimes may wish to print a top 50 list of companies that are polluters. Polluter ranking may be defined, for example, by CO2 emissions, normalized by total revenue (or employees, or customers, or some other appropriate measure). Hopefully the shaming associated with this list will help customers and companies to help reduce pollution. This approach is sensible is a large majority (69%) of Americans agree that man-made pollution harms people and environment.
8
Several issues push mankind into looking beyond nation-state boundaries to envisioning a larger group of humanity. Flags no longer serve our best interests.
Climate change is one of these mind and eye expanding issues. Nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry, epidemiology, globalization, technology, population growth and immigration are other global issues forcing a broader perspective.
Pride of country turns to idiocy when we selfishly exploit the earth for our narrow interests. More, and not less, socialism will be required. Scientific and moral teachers will need to be listened to and their recommendations implemented. We need to raise our 'intellectual' game. Ignorance is no longer a luxury we can afford.
With Trump, Putin and Kim Jong Un brazenly disregarding sane and reasonable answers to today's problems reveals we have a ways to go to ensure that troublesome characters do not acquire so much power.
The world is getting smaller and smaller. Climate change is just one issue among several that are forcing us, as a species, to begin to see meaningful solutions in each other and not retreating to the false alternatives of jingoism and flag waving.
Unfortunately, this is a monumental task. How do we prevent so many people from retreating to the simple world of the familiar and parochial?
Climate change is one of these mind and eye expanding issues. Nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry, epidemiology, globalization, technology, population growth and immigration are other global issues forcing a broader perspective.
Pride of country turns to idiocy when we selfishly exploit the earth for our narrow interests. More, and not less, socialism will be required. Scientific and moral teachers will need to be listened to and their recommendations implemented. We need to raise our 'intellectual' game. Ignorance is no longer a luxury we can afford.
With Trump, Putin and Kim Jong Un brazenly disregarding sane and reasonable answers to today's problems reveals we have a ways to go to ensure that troublesome characters do not acquire so much power.
The world is getting smaller and smaller. Climate change is just one issue among several that are forcing us, as a species, to begin to see meaningful solutions in each other and not retreating to the false alternatives of jingoism and flag waving.
Unfortunately, this is a monumental task. How do we prevent so many people from retreating to the simple world of the familiar and parochial?
2
Does "more" occasionally mean more often or less often?
What also sticks out is deep-red Alaska being notably over the national average. It's a simple explanation really - people there can already see the effects of climate change directly - melting permafrost, receding glaciers, much warmer temperatures than what was normal in decades past. Your eyes are more powerful than your political leanings. The problem is that once we're all able to "see it", it'd be too late to change anything.
34
It comes down to where people live now, to where they will need to live in the future. Alaska has millions of acres that will eventually come to resemble the northern plains or Montana if you agree with the climate scientists. Those areas will be more than habitable and vastly increase in value. Those along the coast will certainly need to move, but there is more than enough real estate (owned by the State or Federal Government) to grant to those affected. The answer is to adapt.
1
Climate change has many terrifying implications.
The two most likely to affect people in the United States are (1) changes in our ability to grow food due to drought, flood, and mismatches between pollinators and pollen availability and (2) sea-level rise around the world displacing people and causing social upheaval and possibly wars.
The only real questions are when will the impacts be undeniable and how severe will they be?
The two most likely to affect people in the United States are (1) changes in our ability to grow food due to drought, flood, and mismatches between pollinators and pollen availability and (2) sea-level rise around the world displacing people and causing social upheaval and possibly wars.
The only real questions are when will the impacts be undeniable and how severe will they be?
5
These maps greatly help to see the vast effects of climate change, while illustrating some of the apathy that we hold in the face of this global threat. This idea is especially prevalent in the map that contrasts the statement that "climate change will affect people," and "climate change will affect me personally." The fact that some think that climate change will personally affect them needs to be challenged; agricultural products and their seasons will be altered, coastal borders will shift, and native wildlife will be hurt. This affects all of us in some way, and it is important to understand this in order to effectively combat climate change. The authors display the apathy that we may hold toward this problem, and that must change. As the future of this world, I will not want to live in a world that is radically and negatively altered by the climate changing. The Doomsday Clock, by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists', has been set to two and half minutes to midnight because, in part, of this disregard for the scientific consensus on climate change. Our world must act on this global issue soon and swiftly, lest we succumb to a catastrophic future. This begins with acknowledging that our actions are contributing to this change; we must see the problem in order to fix it. There needs to be some sort of recognition by all peoples. as in the Paris Agreement, that we must act aggressively to curb our polluting infrastructure. Let's just hope that our world can pull this off!
3
Climate change is already affecting all of us, and it's on a roll - simply put, it's accelerating. Here are a couple of restatements based on my observation that language is misused to make false claims. (Just as there is no such thing as an alternative fact: the alternative to fact is fiction or lie.) Language is an approximation of meaning, so it's easy to cheat with it.
Climate is weather over space (the whole planet and its atmosphere) and time (decades). Another way to put it is that climate is weather statistics; that is statistics measure trends in individual events, and the larger the sample the more reliable the measure.
We are, without question, accumulating heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere, which are increasing the energy (heat) in the system (global warming), resulting in a disrupted planetary circulation, known as climate change.
That would be more extremes, blocked weather, a breakup in the arctic circulation so the Arctic is warming faster and we're getting more deep freezes further south. Migration of plants and animals (including insects, disease vectors) has been clearly measured by farmers and others who look at the big picture.
The focus on "exciting" extreme storms distracts from the undoubted fact that smaller heatwaves, rainstorms, droughts and such have increased. The rollercoaster of drought (wildfires make it worse) and flood makes things more dangerous.
Me, I have pictures of our rising seas for four decades: fact.
Climate is weather over space (the whole planet and its atmosphere) and time (decades). Another way to put it is that climate is weather statistics; that is statistics measure trends in individual events, and the larger the sample the more reliable the measure.
We are, without question, accumulating heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere, which are increasing the energy (heat) in the system (global warming), resulting in a disrupted planetary circulation, known as climate change.
That would be more extremes, blocked weather, a breakup in the arctic circulation so the Arctic is warming faster and we're getting more deep freezes further south. Migration of plants and animals (including insects, disease vectors) has been clearly measured by farmers and others who look at the big picture.
The focus on "exciting" extreme storms distracts from the undoubted fact that smaller heatwaves, rainstorms, droughts and such have increased. The rollercoaster of drought (wildfires make it worse) and flood makes things more dangerous.
Me, I have pictures of our rising seas for four decades: fact.
7
When the sea rises over the sidewalks and the storms lash the remaining rooftops and the mass migrations destabilize every region on the planet and the last nation-state dissolves into territories of feudalism and the new Dark Ages begins, all of today’s climate change deniers can at least take solace in this: their legacy too will be forgotten. Their crimes of willful ignorance and political expedience and rank stupidity and animal cruelty and environmental insensitivity will be as lost to history as the poetry of Sappho, the dramas of Euripides, the paintings of Botticelli, the memoirs of Byron, the “Messiah” of Bruno Shultz, and the rumored tragedies of that obscure playwright once named William Shakespeare.
2
I'd like to thank the Times for putting this front and center today. I wish it was front and center in every news outlet on the planet every single day. It's that important.
24
Time for Americans to get up to speed on climate change before it is too late. You can't go back when it is all gone...
3
Making politicians fear denialism and wishy washy do nothing policies will only be accomplished when voters put the same level
of fear into politicians running for office in 2018 that the Tea Party
did in 2010. A political strategy to do this has to be national in
scope and imaginative in execution. It should exploit takeover strategies
that the Tea Party used to impose fear and trembling in candidates. Whether
this can be done in context of gerrymandered districting is the 64K question....but it needs to be tried.
of fear into politicians running for office in 2018 that the Tea Party
did in 2010. A political strategy to do this has to be national in
scope and imaginative in execution. It should exploit takeover strategies
that the Tea Party used to impose fear and trembling in candidates. Whether
this can be done in context of gerrymandered districting is the 64K question....but it needs to be tried.
4
Americans would be better served if pollution, rather than climate, were made subject to their thoughts, for at least two reasons: one, climate is too abstract, too contentious and too variable a subject for actual or even effective management and measurement; and two, pollution is a condition in undisputed evidence across all states, towns, and even backyards: it can be measured and immediately improved. Moreover, EPA air and water standards are well understood and its regulatory infrastructure can be more readily directed. Trump is wrong in this regard, to emasculate EPA rules, and relatedly, to promote fracking, a profound source of pollution. Americans might also consider the single largest unregulated source of carbon emissions--the Pentagon--and whether its global war on terror is passing cost-benefit tests, including effects on air, ground and water pollution. Trump wants to double down on military operations. Last, Americans would profit from addressing pollution directly, rather than by taxation (cap and trade or carbon tax) which is nothing more than a sin tax, and with little to do with actually lowering pollution, or promoting cleaner energy. Readers may enjoy my opinion in the FT, Admirable Accord With Structural Problems, on COP 21/ Paris.
3
Historically, all human civilizations have collapsed due to overpopulation, the depletion of resources or pestulance. Now humanity has grown exponentially by exploiting fossil fuels at unsustainable levels. We keep asking people without basic knowledge of chemistry or physics if global climate change is a threat, what do these surveyors expect, a revelation in knowledge? The fossil fuel era will end, the question the uneducated should be asked is what will replace it. I'm sure the answers will astound the surveyors.
5
Your premise is explicitly not true. The Roman Empire, for example collapsed for the exact opposite reason: too few people to maintain an economic base, despite existing infrastructure and agricultural yield. Many civilizations "end" due to assimilation into other cultures.
I'm sure you read Collapse and now fancy yourself an expert on the rise and fall of civilizations, but keep your elementary school opinions to yourself.
I'm sure you read Collapse and now fancy yourself an expert on the rise and fall of civilizations, but keep your elementary school opinions to yourself.
I like climate change because I am a snow lover. Climate change means more snow where I live, like the record setting snowfall in the winter of 2015.
Read this:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JAM2395.1
Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States
"These comparative results reveal that a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more snowstorms than in 1901–2000. Agee (1991) found that long-term warming trends in the United States were associated with increasing cyclonic activity in North America, further indicating that a warmer future climate will generate more winter storms".
Read this:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JAM2395.1
Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States
"These comparative results reveal that a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more snowstorms than in 1901–2000. Agee (1991) found that long-term warming trends in the United States were associated with increasing cyclonic activity in North America, further indicating that a warmer future climate will generate more winter storms".
One problem with these graphics is the that they emphasize the beliefs of people by geography, rather than population. Yes, there are vast swaths where the local population has one belief or another, but just how many people live in that swath? Meanwhile, we have large populations crammed into tiny areas that might hold opposite beliefs, but on these maps, that tiny area won't show up despite its large population.
Of course, that's why election maps (especially by county) make the country look very red but the actual voting numbers are blue. And these graphics make that same mistake.
Of course, that's why election maps (especially by county) make the country look very red but the actual voting numbers are blue. And these graphics make that same mistake.
6
Thank you for addressing this crucially important issue in the NY Times. Please consider also addressing the number one contributing factor to climate change, drought and global deforestation, namely: Animal agriculture, which consistent independent studies show is the greatest cause of this immanently catastrophic problem our world is faced with.
5
In Maine, we have seen the following:
- Expansion of endemic Lyme disease from the southern coast inland due to the burgeoning population of Ixodes (deer) ticks. Warmer temperatures do not cause the yearly die-back of these vectors. Carriage rate is 50-60%, constituting a major public health problem.
- Warming of the Gulf of Maine, forcing cold water species of fish and major populations of lobster into Canada. (I dump 500 lbs of lime yearly into my 1/6 acre pond to neutralize the pH to increase fish survival.)
- Increasing acidification of lakes depressing native populations of trout and salmon species
- Expansion of endemic Lyme disease from the southern coast inland due to the burgeoning population of Ixodes (deer) ticks. Warmer temperatures do not cause the yearly die-back of these vectors. Carriage rate is 50-60%, constituting a major public health problem.
- Warming of the Gulf of Maine, forcing cold water species of fish and major populations of lobster into Canada. (I dump 500 lbs of lime yearly into my 1/6 acre pond to neutralize the pH to increase fish survival.)
- Increasing acidification of lakes depressing native populations of trout and salmon species
8
Here in California we have had 5 years of drought followed by heavy rains. Millions of trees died due to the drought and now there has been flooding and damage to infrastructure. Warming temperatures mean changes in the Sierra snow pack which the state depends on for water; and the movement of pests and diseases up the slopes - such that pine bark beetles have become more important. These changes are attributed to climate change and not an aberrant couple of years. Overseas, changing climate impacts crop production including in areas with food insecurity; water availability, ocean ecosystems, etc. While the scientific community has long ago resolved human contribution to climate change, the U.S. alone seems to have an ideologically driven portion of its media and a party that continues to have its head in the sand.
27
It's difficult to see the effects of climate change because they happen gradually, but the effects are very real, and will be catastrophic.
The most obvious change thus far is the acidification of our oceans, which is a result of more CO2 being absorbed by the ocean's due to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. The vast bleaching of the coral reefs we have seen in Australia is one symptom of this. Many kinds of shell fish and others like scallops and mussels have been observed by fishermen growing much less large than they used to, which is another symptom of this ocean acidification. I think very soon we will start seeing much greater problems with many more of our ocean species, potentially entire species dissapearing, catalyzing perhaps greater collapses in the ocean food chain.
I believe the collapse of fisheries due to ocean acidification may be a even greater threat to humanity than the gradual warming of the planet, which is the more obvious effect of global climate change.
Long term these problems will be catastrophic to the planet.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-a...
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
The most obvious change thus far is the acidification of our oceans, which is a result of more CO2 being absorbed by the ocean's due to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. The vast bleaching of the coral reefs we have seen in Australia is one symptom of this. Many kinds of shell fish and others like scallops and mussels have been observed by fishermen growing much less large than they used to, which is another symptom of this ocean acidification. I think very soon we will start seeing much greater problems with many more of our ocean species, potentially entire species dissapearing, catalyzing perhaps greater collapses in the ocean food chain.
I believe the collapse of fisheries due to ocean acidification may be a even greater threat to humanity than the gradual warming of the planet, which is the more obvious effect of global climate change.
Long term these problems will be catastrophic to the planet.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-a...
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
52
Looks like pretty much the entire Eastern Seaboard from Maine to Florida is living in a complete fantasyland.
2
One thing I see in these charts is the impact of the ski industry and ski advocates conveying to their participants the impacts of global warming on the future of snowsports. The areas in the west with the highest degree of concern are mountain counties with a large amount of ski tourism, rather than farming communities impacted by drought.
4
"Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina, warned that committed activists — like the Tea Party — can shape politicians’ approaches to issues like climate change. “Those are the ones who can take you out at the next primary,” he said."
So the take-away for me is this: Get rid of gerrymandering, so our Congress is truly representative of the majority views. Then there is some hope that education about the dire threats posed by climate change can begin to force policy changes.
So the take-away for me is this: Get rid of gerrymandering, so our Congress is truly representative of the majority views. Then there is some hope that education about the dire threats posed by climate change can begin to force policy changes.
5
Not sure what insight the authors were going for here other than the obvious: As a society we are going to do nothing meaningful to address CO2 release. Unless it's coal of course...that's bad. But oil? We're burnin' it all.
1
Imagine if we put even a quarter of the resources we spend on the military, NASA, and other scientific research towards producing solutions for sustainable living? Global warming is already killing off creatures living in the oceans, but humans won't do anything until the are actually starving to death from drought and storms. Unfortunately, by then it will be probably too late.
10
Optimism is wonderful, but it needs to be informed optimism. Instead, people tend to think the bad things will bypass them: seat belts are fine for everyone else; smoking hasn't bothered me yet; congress is awful but I'll reelect my guy anyway. Maybe if the NYT had interactive district-by-district maps of several climate change forecasts, then people could see how climate change might affect them individually. How hot will it be in my county? Will winter be better or worse for me? Or some biggies for the climate-change denier crowd: Will water shortages mean we'll have to replace our football field turf? And what will happen to my golf course?
1
Maybe these maps explain why climate change and the environment generally received zero attention during the 2016 Presidential debates and campaign, other than when Clinton was skewered in WV for talking about renewable energy.
Gallup polling on "the most important problem facing this country" since the 1930s as reported in the NYT below shows that the environment has never been identified by more than 2% of those polled and it disappears completely during economic troubles.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/27/us/politics/most-importan...
As civilizations throughout history have discovered too late, climate change is the great destroyer, causing massive population dislocations that overwhelmed political and military powers.
The Syrian revolt began with drought and crop failure and have caused political upheaval in Europe and the US. Multiply this a thousand times within the next few decades to understand the scale of the issue.
Building walls was the failed solution of the past and will be less effective yet in the future. China's solution is to go on a global buying spree, driving up agricultural land prices, to hedge against regional crop failures.
So what is the US solution? A bigger military and a Mexico wall. All hail Trump the Omnipotent!
Gallup polling on "the most important problem facing this country" since the 1930s as reported in the NYT below shows that the environment has never been identified by more than 2% of those polled and it disappears completely during economic troubles.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/27/us/politics/most-importan...
As civilizations throughout history have discovered too late, climate change is the great destroyer, causing massive population dislocations that overwhelmed political and military powers.
The Syrian revolt began with drought and crop failure and have caused political upheaval in Europe and the US. Multiply this a thousand times within the next few decades to understand the scale of the issue.
Building walls was the failed solution of the past and will be less effective yet in the future. China's solution is to go on a global buying spree, driving up agricultural land prices, to hedge against regional crop failures.
So what is the US solution? A bigger military and a Mexico wall. All hail Trump the Omnipotent!
26
Like other looming crises we are facing, too many of us do not believe they are real, they downplay the negative consequences or they are just oblivious to it. Global warming continues adding more and more energy into the Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere (oceans) and the geosphere (everything else).
You would think that people in states where high energy weather events like tornadoes are most common would be a bit more concerned about the effects of climate change but ignorance is bliss. Or perhaps they are simply awaiting the "end time" as prophecized in the Bible.
You would think that people in states where high energy weather events like tornadoes are most common would be a bit more concerned about the effects of climate change but ignorance is bliss. Or perhaps they are simply awaiting the "end time" as prophecized in the Bible.
8
Combustion of all fossil fuels spews lethal toxins into the air and water. We inhale asbestos, arsenic and other lethal chemicals.
Our healthcare costs would plummet if care was taken to remove those toxins from the smoke and properly dispose of coal ash.
Our healthcare costs would plummet if care was taken to remove those toxins from the smoke and properly dispose of coal ash.
2
There are way too many people who don't think climate change will impact them because they don't understand its reach. I have a number of otherwise smart friends who believe they'll be fine as long as they can stay inside in the air conditioning. They don't grasp that climate change is not simply hotter-than-average temperatures. They don't get that it impacts sea levels, the viability of ocean life, our ability to grow food, the spread of disease, the occurrence of natural disasters and so much more. And, sadly, I don't know that we have enough time left to educate them.
95
Or that their air conditioners mostly run on coal and exacerbate the problems...
Google green house gases and human health and you'll find almost a million sources...enough scholarly research to read the rest of your life. The man made causes of climate change affect your welfare everyday...more so if you're near a coal fired power plant. Next google particulate matter and heart attacks...you get the point.
2
To those who think global warming won't hurt them:
1. You're living in denial.
2. You'd better hold your breath.
1. You're living in denial.
2. You'd better hold your breath.
4
Americans elected Trump. Why is their worthless opinion relevant to anything? This is a matter for the scientific community. Citizens, especially Republican citizens, should have absolutely no input.
2
Good comments here. Climate change IS ALREADY AFFECTING US!
It is not a matter of waiting 20 years or more, although the brunt of the disaster is coming in the future. Ecosystems will start to deteriorate to various degrees including our own agricultural systems. Food shortages, water flooding and droughts. Extremes of weather with disasters. Huge costs to correct things in the future.
I've studied, taught and read on climate change for 50 years. The science is solid.
Our politicians are paid off to be quite because the wealthy and powerful who benefit from fossil fuels do not want you to make changes.
As someone else said here, did you expect anything different from human beings? The powerful always control the less powerful. I watched a Noam Chomsky piece on this last night.
We will lose this climate change disaster if we do not start serious planning and control soon. The current administration is a disaster in this regard.
It is not a matter of waiting 20 years or more, although the brunt of the disaster is coming in the future. Ecosystems will start to deteriorate to various degrees including our own agricultural systems. Food shortages, water flooding and droughts. Extremes of weather with disasters. Huge costs to correct things in the future.
I've studied, taught and read on climate change for 50 years. The science is solid.
Our politicians are paid off to be quite because the wealthy and powerful who benefit from fossil fuels do not want you to make changes.
As someone else said here, did you expect anything different from human beings? The powerful always control the less powerful. I watched a Noam Chomsky piece on this last night.
We will lose this climate change disaster if we do not start serious planning and control soon. The current administration is a disaster in this regard.
4
$100 trillion in climate policy is more than en exercise in public opinion. The CAGW hypotheses is apocryphal and unproven. It is the worst sort of scientism. Political leaders who impose or accept taxes or regulations on fossil fuels will be seen as fools.
Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.
Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.
99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted.
Full implementation of the Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost $50 trillion to $100 trillion by 2030--$6,667-$13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity's cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.
Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.
Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.
99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted.
Full implementation of the Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost $50 trillion to $100 trillion by 2030--$6,667-$13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity's cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.
2
You throw away lots of numbers that are very difficult to fact-check, is customary to include references when you attempt to make such an authoritative comment, unless you are making most things up, of course!
But anyway, you seem to imply that global warming is cyclical over many years and thus natural... how do you then explain the extreme increase in the RATE of global temperature from very recent years, compared to for example the last 1000 years? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-...
And how do you explain that recent warming does not correlate with any natural factors but only with human factors? https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
I mean, many scientist are already naming our time as a new geological age altogether, the anthropocene, given the profound impact we have had in very recent times... http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-an...
But anyway, you seem to imply that global warming is cyclical over many years and thus natural... how do you then explain the extreme increase in the RATE of global temperature from very recent years, compared to for example the last 1000 years? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-...
And how do you explain that recent warming does not correlate with any natural factors but only with human factors? https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
I mean, many scientist are already naming our time as a new geological age altogether, the anthropocene, given the profound impact we have had in very recent times... http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-an...
3
We all need to talk about climate change more. Even those very aware of changes tend to be too timid. It's like there's an unofficial gag order on the words "climate change" as too controversial to bring up in conversation, contributing to an Emporer's New Clothes type of situation where people ignore the glaringly obvious just to be agreeable. People wonder why the good people of Germany did not stand up to the Nazis......well, same kind of thing. Actually even worse......people will trade off the survival of life on the planet rather than say something someone might find unpleasant.
When someone says it's a beautiful day when it's 80 degrees in February, you could say something like, "Yes, but climate change is not a good thing." I've found many people are anxious to talk about it, and welcome an opening. Try it out! Your willingness to bring up the topic of climate change strengthens the resolve of others to acknowledge and confront its reality, breaking the nefarious code of silence.
When someone says it's a beautiful day when it's 80 degrees in February, you could say something like, "Yes, but climate change is not a good thing." I've found many people are anxious to talk about it, and welcome an opening. Try it out! Your willingness to bring up the topic of climate change strengthens the resolve of others to acknowledge and confront its reality, breaking the nefarious code of silence.
13
Would be really terrific, too, if heads of families, businesses, and faith communities (church, synagogue, mosque, etc.) were urged speak to the urgency of climate change. The issue does and will affect us all. It's a community issue.
2
With all the industrial waste, plastic refuse, air pollution, unregulated use of coal spewing out of China,
how come none of you enlighted minds ever challenges CHINA to do something about Global Warming or Pacific Ocean pollution, or even air pollution in China???
Over half the worlds humans live in that one small corner of the planet(China to India, around thru SE Asia)....yet the self-centered narcisistic liberal american self-righteously insists that the problem is isolated to the USA.
how come none of you enlighted minds ever challenges CHINA to do something about Global Warming or Pacific Ocean pollution, or even air pollution in China???
Over half the worlds humans live in that one small corner of the planet(China to India, around thru SE Asia)....yet the self-centered narcisistic liberal american self-righteously insists that the problem is isolated to the USA.
Who is saying that the problem is "isolated to the USA"?? Anyone that understand a little bit about this grasps that is GLOBAL climate change... This piece is about USA policy and its domestic and international responsibility to fight climate change. China is reducing its dependency on coal and advancing a lot on green energy, you seem very worried about China, but in fact China is doing more about climate change than USA is! Perspective...!
2
The United States is the second largest contributor to global warming after China, and we are not only a much smaller population but have been contributing for much longer. Addressing our own contributions to the problem is what we can do, and will make a huge difference. This is a world wide problem and affects all forms of life on our planet. Pointing fingers and fussing about who's fault it is is like fiddling while Rome burns. It is the fault and the responsibility of every country on this planet and we have very little time left to address it.
11
That is the point of the Paris Climate Accord. It is a pact between all of the major nations in the world to all limit their total CO2 emissions to a agreed upon level. It includes China, India, all of Europe and most of the major countries in the world. If followed this treaty would require all of these countries to reduce their CO2 footprint and scale back emissions.
It doesn't deal with other forms of pollution, but it deals with CO2, which is the most dangerous component to civilization right now. So to answer your question, the "enlightened minds" are in fact trying to address this.
Let's just hope Trump doesn't shoot the world in the stomach.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35073297
It doesn't deal with other forms of pollution, but it deals with CO2, which is the most dangerous component to civilization right now. So to answer your question, the "enlightened minds" are in fact trying to address this.
Let's just hope Trump doesn't shoot the world in the stomach.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35073297
17
Most don't believe in evolution. We have a system that puts lunatics in charge of the asylum. Thanks to this, we have the psychopath Trump in office. It will be a miracle if he doesn't start a nuclear war. Obviously any hope for action on climate change, the most pressing world challenge we hace, is now nil.
11
It is the wrong question to ask if people believe climate change will
harm them. It is more important to focus upon the children of people,
those who will come of age and be adults in mid 21st century. What
are people's concerns about the world THEIR children will live in? This
needs to be the principal question that people ask themselves and
that the media asks over and over again in many different ways.
harm them. It is more important to focus upon the children of people,
those who will come of age and be adults in mid 21st century. What
are people's concerns about the world THEIR children will live in? This
needs to be the principal question that people ask themselves and
that the media asks over and over again in many different ways.
46
Are these results surprising to anyone?
2
The Yale group has been doing interesting and though provoking work for years and their website is well worth reading through. The Six Americas Study is a classic and can be found here http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/global-warmings-six-...
Additionally there is research based literature across disciplines which indicates that the majority secondary and university students do not believe that climate change will produce impacts in their lifetime. The issue is the rate and time scale of climate change impacts. These findings correspond well to the second map in this article.
Additionally there is research based literature across disciplines which indicates that the majority secondary and university students do not believe that climate change will produce impacts in their lifetime. The issue is the rate and time scale of climate change impacts. These findings correspond well to the second map in this article.
9
I am a strong believer in Democracy, but this article weakens my faith in the American practice of Democracy. Voters in November were only really given two choices, the red package or the blue package. I do not think it was really spelled out all that clearly in the red package that not only was the country going to go back on many promises to reduce our impact on global warming, but in fact we were going to gut the government of anyone even mentioning that global warming exists. This is not the only example of how the two package politics that we have sunk into leads to results that are the opposite of the beliefs of 70% or even 80% of the population.
5
This was the principal fault of how main stream electronic "journalism"
covered the tragic farce of an election in 2015-16. There was
zero discussion of any seriousness that focused upon
dangers of and responses to climate change among the people party's
pathetic group of clueless candidates. Candidates, all of them, were given
a completely free ride to utter the most nonsensical bromides and paid
no price in doing so.
This was due to how journalists framed and covered the story and how their "news directors" decided to allocate resources and concentrate attention on
what deserved coverage.
That systemic failure reflected the collapse of the American
system of self government, that is, its takeover by private interests.
But this was principally within the former republican party. The democratic
party's primary campaign did address climate change in sufficient detail.
You should therefore not fall for a false equivalency here.
covered the tragic farce of an election in 2015-16. There was
zero discussion of any seriousness that focused upon
dangers of and responses to climate change among the people party's
pathetic group of clueless candidates. Candidates, all of them, were given
a completely free ride to utter the most nonsensical bromides and paid
no price in doing so.
This was due to how journalists framed and covered the story and how their "news directors" decided to allocate resources and concentrate attention on
what deserved coverage.
That systemic failure reflected the collapse of the American
system of self government, that is, its takeover by private interests.
But this was principally within the former republican party. The democratic
party's primary campaign did address climate change in sufficient detail.
You should therefore not fall for a false equivalency here.
3
I agree with you about journalism's failures in this area. I've noticed, for example, that surveys of the voting population and their opinions often don't even list environmental concerns, let alone climate change concerns. I'd consistently rate those as my top concerns, but I am never given a chance to do so. And so the idea that people aren't concerned about the environment becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
1
The man made cause of global warming is also linked to severe health problems (think particulate) and shortened life span. I'd be more worried about childhood asthma and adult heart attacks than rising water. Google "air pollution/green house gases and human health" and you can read scholarly article on the dangers for the rest of your life...in other words the negative outcomes are beyond doubt.
6
People have been burning things for millennia. The problem now is that there are too many people. And at the risk at setting some folks off, allowing the free flow of migrants into less populated areas will only make things worse. The world's population will spread out even further and there is no incentive for people in high growth areas to keep their populations in check.
And yes, Syria and their war is a special case. Other migratory shifts are more often than not attributed to increase population.
And before someone sets off on me, look at yourselves. You read a newspaper that has articles in their travel, fashion, food, personal technology, real estate sections that espouse lifestyles that anyone who really cares about the environment would never approve of.
Also, bugs the "H" out of me when I see an SUV with an "end global warming" bumper sticker. Really?! And you're surprised when a Republican is skeptical about climate change?
And yes, Syria and their war is a special case. Other migratory shifts are more often than not attributed to increase population.
And before someone sets off on me, look at yourselves. You read a newspaper that has articles in their travel, fashion, food, personal technology, real estate sections that espouse lifestyles that anyone who really cares about the environment would never approve of.
Also, bugs the "H" out of me when I see an SUV with an "end global warming" bumper sticker. Really?! And you're surprised when a Republican is skeptical about climate change?
1
So do you support publicly funded news so that they don't have to rely on advertising? I suspect not. And I have never seen an SUV with an "end global warming" sticker on it--that seems just to be another one of those alternative facts that conservatives love so much.
3
It will always be at the bottom of what people talk about because it doesn't put food on the table.
1
Oh yes, it does, you have a lot to learn about climate change.
3
The article seems to use the terms "global warming " and "climate change " interchangeably. Climate change is more accurate because although caused by "global warming " it does not accurately describe the affect on the Earth's climate and population.
2
People don't believe that climate change will impact them because they don't believe its most serious impacts will occur during their own lifetime (which, for some of us, may only be another 10-20 years). Perhaps the question should have been: "Do you believe climate change will impact your children, or your grandchildren"?
37
I agree with you. I am elderly and I don't think climate change will have much effect on me, except the milder winters we've enjoyed the last several years. But I do think it will be devastating by the end of this century. I say sardonically that this is a good time to be old.
3
Yes, but that's part of the problem of perception. Even if your life is only another 10 or 20 years, climate change will affect your life, in fact it's affecting your life already and it's only going to affect it more. People think it's off in the future somewhere, but it's actually here now. They need to face that. Being old is hard enough, they need to face the fact that they're going to be old in the middle of a massive disaster.
5
I love living in Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District. If only it wasn't so darn cold here.
Just wait a few years and your dream will come true. Climate change is here each of the last few years has been hotter than the previous one. We will all be aware soon that it is real and probably disastrous in the sense that we are waiting too long to do serious corrections.
And we don't have much time left. I fear the next decade will be critical if it isn't already too late.
And we don't have much time left. I fear the next decade will be critical if it isn't already too late.
3
You could write this same article about so many things too many Americans believe will never be taken. Civil liberties, clean air and water, decent healthcare, infrastructure. But look what is happening. We have a president and congress that want to set all of us back decades and really just want to profit from it.
35
Interesting article. It's unfortunate to continually emphasize 'global warming', which creates a vision of 1-dimensional temperature implications. Regions in US might not discuss warmer temps much, but ecosystem changes, earlier springs, sea level rise, melting permafrost, forest fires can be more relevant.
12
In a past article about climate change, the NYT included a link to temperature statistics for various cities around the world. All of the cities that I clicked on elsewhere in the world showed warming trends. However all the cities that I clicked on in the United States were a couple of degrees cooler than they had been. Maybe that affect the statistics in this article.
Sorry, I can't find the link to that site.
Sorry, I can't find the link to that site.
The state borders seem to be shifted northward in the "Global warming will harm people in the United States" map.
1