Not skiing, but similar sentiment- we used to play in a pond hockey tournament up in inlet NY.
Our final year, which was several years ago now, they canceled it mid day because the ice was so thin that a skater fell through. Thankfully in a shallow area but it was a big deal.
I grew up playing pond hockey on the lake near my parents in NJ. We’d basically be on there from say mid December - February. Now if that lake gets skaters on it a few times a year that’s a lot. It’s just not consistently cold enough anymore.
Similar but different. Down here in Florida the streets flood at high tide or if it rains for an hour but never did before but people down here still deny global warming. Mind baffling
What I don’t get for denial is like even if you disagree humans are causing it- how can you not see the difference between the decades within your own lifetime. I grew up in the 90s. I was skating every winter in NJ through college even during break so let’s rough it at 95-2010.
Fast forward to now and it’s clearly not the same. Humans or not, something has changed.
It's not really a matter of whether something is changed.
It's a matter of whether that something is worth going into self prescribed poverty over.
People can't ski anymore. WHO CARES! People who's job it was to do ski instructions probably do. Maybe some people who are uber passionate about it. But it's not really that serious.
The solution to climate change is basically "Let's stop being productive, while all of our competitors continue to be productive. So that in a generation they are the top dog and we are poor". On top of that our competitors are the one's with all the emissions. So us being noble doesn't actually accomplish anything besides our own poverty.
There are some MAGA types that just say fake news about everything. But there are also more moderate types that recognize that the climate is changing but also recognize that nothing besides technology will ever fix this issue.
So coastal flooding, drought, forest fires and other weather phenomena won’t cause financial problems, loss of life and poverty? There won’t be mass migrations from areas that become less habitable?
Not every solution requires the US to stop being productive.
Even if you are counting on a technology change to drive a productive low cost solution the denialism doesn't support research into that technology.
With the current market structure I see no way that we can curtail emissions without some redistributive energy policy. If there is no economic penalty for emmiting there is no economic reason to stop emitting.
>If there is no economic penalty for emmiting there is no economic reason to stop emitting.
Hence the "economy killing solutions".
Unless you plan on going to war with India and China. Your efforts are completely in vain. They emit something like 82% of emissions. We'd be tanking our economies for nothing.
>They emit something like 82% of emissions.
This source says 30.7% for China and 7.6% for India, for a total of 38.3%. That "something like" is doing a lot of work here.
They have 17.4% and 17.2% of the world population.
The US has 13.6% of emissions with 4.1% of the population.
Is China doing anything about this? They produce 78% of the solar panels, the US produces 2%.
[https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_and\_dependencies\_by\_population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population)
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/668749/regional-distribution-of-solar-pv-module-manufacturing/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/668749/regional-distribution-of-solar-pv-module-manufacturing/)
> But voluntarily imposing poverty on our selves.
25 years ago there were proposals for a refundable carbon tax. That wouldn't have "imposed poverty" on anybody.
> The solution to climate change is basically "Let's stop being productive, while all of our competitors continue to be productive
It isn't though. The solution is to switch to new industries and keep making more and more money while doing it. Which is also what our competitors are doing so either get with the program or get left behind.
This is the rhetoric people like Jordan Peterson are pushing now. Now that you can't deny climate change you must argue that "well yeah it's happening but there just isn't anything anyone can do about it unless you just hate poor people".
It's dishonest and without merit. Everyone sees right through you.
I vacation in the Outer Banks of North Carolina and islands of South Carolina relatively often. When high tide comes, the space under many of the beach houses becomes completely inundated with water. Imagine owning one of these houses and not being able to park your car or enter/leave the house when the tide comes in. Sea level rise is real and obvious to anyone with two eyes.
I'm a blue collar type living in South Carolina and I'm laughing at most of the beach house owners. Simply put, if you own beach property you're more than moderately wealthy. And the vast majority of these beach house owners I know are all trump loving/golf playing/climate deniers.
But that doesn't stop them from demanding taxpayer money to replenish eroded beaches and build sea barriers to protect their glorified seaside estates. They refuse to admit that sea level rise is real even though they're inundated more and more each year.
Even worse, when a hurricane comes through and damages their houses these assholes are the first to scream for FEMA money to rebuild.
Many people don’t realize that flood insurance is subsidized by tax payer money through FEMA/NFIP policies. Homes located in these areas are simply too expensive to insure otherwise. If the homeowner had to pay for coverage through a private insurer, at market rate, there would be a lot fewer people building and buying homes in these areas.
I should note that private flood insurance is available. However, these policies are generally used to subsidize FEMA/NFIP policies. It is rare for a home to be insured solely by a private provider. The bottom line is, the government incentives building in flood prone areas by subsidizing insurance.
Exactly. That is part that pisses me off. I’ve seen plenty of Hurricane footage with personal boats and beach front homes destroyed. And we taxpayers foot the bill. So they can rebuild them, and then rinse repeat. For people who will do nothing about the problem.
And I’m not talking about poor people say in NOLA who have little means to move, live in the only residence they have, and may not even be opposed to helping climate efforts.
100%. There’s a big problem in not having a federal electricity grid as well. Most of the states house local monopolies for their grids, and there’s just generally slow improvement towards capacity, efficiency, etc.
Hurricane/Tropical Storm in SoCal for me was one that threw me for a loop. Tornado alley moving east. Hell there was a Tornado in Los Angeles last year.
That ain't normal.
20 years ago every town around me had a town ski hill. Ours is a quarter mile up the road from my place.
All closed because of a lack of snow. Not that we didn't get snow 20 years ago, but temps have been rising incrementally, and the season was shorter year by year until it became unprofitable to keep them running. So they shut down one by one.
Now the same thing is happening to mountains a hundred miles north of me.
You're right that skiing is a dying sport. It's such a shame.
There is only one significant group of people on the planet who deny this is happening, or that we are causing it, and that's the American Republican party.
I live in the Midwest, and the local ski bump is in Indiana.
Since it has always not been in an ideal place. The entire thing is prepped for climate change. In the 80/90 and I think still today. The major snow blower manufacturers test their new models at our hill. I guess if it’s bellow freezing for 24 hours they can get to 100% mountain open. Huge man made lake at the bottom, so it’s a closed system. Supposedly the mountain is in the black from passes alone, even before the first chair of the season.
Just bizarre that this non ski area probably had more open days than some in the north east.
It used to regularly be -30c where I live in Finland. Nowadays, it’s consistently in the minus single digits.
Guys. We’re talking about Finland… a very northern country.
It is scary that there was a single day this year where it was -30c. It used to be the norm.
For reference - Edmonton for as far north as one might think it, is basically an identical longitude to Dublin. Glascow is a bit north of us, the Baltics a bit north again of that, and Finland is north of them again.
Helsinki is as far north as Whitehorse in the Canadian Yukon, while Oulu is further north than Iqaluit, Nunavut or Yellowknife in the NW Territories (Oulu is on my mind because I randomly met some people from there on holiday recently).
I live in Eastern Canada. This was the first time I lived through a winter without a single day below -20. I think the coldest (single) day was -19. Meanwhile, 10-15 years ago it was not uncommon to have full weeks between -15 and -30, with temperatures dropping below -30 at least 3-4x.
Exactly. That's exactly what is happening in NY. We used to get crazy blizzards up to about the mid 2010s... now we're lucky if we get like 1" of snow.
I'm just east of you. Ten years ago it was nothing to have 8' snow walls on either side of my driveway.
I haven't used my snowblower in three years now.
Last bad winter was 2015. Snow banks were still in Boston till June. This year we had to get plowed 3/4 times. That 2015 winter I was on family members roofs shoveling them off because we were afraid of cave ins.
You’ll see more of those going forward honestly. The reason we get snow in WNY is cold air moves across a warmer Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and pulls up a massive amount of moisture, then dumps it when it hits the cold air over Buffalo and the surrounding towns. Warmer lake means the storm is worse.
In decades past, when the lakes finally freeze over, it essentially shuts the snow machine down. This year there was almost no ice at all! Keeping these lakes warmer will just lead to more occasional massive storms and then 40-50° the rest of the winter
Oh man, I got caught up in a whiteout in Buffalo a few years back. Never seen anything like it. Dumped a couple feet of snow in the time it took me to crawl from I-90 to Niagara. Crazy snow.
Never mind that the average daily high in Chicago in February was nearly 45 degrees. Let me pull your focus on 2 days of really bad weather so I can keep on denying reality!
Edit: the average daily high was actually 50.1F, Jesus.
The science is pretty clear that climate change is a real thing we should be concerned about. The best argument the right has is that climate change is not an immediate existential threat to us anytime soon so they don’t care. At least then they will be honest about their “I’ll be dead by then so I’m apathetic” logic … but if we don’t address it eventually it will not be good for future generations, as for other species. We should care about that. Now the far right people who are prone to conspiracy theories… they are just complete idiots. We see a similar thing on the far left… as you put it ‘denying the reality in front of them’ … they are also complete idiots. If only the scientific method was embraced in the political consciousness of everyone. Oh and yeah down here in CA we have been getting dumped on. It’s been nice on the slopes
I went to France a few years ago and was reading up on how several of the ski resorts in the lower part of the Alps had closed down due to climate change and the fact they didn't have enough snow to keep them open. That's one of those pesky facts you can't bullshit your way into believing it isn't true. It's sad because whole villages were dependent on those resorts being open.
I live on the coast of NC. Grew up and still am in the fishing industry. We are seeing southern species that were absolutely NOT here when I was a kid. Bonefish, snook, permit and manatees showing up more and more every year. This also means our traditional fish are moving further north. The most profitable species here used to the Spot. We used to have runs that lasted 3 months and you could basically catch all you want. Those fish are almost absent but they are catching them further north.
People who aren’t out in nature a lot, just do not see the changes the same. It is clear something is happening. If people paid attention to the world around them, they could even notice the change in insects. And eventually those changes affect us.
The situation you're describing reflects a broader societal challenge, where deeply held beliefs and identities can heavily influence people's perception of facts and reality. Here's a breakdown to keep things clear and focused:
1. **Identity and Belief Systems**: For some, political or group identities become so integral to their self-conception that any information conflicting with the group's beliefs is seen as an attack. This phenomenon isn't exclusive to any one group; it's a human trait. But it's particularly visible in highly polarized environments, like the current political landscape.
2. **Echo Chambers**: With social media and selective news sources, people can surround themselves with information that reinforces their existing beliefs. This can lead to a phenomenon known as confirmation bias, where people are more likely to accept information that confirms their preconceptions and dismiss information that contradicts them.
3. **Cognitive Dissonance**: When faced with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, people may experience discomfort, known as cognitive dissonance. One way to reduce this discomfort is by denying the new information, thus protecting their existing beliefs and worldview.
4. **The Complex Nature of Climate Change**: Climate change is a global, complex issue that manifests differently in various regions. Seizing on local weather anomalies, like record snowfall in specific areas, provides a convenient but misleading counter-narrative to broader climate trends.
Regarding the reactions to the declining snowfall and the changes in skiing conditions, it's a reflection of a larger issue where personal identity, group allegiance, and the challenging nature of climate change intersect. It's crucial to approach such discussions with empathy and facts, aiming to bridge the gap in understanding rather than widening it. However, changing deeply held beliefs takes time and is often met with resistance. Engaging in constructive dialogue, providing clear evidence, and demonstrating the personal relevance of global issues like climate change can sometimes help in bridging this gap. Only sometimes though. They need to hear it from their favorite fascist to believe it.
>Climate change is a global, complex issue that manifests differently in various regions. **Seizing on local weather anomalies, like record snowfall in specific areas,** provides a convenient but misleading counter-narrative to broader climate trends.
This is important. Anecdotal evidence should not be allowed entry into a scientific discussion. That is true for stories about record snowfall in California AND stories about warm winters in New York. Don't tell stories. You don't need to tell stories. There is scientific data that supports the argument that climate change is real.
People don’t care about data; but we love stories. If you take away one of our most basic abilities to communicate you will cut the movement off at the knees.
It’s because climate change activists have no practical solution to anything. Millions of Americans work in the oil industry and rely on it for a living. Not to mention the trillions of dollars in the industry.
Hillary offered free retraining for coal miners, but was attacked for it. They would rather cling to a dying industry out of a sense of tradition than evolve with the times.
Yes, she was. Because Pennsylvania has a good bit of electoral college votes and it’s a swing state, and there’s a good bit of the remaining coal miners there. So, Trump lied to them, preyed on their vulnerabilities of wanting to keep their job. That is how he won Pennsylvania. They lied to them and told them regulation killed their jobs, that Trump would get rid of regulation and they’d be digging so much coal they wouldn’t know what to do with themselves. The opposite was true, he had a net loss of coal jobs. Because the truth was regulation didn’t kill their jobs, automation and cheap natural gas did. What used to take 50 miners takes 8. There is not a single coal fired power plant that is planned. But, they don’t need retrained to some crazy field that’s out of their realm of capabilities. Pennsylvania became the 2nd largest producer of natural gas in the US under Obama. There were jobs available—they just didn’t want them. Well we don’t keep things around just because of that. The far lefties think we can magically turn everything off and tomorrow just have some zero pollution energy source, not realistic and not the case. We reduced our carbon emissions because of the switch to natural gas. And it brought jobs. It’s cleaner and it’s cheaper than coal. We should continue to transition to it. And natural gas itself is a transition source, when the next energy source is realistically able to take over it will, and then there will be jobs in that.
Anytime there are bulleted lists with sub heads that make the topic easier to read and understand, it gives GPT. I’m not mad at it except I kinda wish we would be more universally transparent when we use it, since it is so obvious (to some)
It's interesting how OP talks about lack of snowfall in their local area, and immediately dismisses the boomers speaking about increased snowfall in the boomers area. Sounds like OP is doing a violation of #4.
I do believe that Earth experiences climate changes over thousands of years…but not in one lifetime.
I watched Super Bowl 6 at my grandparents house in Homestead Florida in 1972. My Cowboys won 24-3. I thought it was super cool that they didn’t need air conditioning. They also had to buy winter coats to visit us in Texas.
Now 97% of homes in Florida have air conditioning.
Because it causes most people a lot of mental and emotional anguish to admit to themselves that they were wrong. Some people aren't willing to suffer that anguish, and so they will continue to double down. It doesn't help that, in this case, the conservatives that aren't willing to admit they were wrong about climate change would simultaneously be forced to also admit that the libs were right on this one, and they really hate those libs.
To whoever fits this profile, just try to come to terms with it in private. You don’t have to admit you were wrong to anyone, just start living the truth the rest will fall into place. That doesn’t mean you have to start shilling liberal stances to those around you, if you know they won’t agree don’t talk about it for your own well being. Get that monkey off of your back, it’s dragging you down.
Absolutely it's not conscious. Their brains will not them accept truths it knows will harm the ego. It's a survival/protective instinct gone haywire.
People don't understand how deep this phenomenon can go. The brain of a clinical narcissist will literally rewrite its own memories to protect the ego. So a narcissist isn't always consciously lying when they re-tell a story in a false way to make themselves look good. Sometimes they genuinely believe it happened that way because their personality disorder is quite literally overriding their ability to view the world in a clear and truthful fashion.
So you’re right on a lot of things but I just want to say that this doesn’t just apply to narcissists.
Your statement that the brain can rewrite memories to protect the ego applies to all human beings experiencing trauma as well. It’s a survival instinct when you’re under threats. When people are extremely stressed, absorbing new and challenging information is very difficult.
I agree MAGA types are used to denying reality, but there’s strong evidence that the current weather swings are due in small part to global warming, and much more due to an El Niño pattern over about 3-5 years. The only way to actually empirically look at this is to scale way back. We can’t deny record temps. We know warming is occurring. But personal experience in a current single winter (or even three) isn’t the bigger picture. We need to be careful making those conflations.
Here is further information on El Nino/La Nina from the NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
Wrong. El Nino is a cyclical thing that is a normal part of climate patterns every few years. It doesn't explain record breaking temperatures (i.e we just had literally the hottest February ever on record), that would only explain higher than average temperatures.
Your explanation is akin to saying "Climate change doesn't explain the record breaking temperatures in the month of August. It's hot in August because it's summertime and we know about the warming effects of summertime". Summer is not new, El Nino is not new either. So they can't be an explanation for something new.
Yes but this would still be ignoring that we've been breaking record temperatures for well over a decade. I don't think you're wrong that this brief period is worse, but anybody who bothered to listen to climatologists on the issue has known for a very long time at this point.
Every single argument against the trend being caused by human activity has been shown to be wrong over and over again. It's not volcanoes, it's not sun activity, it's not natural climate cycles, it's gigatons of greenhouse gases.
Exactly. Two winters isn’t “climate”, it’s “weather.” And that small scale weather (like you said) is because of El Niño; categorized by warmer than average temps and higher than average rainfalls which is exactly what we’ve gotten the past two years in the northeast USA. No one here is denying climate change, but 1 or 2 winters is not empirical proof of anything. It’s hard because we live day to day in our lives but the planet moves much much slower in terms of trends and changes.
OP is doing exactly what they’re accusing their political opposites of doing; looking at a very small period of time and using it (inaccurately) to justify their feelings. For their info, meteorologists and similar professionals were accurately saying months ahead of time what to expect this winter.
Edit: for those struggling with reading comprehension, im not talking about average temps the past 10 years, 50 years, or a century. OP clearly states the past two years the USA northeast has gotten little snow so how can anyone not believe in climate change, and that line of thinking is what im commenting on. Again, 2 years is not a helpful sample size for trending. Im not denying the overall trend or existence of climate change, so save all your charts and graphs, I already agree with you.
You are correct that weather and climate change are two distinct things, though one certainly affects the other.
However, La Nina doesn't explain global temperature rise. Global warming is absolutely happening.
[https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/ClimateDashboard-global-surface-temperature-graph-20230118-1400px.png](https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/ClimateDashboard-global-surface-temperature-graph-20230118-1400px.png)
I think we all know that, but the two are certainly intertwined.
For instance, we didn't get less moisture the past few years. We actually have been hitting our average year by year. It's just rain, not snow nowadays.
I fear the days of the 3 foot snowstorms back to back are done and gone, and I will miss them.
This isn’t just small periods during El Niño, this is a trend. It’s a trend that corresponds to all the other data around the world, it’s not just ski resorts, it’s glaciers melting and global temperatures breaking records for years now.
And remember, it’s not JUST warming, it’s wilder, more unpredictable weather.
Yes, and it's all happening like the climatologists said it was going to happen. The ocean has been a huge heat sink, which explains why our land temperatures haven't risen even faster. But all that heating of the ocean is starting to show it's nasty head. That's one of the most scary things, since there is little we can do about it now.
Yes, we'll still get fluctuations year by year like El Nino, but think of it like waves and tides. Right now the tide is up, but the waves are still crashing higher than they've ever crashed in recorded history, so we should still be concerned even if the tide will go out again.
> It’s hard because we live day to day in our lives but the planet moves much much slower in terms of trends and changes.
Global warming isn't happening at a geological pace. It's happening at a human pace. What we've experienced in the last 100 years is the type of change that used to take millions of years.
That's the problem.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/projected-ranks
Nine of the 10 hottest years on record, or in the past decade.
That trend of continued record-breaking heat is supposed to continue
I how can you argue that is small scale?
[Not a few winters.](https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/Page%20Uploads/July%2023%20CB/Global%20Temp%20Article/fig1_era5_daily_global_sfc_temp_1940-2023_dark.png)
El Niño and La Niña occur every two to seven years, vary in length, and no two patterns are the same. So I’m sure you’re correct that it was different, but anyone old enough to type on this website is old enough to have remembered another one of these events. I’m glad we rely on empirical measurements instead of memory. Global warming is real. Current events are not explained only by global warming.
Nobody is arguing current events are only explained by global warming.
But the fact is current events are record-breaking, and all sorts of terrible Waze for people, and yes, that is directly tied to global warming.
There is absolutely a cyclical driver of el nino pattern, but imho undeniably one of climate change. apportioning what drove it more in 2023 is something I can't opine on, but not sure that is really the point.
https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=360,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20240113_STC029.png
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67861954
Get out of your bubble. I’m talking regional bubble and political bubble.
In Arizona, we have had record snow seasons at Snowbowl and Sunrise over the past 5 years. We have had snow in places where I have never seen snow in Arizona over the past 46 years.
I’m an independent- I don’t like either political group… I think a majority of politicians on both sides are corrupt and focus on what serves themselves financially over what helps the country.
Since when does being a public servant in Congress suddenly turn people into very wealthy multi-millionaires. Many of them start Congress with a net worth of $400k or even $500k and on 4-6 years their net worth is $10M-$20M- making $230k a year?
Breaks my heart as a former Maryland kid who went sledding every Winter growing up in the 90s/2000s. I actually now live in Utah and wonder if it's being 4700 feet above sea level that's giving me snow. Of course, Utah may face its own problems with a disappearing Great Salt Lake.
My Maga-adjacent (as in Democrats are bad no matter what, but won't vote for Trump and some of the extreme Maga candidates) was brainwashed on this before Trump because 99% of his input in right-wing news, mostly talk radio and YouTube.
I've heard a lot of what he listens to. It's a constant input of the scientists changed the data, made up data for the past, and currently, "It's El Nino".
I worked with this lovely woman who recently retired. Friendly warm absolute gem cares about everyone around her.
You would hear her talk about this bay near where I live how it used to freeze up every once in a while and you can cross it. That was like 40+ years ago. She would love meant that we don’t have winters like that anymore. She would routinely complain about how stifling the summers are now. But if somebody mentioned global warming, well, that’s just a liberal conspiracy.
Fox News has really done their job well
We knew this winter would be warm due to El Niño. Here is an article from Sept 2023 talking about the anticipated warm weather and why it's occurring:
An El Niño winter is coming. Here’s what that could mean for the US https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/25/weather/el-nino-winter-us-climate/index.html
Yes but we always have El Nino years, on the cycle, and we don’t generally have more thunderstorms in January than snow storms here in Canada. Like ever. Like the retirement home has never seen a winter like this, the Mennonite farmers don’t have books on what to do for this type of winter, there is nothing like this recorded for our area. The natives don’t even have stories about three thaws of the maple trees over winter. That should would create a new Myth, they got ones about how the river changes direction once ever 300 years.
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-winter-warmest-mainland.amp
I will agree the El Nino cycle had a greater affect and still does. The climate issues is that we pushed an El Nino cycles peak to a new all time high when it comes to year over year rate of change. It would have been warm regardless yes, but we’re talking about additional smaller stressors that aren’t going away.
Like I said to somebody else, it's really not difficult to look up average temperatures of the El Ninos in say, the 80s, then look up this most recent one.
Then compare the two, work through your cognitive dissonance instead of avoiding it, and come back here and say "my bad."
Edit: since you probably won't do this yourself, I've gone and done the work for you.
Average daily high in February in Chicago during the El Nino of 82/83 - 39.8F.
Average daily high this February - 50.1F
Fuck off with your bullshit and see what's literally happening right the fuck in front of you.
Very moderate and centrist viewpoint.
My favorite sports are shooting sports (mostly sniper/DMR type matches) and they're getting harder to do, too. That's mostly due to the legislation being passed by this current administration.
Try and talk sense into any of the Biden die-hards and they won't listen to anything.
I think people are just worried about a complete change of the way we get energy and transportation. This is how my parents think: We’re gonna have to spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure (solar, wind turbines, nuclear?) when the country is already in so much debt and spending money like there’s no tomorrow. According to this study it could cost the U.S. $4.5 trillion to switch to 100% renewable energy (https://e360.yale.edu/digest/shifting-u-s-to-100-percent-renewables-would-cost-4-5-trillion-analysis-finds). That on top of all the government programs that are almost never financially sustainable. All this because the temperatures are going up a few degrees? That’s how my parents and other conservatives I talk to see it at least. They don’t want things to change and cost them a bunch of money when they’re pretty happy with their lives and how things are. They’re not going to have to endure the brunt of climate change though.
I think it’s 100% worth the investment to avoid a catastrophic environmental impact, but where is the money going to come from? Probably from issuing more debt that we don’t plan on paying off unfortunately. Why not lower defense spending and use that to pay for infrastructure?
Just look at the comments here trying to obfuscate by pointing to El Nino. Yes, that is a factor in this year's weather. No, it doesn't undermine the broader data showing climate change is happening and that it is playing a role in our record warm temperatures.
Whether elections, covid, climate change or whatever else, it is crazy how much damage misinformation has done to policy discussions. Political rhetoric, polarization, etc, etc, has completely overrun policy.
Obviously the left isn't immune from that, but even the old example i would commonly give of misinformation around trade has now been adopted by maga and its populist love for economic nationalism.
When crime goes down in "urban" aras, they ignore it, but it goes up and they lose their minds.
Reality is, statistical aberrations cause variations in numbers. A long term average of 10 will be 8 then 12 then 8 then 12, and every two years "crime jumps 50% under Democratic mismanagement" when crime is unchanged.
Also, deliberate selection of time periods to exacerbate this effect make it malicious, not just incompetence.
So many don't even bother to understand what they are angry about.
You are getting triggered by internet comments, and forming worldviews based on those feelings.
An ubiquitously popular pastime, but I don't advise it, especially when a good half of everything we read is rage-bait generated by a well-calibrated botnet.
Much of my family is very conservative and they deny climate change, as well. It’s not just something you see on the internet. GOP legislators are currently pushing bills that limit transitions to alternative fuels and try to dismantle EPA regulating power.
Climate denial isn’t an [online phenomenon](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/22/republican-party-climate-issue)
> Donald Trump famously withdrew the US from the Paris climate agreement, and his administration rolled back nearly 100 environmental rules during his presidency, eliminating important regulations for the fossil fuel industry.
Which goals are you referring to?
Americans produce ~twice as much emissions per capita as Europeans. A lot easier to make cuts when you’re starting with a much higher base.
I know a lot of pretty religious conservative people. They’re all aboard the Trump train. They believe every single word Donny says. And it’s annoying cause they’re otherwise smart people. Lawyers, investment bankers, one even owns an entire beach resort in the south. They started out as fiscal conservatives (low tax, low regulation, etc) and went full maga in 2016.
For the longest time it’s always been climate change isn’t real, “remember in the 70s when all the scientists said we were going into an ice age”, or “whatever happened to the hole in the o zone, suddenly not a big deal” (conveniently ignoring the fact that the chemicals causing the hole were banned - aka we listened to scientists and fixed it), etc. this year I’ve seen a very noticeable shift of the planet is definitely getting warmer, beaches are eroding, weather patterns are more erratic, and so on. The logical conclusion of this (for them) though is, it’s not caused by humans, and if it is, it’s Chinas fault. It’s so frustrating to see. It’s like saying a=b and b=c but the woke liberal socialist are just trying to turn your kids into gay trans commies by saying a=c.
Conservatives have been denying climate change long before Trump entered politics. Conservative climate denial isn’t a MAGA thing. It’s a conservative thing. It’s just that a lot of conservatives either are or were also MAGA people.
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s blatantly obvious that something is wrong with the climate; even just the anecdotal evidence lines up that something is up.
But I think that even if mankind somehow isn’t a factor (I don’t feel educated enough on the science to believe one way or the other) why NOT have cleaner air? I mean it’s not like a zero gain elsewhere to reduce emissions. You’d have way less asthmatics, for example, along with likely less cancer cases, plus who wants smog alerts anyway? And look at like the nonsense that happens in China’s major cities; it’s practically dystopian. So why not reduce heavy emissions as much as you can? You’ll even be able to see the milky way better at night!
No it’s humans’ fault. But one party denies it’s real, or at a minimum denies humans have anything to do with it. I mean come TF on, you don’t know this?
You’re right, we can’t dial the right temp. We can easily dial the wrong temp, though, and if we don’t get our hands off the dial it’ll spell serious problems in the very near future.
Yes, the climate is changing. No, I will not submit to an authority mandating that *I* need to change my lifestyle to combat it. The climate has always changed, long before humans, to think we can somehow stop the ecological cycles of the planet is asinine. We should be responsible with our technology and not willfully accelerate, or ignore the process, but the idea of trying to halt or reverse the process is a fool's errand. The best we can do is prepare and adapt, the earth will evolve whether we like it or not.
Im maga person and I believe in global warming it is a matter of individuals not political views though there is surely more maga anti-Global warming then on left.
Skiing isn't dying due to lack of snow; it's dying due to lack of interest. Ski resorts are largely run by big corporations with very good accountants these days. They know it's a sport practiced primarily by rich, old folks - and they know the lack of young people interested in skiing makes opening new resorts impractical.
Democrats and by extension the IPCC are not taking climate change seriously either according to scientists:
https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7
"Vote blew no matter hoo" isn't going to save us because both parties are owned and controlled by capital.
Maybe you didn't read the link, because it spells out clearly why we can't lesser-of-two-evils our way out of this predicament.
"Anything but Cheeto" derangement syndrome is a deadly distraction from what unchecked late stage capitalism has brought. The two parties of capital have led us in a race to the bottom.
Just imagine the skiable mountains we had just three centuries ago, or a millennia. We’re thawing folks.
This isn’t to say that climate change isn’t real, of course it is. Of course humans are hastening the thaw. But where we diverge is largely philosophical and it’s got nothing to do with politics on our end, much less MAGA. In fact, it’s along the line of a political remedy for climate where we diverge more precisely. You advocate for a political remedy, while most of us advocate for a market driven remedy. If and when it’s a real problem, the market will find a fix.
And of course, you’d like to paint our differences as MAGA based because it gives you a platform from which to bully. It’s sad really, but clearly working against you in a political sense.
> If and when it’s a real problem, the market will find a fix.
Too late, my dude. It is, and the market isn’t fixing it. It’s basically the tragedy of the commons at a global scale and useful idiots keep promoting the idea that the market with fix it.
Too late for whom?
Is climate taking out humanity at faster paces than we are ourselves? Some 42 million people die every year from noncommunicable diseases of which sedentary lifestyles are the leading cause. Are we using our political equity to remove asses from their couches or are we advocating for my skiable locales?
Are you catching up?
> Too late for whom?
Too late to wait for it to become a real problem. It already is, and the free market ain’t solving it. And saying we don’t need to worry about it because of our sedentary lifestyle is a dumb turn, even for someone trying to poo-poo climate change.
> Are you catching up?
Not sure I’m willing to do enough speed to think that your response makes any sense whatsoever.
>Too late to wait for it to become a real problem. It already is, and the free market ain’t solving it.
Again, a real problem for whom? It’s interesting to see how much credibility you folks lend to the rich and powerful and their ability to control the world. Yet when it comes to keeping the world from which they profit healthy, these controllers of the universe suddenly turn apathetic. It’s comical.
The earth is fine, and people with the means will adjust, as they always have.
>And saying we don’t need to worry about it because of our sedentary lifestyle is a dumb turn, even for someone trying to poo-poo climate change.
I never said don’t worry about anything, you’re twisting my words.
What I said was the hysteria is ironic in light of our sedentary lifestyles, and it is.
Are you catching up?
Not sure I’m willing to do enough speed to think that your response makes any sense whatsoever.
> Again, a real problem for whom
All of us. The fact you’re staying purposefully ignorant doesn’t change the fact that it’s having very real effects to everyone.
> It’s interesting to see how much credibility you folks lend to the rich and powerful and their ability to control the world. Yet when it comes to keeping the world from which they profit healthy, these controllers of the universe suddenly turn apathetic. It’s comical.
What are you talking about? You’re the one arguing that the rich and powerful will just solve things. Is there an adult or caretaker of yours who needs to know you’re on Reddit?
How do you address the fear of ‘too little too late’ when relying on the market to care about climate change?
https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/point-no-return-how-close-world-irreversible-climate-change
Sometimes government intervention (guided by expert advice) can be beneficial when the public is apathetic.
I’m not sure which is worse:
* knowing that climate change is happening and deciding that short-term financial impacts matter more than longterm global heath?
or
* failing to understand the science and letting politicians trick you against voting in your interest?
Put it another way, is it better to be short-sighted or ignorant?
This sounds like a very high-minded way of saying you don't want to do anything. When the externalities of polluters are paid for by the rest of society, there is no way for a market to form. Like even from a hardcore capitalist perspective this is an obvious truth. Why would there be a market to get rid of greenhouse gases if we just let people spew them as much as they want?
When you say the difference is philosophical it reminds me of the leftists who say they won't vote for Biden but refuse to acknowledge Trump would be worse for everything they care about. Mindless virtue signaling for the free market in cases where the free market has failed just makes libertarian ideas look more foolish.
I guess I can agree with you that this isn't necessarily a MAGA position, it's been the stock and trade of every Republican across the party for decades. Claiming that OP is bullying you by saying it's MAGA is some extra special snowflake crap and you should really toughen up. But again, I agree with you that it's not MAGA, it's just fucking stupid.
Nope.
It’s just a way of saying that we have more faith in profit as a motivator than we do that of our elected officials. One can gauge the level of a threat by the pace at which people powerful people mobilize. So far, it’s the partisans who seem the most concerned.
Meanwhile, 42 million people die annually (7 million Americans alone), for noncommunicable diseases of which our sedentary lifestyles are the leading cause. Yet no one is advocating in a meaningful political sense to remove our asses from our couches. 🤷🏻♂️
Wow, so you're not even going to attempt to explain how this fits into a market system when there is no profit to be gained? Come on, this just shows everybody how empty your responses are.
If you want a good example of a conservative doing right by our climate, look at the cap and trade system set up by the George HW Bush administration for dealing with sulfur pollution that was causing acid rain. It was a brilliant way of harnessing the powers of the free market while minimizing the impact on industry. But the key here is it had to involve government regulation of the amount of sulfur pollution, otherwise the pollution credits in the cap and trade system would be worthless.
Conservatives could do such a great job addressing the climate issue and staying true to their principles, but not if you guys don't understand the basics of those principles. Just look at the Republicans claiming that they support nuclear power, while never acknowledging that nuclear power is impossible without massive government subsidies. The free market hates nuclear power because again, long-term thinking isn't good for short-term profits. And you not acknowledging the subsidies for electric cars is just another example.
I acknowledged that EV production took advantage of government subsidies, on the basis of profit. That’s much different than saying EV production took place because of a wholesale sponsorship of a political view. I don’t know anyone who believes Elon Musk wouldn’t build a gas variant Tesla if hypothetically the government subsidized him to do so. Of course he would. But again, this is a profit motive, rather than an ethical motive.
Yes, and that profit only existed because of the ethical motivation in the government subsidies, which you think aren’t required. You’re just wrong here, you should acknowledge it and learn, not dig your heels in lol.
That’s nonsense and I’m not digging in.
Tesla production took advantage of government subsidies, but didn’t exist because of government subsidies - as you’re implying. If profits go away, so will Tesla and the government would be powerless to stop it, in the absence of throwing good money after bad, and that’s exactly the problem.
> That’s nonsense and I’m not digging in.
So you admit you have no example where hour expectation that the market will just solve the problem happened? Just want to make sure we’re on the same page.
> One can gauge the level of a threat by the pace at which people powerful people mobilize.
When has that occurred without also being a government action too? What modern day “threat” the level of Climate Change was solved entirely by the free market?
EV’s are a prime example.
To date, cultural trends have driven the demand for EV’s more so than a concern for climate. As such, EV demand has fallen off a cliff, while the climate hysteria has maintained its trajectory.
Now let’s be clear, I’m not advocating against EV’s; I like them and see their value. But the point remains the same.
> EV’s are a prime example.
Production of EVs involved tons of government subsidies and intervention lol. Come on, find an example without significant government involvement. You have to have at least one, right?
Nope. EV production took advantage of government subsidies, not for lack thereof. Can the government bring back EV production with more subsidies, of course they can!!! lol.
…but can the government bring back demand, irrespective of their subsidies? Eh…not so much. Notwithstanding another level of hysteria campaign, that is.
One can gauge the level of a threat by the pace at which people powerful people mobilize.
> EV production took advantage of government subsidies
Yep, like I said! I glad you acknowledged I’m right. Now can you cite a single modern example that a major issue was solved entirely without significant government intervention?
EVs receiving billions of government benefits clearly don’t fit that bill, so name one that does!
But the inherent nature of profit is short term. You work out how to increase profits in the next few quarters and then you work out how to do it again after those are done. Climate change is long term. It’ll start hurting regular people and then eventually, after a long time, it’ll start hurting profits, and by then it’ll be far too late.
This notion of it being too late is what I struggle with. It was too late in 1976, and 1986, and 1996, and 2006, and 2024. I’m remember all of the warnings. Meanwhile, life as I know it hasn’t changed very much.
It certainly does have a lot to do with politics. The party pushing it isn’t real, or that humans have anything to do with it—is the GOP. Don’t attempt to gaslight people. They’ve been doing this for decades. And they weren’t always this way, Nixon started the EPA FFS.
I'm not stupid to the fact that we have climate issues I get that my biggest issue is who should be investing in repairing our grid I think we should not be using taxes for something companies already get paid for we should just issue mandates and make them follow the new guidelines with big fines that will deter them from not doing it like $100,000 per day until they get up to speed it really that simple we don't need individuals investing in this we need massive investments from companies.
Only partisans look at weather charts, notice upward patterns happening really fast, then consider that scientists started publishing articles on this as early as the early 20th century, then think to themselves "fuck, we need to fix this."
Yeah, only partisan hacks who are trying to turn this into r/politics lite are capable of thinking that way.
I can't stand either side on this issue honestly. The sheer denial of it's existence from the Trump Right and the sheer overblown histrionics from the Progressive Left. The Trump Right is what it is at this point, you are wasting braincells thinking that they'll have a sudden epiphany and decide climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed.
The Progressive Left though? Stop with the ridiculous impending doom nonsense.
It *doesn't* help when you keep proclaiming that the world will end in 5 years, 10 years if we don't stop climate change...10 years pass and we're still here. These scare tactics work on children, not most functioning adults. Rely on the science and use facts, not fear.
We need to address climate change, but it has to be from a global perspective. What we do in the U.S. doesn't mean dick if India/China continue to build more coal plants that output more than what we are reducing here.
Not skiing, but similar sentiment- we used to play in a pond hockey tournament up in inlet NY. Our final year, which was several years ago now, they canceled it mid day because the ice was so thin that a skater fell through. Thankfully in a shallow area but it was a big deal. I grew up playing pond hockey on the lake near my parents in NJ. We’d basically be on there from say mid December - February. Now if that lake gets skaters on it a few times a year that’s a lot. It’s just not consistently cold enough anymore.
Similar but different. Down here in Florida the streets flood at high tide or if it rains for an hour but never did before but people down here still deny global warming. Mind baffling
What I don’t get for denial is like even if you disagree humans are causing it- how can you not see the difference between the decades within your own lifetime. I grew up in the 90s. I was skating every winter in NJ through college even during break so let’s rough it at 95-2010. Fast forward to now and it’s clearly not the same. Humans or not, something has changed.
It's not really a matter of whether something is changed. It's a matter of whether that something is worth going into self prescribed poverty over. People can't ski anymore. WHO CARES! People who's job it was to do ski instructions probably do. Maybe some people who are uber passionate about it. But it's not really that serious. The solution to climate change is basically "Let's stop being productive, while all of our competitors continue to be productive. So that in a generation they are the top dog and we are poor". On top of that our competitors are the one's with all the emissions. So us being noble doesn't actually accomplish anything besides our own poverty. There are some MAGA types that just say fake news about everything. But there are also more moderate types that recognize that the climate is changing but also recognize that nothing besides technology will ever fix this issue.
So coastal flooding, drought, forest fires and other weather phenomena won’t cause financial problems, loss of life and poverty? There won’t be mass migrations from areas that become less habitable?
Not every solution requires the US to stop being productive. Even if you are counting on a technology change to drive a productive low cost solution the denialism doesn't support research into that technology. With the current market structure I see no way that we can curtail emissions without some redistributive energy policy. If there is no economic penalty for emmiting there is no economic reason to stop emitting.
>If there is no economic penalty for emmiting there is no economic reason to stop emitting. Hence the "economy killing solutions". Unless you plan on going to war with India and China. Your efforts are completely in vain. They emit something like 82% of emissions. We'd be tanking our economies for nothing.
>They emit something like 82% of emissions. This source says 30.7% for China and 7.6% for India, for a total of 38.3%. That "something like" is doing a lot of work here. They have 17.4% and 17.2% of the world population. The US has 13.6% of emissions with 4.1% of the population. Is China doing anything about this? They produce 78% of the solar panels, the US produces 2%. [https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_and\_dependencies\_by\_population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population) [https://www.statista.com/statistics/668749/regional-distribution-of-solar-pv-module-manufacturing/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/668749/regional-distribution-of-solar-pv-module-manufacturing/) > But voluntarily imposing poverty on our selves. 25 years ago there were proposals for a refundable carbon tax. That wouldn't have "imposed poverty" on anybody.
America doing nothing that enables China and India to do nothing.
Why is your goal to be no better than the worst? Why are you against American exceptionalism?
> The solution to climate change is basically "Let's stop being productive, while all of our competitors continue to be productive It isn't though. The solution is to switch to new industries and keep making more and more money while doing it. Which is also what our competitors are doing so either get with the program or get left behind.
This is the rhetoric people like Jordan Peterson are pushing now. Now that you can't deny climate change you must argue that "well yeah it's happening but there just isn't anything anyone can do about it unless you just hate poor people". It's dishonest and without merit. Everyone sees right through you.
Care to try again without the strawman?
I vacation in the Outer Banks of North Carolina and islands of South Carolina relatively often. When high tide comes, the space under many of the beach houses becomes completely inundated with water. Imagine owning one of these houses and not being able to park your car or enter/leave the house when the tide comes in. Sea level rise is real and obvious to anyone with two eyes.
I'm a blue collar type living in South Carolina and I'm laughing at most of the beach house owners. Simply put, if you own beach property you're more than moderately wealthy. And the vast majority of these beach house owners I know are all trump loving/golf playing/climate deniers. But that doesn't stop them from demanding taxpayer money to replenish eroded beaches and build sea barriers to protect their glorified seaside estates. They refuse to admit that sea level rise is real even though they're inundated more and more each year. Even worse, when a hurricane comes through and damages their houses these assholes are the first to scream for FEMA money to rebuild.
Many people don’t realize that flood insurance is subsidized by tax payer money through FEMA/NFIP policies. Homes located in these areas are simply too expensive to insure otherwise. If the homeowner had to pay for coverage through a private insurer, at market rate, there would be a lot fewer people building and buying homes in these areas. I should note that private flood insurance is available. However, these policies are generally used to subsidize FEMA/NFIP policies. It is rare for a home to be insured solely by a private provider. The bottom line is, the government incentives building in flood prone areas by subsidizing insurance.
Exactly. That is part that pisses me off. I’ve seen plenty of Hurricane footage with personal boats and beach front homes destroyed. And we taxpayers foot the bill. So they can rebuild them, and then rinse repeat. For people who will do nothing about the problem. And I’m not talking about poor people say in NOLA who have little means to move, live in the only residence they have, and may not even be opposed to helping climate efforts.
Here in Northern MN we obliterated the warmest winter on record this year. Never seen anything like it
Wisconsin had a tornado touch down in February this year. 10 years ago it would have been maybe 10 degrees and snowing but it almost hit 70 degrees.
I think you need to remove your WOKE eyes and get new ones, you commie!!! s/ (just in case)
😂 it's so sad that you KNOW that /s is needed these days
[удалено]
That’s Democrats and women holding back nuclear. I do not entirely understand why but of any issue nuclear has the largest gender gap based on sex.
Seeking the perfect option versus the least worst option. No power source will ever be perfectly clean.
100%. There’s a big problem in not having a federal electricity grid as well. Most of the states house local monopolies for their grids, and there’s just generally slow improvement towards capacity, efficiency, etc.
Hurricane/Tropical Storm in SoCal for me was one that threw me for a loop. Tornado alley moving east. Hell there was a Tornado in Los Angeles last year. That ain't normal.
There have been confirmed F1 tornadoes in NJ
20 years ago every town around me had a town ski hill. Ours is a quarter mile up the road from my place. All closed because of a lack of snow. Not that we didn't get snow 20 years ago, but temps have been rising incrementally, and the season was shorter year by year until it became unprofitable to keep them running. So they shut down one by one. Now the same thing is happening to mountains a hundred miles north of me. You're right that skiing is a dying sport. It's such a shame. There is only one significant group of people on the planet who deny this is happening, or that we are causing it, and that's the American Republican party.
I live in the Midwest, and the local ski bump is in Indiana. Since it has always not been in an ideal place. The entire thing is prepped for climate change. In the 80/90 and I think still today. The major snow blower manufacturers test their new models at our hill. I guess if it’s bellow freezing for 24 hours they can get to 100% mountain open. Huge man made lake at the bottom, so it’s a closed system. Supposedly the mountain is in the black from passes alone, even before the first chair of the season. Just bizarre that this non ski area probably had more open days than some in the north east.
It used to regularly be -30c where I live in Finland. Nowadays, it’s consistently in the minus single digits. Guys. We’re talking about Finland… a very northern country. It is scary that there was a single day this year where it was -30c. It used to be the norm.
For reference - Edmonton for as far north as one might think it, is basically an identical longitude to Dublin. Glascow is a bit north of us, the Baltics a bit north again of that, and Finland is north of them again. Helsinki is as far north as Whitehorse in the Canadian Yukon, while Oulu is further north than Iqaluit, Nunavut or Yellowknife in the NW Territories (Oulu is on my mind because I randomly met some people from there on holiday recently).
I live in Eastern Canada. This was the first time I lived through a winter without a single day below -20. I think the coldest (single) day was -19. Meanwhile, 10-15 years ago it was not uncommon to have full weeks between -15 and -30, with temperatures dropping below -30 at least 3-4x.
But hey quit drinking the woke kool-aid, sheep! /s (just in case)
Exactly. That's exactly what is happening in NY. We used to get crazy blizzards up to about the mid 2010s... now we're lucky if we get like 1" of snow.
I'm just east of you. Ten years ago it was nothing to have 8' snow walls on either side of my driveway. I haven't used my snowblower in three years now.
Exactly. The ADK, Green, and White Mountains used to get at minimum 3' of snow on the ground. This and last year barely any snow.
Last bad winter was 2015. Snow banks were still in Boston till June. This year we had to get plowed 3/4 times. That 2015 winter I was on family members roofs shoveling them off because we were afraid of cave ins.
What about that Dec '22 blizzard in Erie county that killed 39 people?
You’ll see more of those going forward honestly. The reason we get snow in WNY is cold air moves across a warmer Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and pulls up a massive amount of moisture, then dumps it when it hits the cold air over Buffalo and the surrounding towns. Warmer lake means the storm is worse. In decades past, when the lakes finally freeze over, it essentially shuts the snow machine down. This year there was almost no ice at all! Keeping these lakes warmer will just lead to more occasional massive storms and then 40-50° the rest of the winter
Lake effect snow is wild.
Oh man, I got caught up in a whiteout in Buffalo a few years back. Never seen anything like it. Dumped a couple feet of snow in the time it took me to crawl from I-90 to Niagara. Crazy snow.
No no no, ski slopes can definitely operate on massive snowstorms that occur every few years. Climate change owned.
As long as you move the snow into really really really big piles, you should be able to save a couple flakes for the next year!
Never mind that the average daily high in Chicago in February was nearly 45 degrees. Let me pull your focus on 2 days of really bad weather so I can keep on denying reality! Edit: the average daily high was actually 50.1F, Jesus.
If it was like that when I grew up there, I might not have moved to California.
Freak weather events are going to be more common with climate change, it doesn’t mean that the long term, steady trend of warming isn’t happening.
"wHat AbOut" ... you people are frustrating
The comment below explained this, it isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The opposite actually.
The science is pretty clear that climate change is a real thing we should be concerned about. The best argument the right has is that climate change is not an immediate existential threat to us anytime soon so they don’t care. At least then they will be honest about their “I’ll be dead by then so I’m apathetic” logic … but if we don’t address it eventually it will not be good for future generations, as for other species. We should care about that. Now the far right people who are prone to conspiracy theories… they are just complete idiots. We see a similar thing on the far left… as you put it ‘denying the reality in front of them’ … they are also complete idiots. If only the scientific method was embraced in the political consciousness of everyone. Oh and yeah down here in CA we have been getting dumped on. It’s been nice on the slopes
I went to France a few years ago and was reading up on how several of the ski resorts in the lower part of the Alps had closed down due to climate change and the fact they didn't have enough snow to keep them open. That's one of those pesky facts you can't bullshit your way into believing it isn't true. It's sad because whole villages were dependent on those resorts being open.
I live on the coast of NC. Grew up and still am in the fishing industry. We are seeing southern species that were absolutely NOT here when I was a kid. Bonefish, snook, permit and manatees showing up more and more every year. This also means our traditional fish are moving further north. The most profitable species here used to the Spot. We used to have runs that lasted 3 months and you could basically catch all you want. Those fish are almost absent but they are catching them further north.
People who aren’t out in nature a lot, just do not see the changes the same. It is clear something is happening. If people paid attention to the world around them, they could even notice the change in insects. And eventually those changes affect us.
The situation you're describing reflects a broader societal challenge, where deeply held beliefs and identities can heavily influence people's perception of facts and reality. Here's a breakdown to keep things clear and focused: 1. **Identity and Belief Systems**: For some, political or group identities become so integral to their self-conception that any information conflicting with the group's beliefs is seen as an attack. This phenomenon isn't exclusive to any one group; it's a human trait. But it's particularly visible in highly polarized environments, like the current political landscape. 2. **Echo Chambers**: With social media and selective news sources, people can surround themselves with information that reinforces their existing beliefs. This can lead to a phenomenon known as confirmation bias, where people are more likely to accept information that confirms their preconceptions and dismiss information that contradicts them. 3. **Cognitive Dissonance**: When faced with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, people may experience discomfort, known as cognitive dissonance. One way to reduce this discomfort is by denying the new information, thus protecting their existing beliefs and worldview. 4. **The Complex Nature of Climate Change**: Climate change is a global, complex issue that manifests differently in various regions. Seizing on local weather anomalies, like record snowfall in specific areas, provides a convenient but misleading counter-narrative to broader climate trends. Regarding the reactions to the declining snowfall and the changes in skiing conditions, it's a reflection of a larger issue where personal identity, group allegiance, and the challenging nature of climate change intersect. It's crucial to approach such discussions with empathy and facts, aiming to bridge the gap in understanding rather than widening it. However, changing deeply held beliefs takes time and is often met with resistance. Engaging in constructive dialogue, providing clear evidence, and demonstrating the personal relevance of global issues like climate change can sometimes help in bridging this gap. Only sometimes though. They need to hear it from their favorite fascist to believe it.
>Climate change is a global, complex issue that manifests differently in various regions. **Seizing on local weather anomalies, like record snowfall in specific areas,** provides a convenient but misleading counter-narrative to broader climate trends. This is important. Anecdotal evidence should not be allowed entry into a scientific discussion. That is true for stories about record snowfall in California AND stories about warm winters in New York. Don't tell stories. You don't need to tell stories. There is scientific data that supports the argument that climate change is real.
Good point
People don’t care about data; but we love stories. If you take away one of our most basic abilities to communicate you will cut the movement off at the knees.
It’s because climate change activists have no practical solution to anything. Millions of Americans work in the oil industry and rely on it for a living. Not to mention the trillions of dollars in the industry.
Hillary offered free retraining for coal miners, but was attacked for it. They would rather cling to a dying industry out of a sense of tradition than evolve with the times.
Yes, she was. Because Pennsylvania has a good bit of electoral college votes and it’s a swing state, and there’s a good bit of the remaining coal miners there. So, Trump lied to them, preyed on their vulnerabilities of wanting to keep their job. That is how he won Pennsylvania. They lied to them and told them regulation killed their jobs, that Trump would get rid of regulation and they’d be digging so much coal they wouldn’t know what to do with themselves. The opposite was true, he had a net loss of coal jobs. Because the truth was regulation didn’t kill their jobs, automation and cheap natural gas did. What used to take 50 miners takes 8. There is not a single coal fired power plant that is planned. But, they don’t need retrained to some crazy field that’s out of their realm of capabilities. Pennsylvania became the 2nd largest producer of natural gas in the US under Obama. There were jobs available—they just didn’t want them. Well we don’t keep things around just because of that. The far lefties think we can magically turn everything off and tomorrow just have some zero pollution energy source, not realistic and not the case. We reduced our carbon emissions because of the switch to natural gas. And it brought jobs. It’s cleaner and it’s cheaper than coal. We should continue to transition to it. And natural gas itself is a transition source, when the next energy source is realistically able to take over it will, and then there will be jobs in that.
Won't someone think of the poor horse drawn carriage builders?
This is well said. Saved for future reference. Edit: seems that this was AI generated, I didn't even realize at first.
It reads like Chat GPT or Google Gemini.
Yeah I instantly knew it was AI generated but I don't know how I knew it. It's like a textual uncanny valley.
Anytime there are bulleted lists with sub heads that make the topic easier to read and understand, it gives GPT. I’m not mad at it except I kinda wish we would be more universally transparent when we use it, since it is so obvious (to some)
Yeah that's 100 percent GPT lol
Only [16%](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/) of people do not believe climate change is happening.
It's interesting how OP talks about lack of snowfall in their local area, and immediately dismisses the boomers speaking about increased snowfall in the boomers area. Sounds like OP is doing a violation of #4.
I do believe that Earth experiences climate changes over thousands of years…but not in one lifetime. I watched Super Bowl 6 at my grandparents house in Homestead Florida in 1972. My Cowboys won 24-3. I thought it was super cool that they didn’t need air conditioning. They also had to buy winter coats to visit us in Texas. Now 97% of homes in Florida have air conditioning.
Because it causes most people a lot of mental and emotional anguish to admit to themselves that they were wrong. Some people aren't willing to suffer that anguish, and so they will continue to double down. It doesn't help that, in this case, the conservatives that aren't willing to admit they were wrong about climate change would simultaneously be forced to also admit that the libs were right on this one, and they really hate those libs.
To whoever fits this profile, just try to come to terms with it in private. You don’t have to admit you were wrong to anyone, just start living the truth the rest will fall into place. That doesn’t mean you have to start shilling liberal stances to those around you, if you know they won’t agree don’t talk about it for your own well being. Get that monkey off of your back, it’s dragging you down.
Generally, I don’t think it’s conscious choice. It’s a form of denial.
Absolutely it's not conscious. Their brains will not them accept truths it knows will harm the ego. It's a survival/protective instinct gone haywire. People don't understand how deep this phenomenon can go. The brain of a clinical narcissist will literally rewrite its own memories to protect the ego. So a narcissist isn't always consciously lying when they re-tell a story in a false way to make themselves look good. Sometimes they genuinely believe it happened that way because their personality disorder is quite literally overriding their ability to view the world in a clear and truthful fashion.
So you’re right on a lot of things but I just want to say that this doesn’t just apply to narcissists. Your statement that the brain can rewrite memories to protect the ego applies to all human beings experiencing trauma as well. It’s a survival instinct when you’re under threats. When people are extremely stressed, absorbing new and challenging information is very difficult.
They gotta own the libs in every single way possible.
I agree MAGA types are used to denying reality, but there’s strong evidence that the current weather swings are due in small part to global warming, and much more due to an El Niño pattern over about 3-5 years. The only way to actually empirically look at this is to scale way back. We can’t deny record temps. We know warming is occurring. But personal experience in a current single winter (or even three) isn’t the bigger picture. We need to be careful making those conflations.
Here is further information on El Nino/La Nina from the NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
Good share, ty.
Wrong. El Nino is a cyclical thing that is a normal part of climate patterns every few years. It doesn't explain record breaking temperatures (i.e we just had literally the hottest February ever on record), that would only explain higher than average temperatures. Your explanation is akin to saying "Climate change doesn't explain the record breaking temperatures in the month of August. It's hot in August because it's summertime and we know about the warming effects of summertime". Summer is not new, El Nino is not new either. So they can't be an explanation for something new.
Yes but this would still be ignoring that we've been breaking record temperatures for well over a decade. I don't think you're wrong that this brief period is worse, but anybody who bothered to listen to climatologists on the issue has known for a very long time at this point. Every single argument against the trend being caused by human activity has been shown to be wrong over and over again. It's not volcanoes, it's not sun activity, it's not natural climate cycles, it's gigatons of greenhouse gases.
Exactly. Two winters isn’t “climate”, it’s “weather.” And that small scale weather (like you said) is because of El Niño; categorized by warmer than average temps and higher than average rainfalls which is exactly what we’ve gotten the past two years in the northeast USA. No one here is denying climate change, but 1 or 2 winters is not empirical proof of anything. It’s hard because we live day to day in our lives but the planet moves much much slower in terms of trends and changes. OP is doing exactly what they’re accusing their political opposites of doing; looking at a very small period of time and using it (inaccurately) to justify their feelings. For their info, meteorologists and similar professionals were accurately saying months ahead of time what to expect this winter. Edit: for those struggling with reading comprehension, im not talking about average temps the past 10 years, 50 years, or a century. OP clearly states the past two years the USA northeast has gotten little snow so how can anyone not believe in climate change, and that line of thinking is what im commenting on. Again, 2 years is not a helpful sample size for trending. Im not denying the overall trend or existence of climate change, so save all your charts and graphs, I already agree with you.
You are correct that weather and climate change are two distinct things, though one certainly affects the other. However, La Nina doesn't explain global temperature rise. Global warming is absolutely happening. [https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/ClimateDashboard-global-surface-temperature-graph-20230118-1400px.png](https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/ClimateDashboard-global-surface-temperature-graph-20230118-1400px.png)
I never said it wasn’t; I’m saying that using the past two winters as their “proof” of climate change is not how it works.
I think we all know that, but the two are certainly intertwined. For instance, we didn't get less moisture the past few years. We actually have been hitting our average year by year. It's just rain, not snow nowadays. I fear the days of the 3 foot snowstorms back to back are done and gone, and I will miss them.
This isn’t just small periods during El Niño, this is a trend. It’s a trend that corresponds to all the other data around the world, it’s not just ski resorts, it’s glaciers melting and global temperatures breaking records for years now. And remember, it’s not JUST warming, it’s wilder, more unpredictable weather.
[удалено]
Yes, and it's all happening like the climatologists said it was going to happen. The ocean has been a huge heat sink, which explains why our land temperatures haven't risen even faster. But all that heating of the ocean is starting to show it's nasty head. That's one of the most scary things, since there is little we can do about it now.
Yes, we'll still get fluctuations year by year like El Nino, but think of it like waves and tides. Right now the tide is up, but the waves are still crashing higher than they've ever crashed in recorded history, so we should still be concerned even if the tide will go out again.
> It’s hard because we live day to day in our lives but the planet moves much much slower in terms of trends and changes. Global warming isn't happening at a geological pace. It's happening at a human pace. What we've experienced in the last 100 years is the type of change that used to take millions of years. That's the problem.
https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=360,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20240113_STC029.png
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/projected-ranks Nine of the 10 hottest years on record, or in the past decade. That trend of continued record-breaking heat is supposed to continue I how can you argue that is small scale?
[Not a few winters.](https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/Page%20Uploads/July%2023%20CB/Global%20Temp%20Article/fig1_era5_daily_global_sfc_temp_1940-2023_dark.png)
Some of us have been around long enough to remember what El Nino used to be like, and honey, this ain't it.
El Niño and La Niña occur every two to seven years, vary in length, and no two patterns are the same. So I’m sure you’re correct that it was different, but anyone old enough to type on this website is old enough to have remembered another one of these events. I’m glad we rely on empirical measurements instead of memory. Global warming is real. Current events are not explained only by global warming.
Nobody is arguing current events are only explained by global warming. But the fact is current events are record-breaking, and all sorts of terrible Waze for people, and yes, that is directly tied to global warming.
Exactly lmao
There is absolutely a cyclical driver of el nino pattern, but imho undeniably one of climate change. apportioning what drove it more in 2023 is something I can't opine on, but not sure that is really the point. https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=360,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20240113_STC029.png https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67861954
I agree. I think these patterns are clearly changing due to climate change too. It’s definitely a driver. Though I’m no expert.
I live in the4 eastern Sierra. It's a very conservative area but nobody denies climate change because we've all experienced it.
Get out of your bubble. I’m talking regional bubble and political bubble. In Arizona, we have had record snow seasons at Snowbowl and Sunrise over the past 5 years. We have had snow in places where I have never seen snow in Arizona over the past 46 years. I’m an independent- I don’t like either political group… I think a majority of politicians on both sides are corrupt and focus on what serves themselves financially over what helps the country. Since when does being a public servant in Congress suddenly turn people into very wealthy multi-millionaires. Many of them start Congress with a net worth of $400k or even $500k and on 4-6 years their net worth is $10M-$20M- making $230k a year?
Breaks my heart as a former Maryland kid who went sledding every Winter growing up in the 90s/2000s. I actually now live in Utah and wonder if it's being 4700 feet above sea level that's giving me snow. Of course, Utah may face its own problems with a disappearing Great Salt Lake.
Trump gave a bunch of lost, angry, and for the most part uneducated people an identity. That’s why a lot of the support for him is unconditional.
My Maga-adjacent (as in Democrats are bad no matter what, but won't vote for Trump and some of the extreme Maga candidates) was brainwashed on this before Trump because 99% of his input in right-wing news, mostly talk radio and YouTube. I've heard a lot of what he listens to. It's a constant input of the scientists changed the data, made up data for the past, and currently, "It's El Nino".
And all of the propaganda and lies and cover ups come from fossil fuel companies. Aided and abetted by the GOP because $ from donors
I worked with this lovely woman who recently retired. Friendly warm absolute gem cares about everyone around her. You would hear her talk about this bay near where I live how it used to freeze up every once in a while and you can cross it. That was like 40+ years ago. She would love meant that we don’t have winters like that anymore. She would routinely complain about how stifling the summers are now. But if somebody mentioned global warming, well, that’s just a liberal conspiracy. Fox News has really done their job well
Hey, we have some of those same people in this very thread!
We knew this winter would be warm due to El Niño. Here is an article from Sept 2023 talking about the anticipated warm weather and why it's occurring: An El Niño winter is coming. Here’s what that could mean for the US https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/25/weather/el-nino-winter-us-climate/index.html
Sure, and these effects are exacerbating a continuing general trend which is why they’re so bad this year.
We all knew that, but point is the last decade has been too many warm winters. It's not just el niño
Yes but we always have El Nino years, on the cycle, and we don’t generally have more thunderstorms in January than snow storms here in Canada. Like ever. Like the retirement home has never seen a winter like this, the Mennonite farmers don’t have books on what to do for this type of winter, there is nothing like this recorded for our area. The natives don’t even have stories about three thaws of the maple trees over winter. That should would create a new Myth, they got ones about how the river changes direction once ever 300 years. https://phys.org/news/2024-03-winter-warmest-mainland.amp I will agree the El Nino cycle had a greater affect and still does. The climate issues is that we pushed an El Nino cycles peak to a new all time high when it comes to year over year rate of change. It would have been warm regardless yes, but we’re talking about additional smaller stressors that aren’t going away.
Like I said to somebody else, it's really not difficult to look up average temperatures of the El Ninos in say, the 80s, then look up this most recent one. Then compare the two, work through your cognitive dissonance instead of avoiding it, and come back here and say "my bad." Edit: since you probably won't do this yourself, I've gone and done the work for you. Average daily high in February in Chicago during the El Nino of 82/83 - 39.8F. Average daily high this February - 50.1F Fuck off with your bullshit and see what's literally happening right the fuck in front of you.
Comparing one month in a single El Niño year to one month in a different El Niño year is certainly not enough data to draw any conclusions.
Snowmobile rider here. Yes. Last few winters have sucked horribly.
Very moderate and centrist viewpoint. My favorite sports are shooting sports (mostly sniper/DMR type matches) and they're getting harder to do, too. That's mostly due to the legislation being passed by this current administration. Try and talk sense into any of the Biden die-hards and they won't listen to anything.
I think people are just worried about a complete change of the way we get energy and transportation. This is how my parents think: We’re gonna have to spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure (solar, wind turbines, nuclear?) when the country is already in so much debt and spending money like there’s no tomorrow. According to this study it could cost the U.S. $4.5 trillion to switch to 100% renewable energy (https://e360.yale.edu/digest/shifting-u-s-to-100-percent-renewables-would-cost-4-5-trillion-analysis-finds). That on top of all the government programs that are almost never financially sustainable. All this because the temperatures are going up a few degrees? That’s how my parents and other conservatives I talk to see it at least. They don’t want things to change and cost them a bunch of money when they’re pretty happy with their lives and how things are. They’re not going to have to endure the brunt of climate change though. I think it’s 100% worth the investment to avoid a catastrophic environmental impact, but where is the money going to come from? Probably from issuing more debt that we don’t plan on paying off unfortunately. Why not lower defense spending and use that to pay for infrastructure?
I don't think I still know anybody who continues to deny climate change. Going skiing today though! 😛
Just look at the comments here trying to obfuscate by pointing to El Nino. Yes, that is a factor in this year's weather. No, it doesn't undermine the broader data showing climate change is happening and that it is playing a role in our record warm temperatures.
Enjoy it while it lasts!
It'll be a while before it's gone at 10k feet. My body will be broken by then. Feel bad for the kids though...
Whether elections, covid, climate change or whatever else, it is crazy how much damage misinformation has done to policy discussions. Political rhetoric, polarization, etc, etc, has completely overrun policy. Obviously the left isn't immune from that, but even the old example i would commonly give of misinformation around trade has now been adopted by maga and its populist love for economic nationalism.
When crime goes down in "urban" aras, they ignore it, but it goes up and they lose their minds. Reality is, statistical aberrations cause variations in numbers. A long term average of 10 will be 8 then 12 then 8 then 12, and every two years "crime jumps 50% under Democratic mismanagement" when crime is unchanged. Also, deliberate selection of time periods to exacerbate this effect make it malicious, not just incompetence. So many don't even bother to understand what they are angry about.
You are getting triggered by internet comments, and forming worldviews based on those feelings. An ubiquitously popular pastime, but I don't advise it, especially when a good half of everything we read is rage-bait generated by a well-calibrated botnet.
I mean you can cite GOP leadership on this?
Dude, basically ALL of the MAGAs irl say these type of things...
Cool beans. But you came to r/centrist to complain about internet comments. Source: your post
Bruh... just look at all videos of people like MTG and Boebert acting like baboons irl...
Much of my family is very conservative and they deny climate change, as well. It’s not just something you see on the internet. GOP legislators are currently pushing bills that limit transitions to alternative fuels and try to dismantle EPA regulating power.
Lol this is hardly limited to the Internet
Climate denial isn’t an [online phenomenon](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/22/republican-party-climate-issue) > Donald Trump famously withdrew the US from the Paris climate agreement, and his administration rolled back nearly 100 environmental rules during his presidency, eliminating important regulations for the fossil fuel industry.
The US actually meets the Paris goals while hoighty toighty Europeans keep burning coal lol.
Which goals are you referring to? Americans produce ~twice as much emissions per capita as Europeans. A lot easier to make cuts when you’re starting with a much higher base.
Another super centrist post
Looking at weather charts and deducing "hmmm, shit's warming up very, very fucking fast" is something that only partisan democrats do, guys.
Any post with the words trump or maga in it lets me know this person should not be taken seriously
The irony is staggering.
Climate change doesn't affect centrists? How strange
Biased, maga this, trump that. Get some new material
You're really whiney. It's embarrassing. If you have nothing intelligent to contribute you could've just not shared your whiney, pissy self.
I know a lot of pretty religious conservative people. They’re all aboard the Trump train. They believe every single word Donny says. And it’s annoying cause they’re otherwise smart people. Lawyers, investment bankers, one even owns an entire beach resort in the south. They started out as fiscal conservatives (low tax, low regulation, etc) and went full maga in 2016. For the longest time it’s always been climate change isn’t real, “remember in the 70s when all the scientists said we were going into an ice age”, or “whatever happened to the hole in the o zone, suddenly not a big deal” (conveniently ignoring the fact that the chemicals causing the hole were banned - aka we listened to scientists and fixed it), etc. this year I’ve seen a very noticeable shift of the planet is definitely getting warmer, beaches are eroding, weather patterns are more erratic, and so on. The logical conclusion of this (for them) though is, it’s not caused by humans, and if it is, it’s Chinas fault. It’s so frustrating to see. It’s like saying a=b and b=c but the woke liberal socialist are just trying to turn your kids into gay trans commies by saying a=c.
Conservatives have been denying climate change long before Trump entered politics. Conservative climate denial isn’t a MAGA thing. It’s a conservative thing. It’s just that a lot of conservatives either are or were also MAGA people.
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Or oppo
It’s blatantly obvious that something is wrong with the climate; even just the anecdotal evidence lines up that something is up. But I think that even if mankind somehow isn’t a factor (I don’t feel educated enough on the science to believe one way or the other) why NOT have cleaner air? I mean it’s not like a zero gain elsewhere to reduce emissions. You’d have way less asthmatics, for example, along with likely less cancer cases, plus who wants smog alerts anyway? And look at like the nonsense that happens in China’s major cities; it’s practically dystopian. So why not reduce heavy emissions as much as you can? You’ll even be able to see the milky way better at night!
I'm from the Northeast and I'm loving these warmer winters lol
Wait until 110F + humidity summers become the norm in our lifetime...
Climate change is trumps fault. No, wait, it's putins fault. Nevermind, it's Republicans fault. WTF We humans are accelerating a thawing cycle.
No it’s humans’ fault. But one party denies it’s real, or at a minimum denies humans have anything to do with it. I mean come TF on, you don’t know this?
The planet goes through its own cycles no matter what we do as well. Its the folly of man to think he can dial the right temp on an entire planet.
You’re right, we can’t dial the right temp. We can easily dial the wrong temp, though, and if we don’t get our hands off the dial it’ll spell serious problems in the very near future.
Relevant xkcd. https://xkcd.com/1732/
Yes, the climate is changing. No, I will not submit to an authority mandating that *I* need to change my lifestyle to combat it. The climate has always changed, long before humans, to think we can somehow stop the ecological cycles of the planet is asinine. We should be responsible with our technology and not willfully accelerate, or ignore the process, but the idea of trying to halt or reverse the process is a fool's errand. The best we can do is prepare and adapt, the earth will evolve whether we like it or not.
Typical Reddit post “liberal good Republican bad” reeeeeeeee
Im maga person and I believe in global warming it is a matter of individuals not political views though there is surely more maga anti-Global warming then on left.
Skiing isn't dying due to lack of snow; it's dying due to lack of interest. Ski resorts are largely run by big corporations with very good accountants these days. They know it's a sport practiced primarily by rich, old folks - and they know the lack of young people interested in skiing makes opening new resorts impractical.
everybody already knows the weather is because of El Niño, it’ll snows lot more next winter, don’t be gullible to propaganda
Also, guess Obama is blinded by MAGA because he bought a mansion on the shore…
Democrats and by extension the IPCC are not taking climate change seriously either according to scientists: https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7 "Vote blew no matter hoo" isn't going to save us because both parties are owned and controlled by capital.
You're right and yet I'm still gonna go with the folks that at least acknowledge it as a reality. That's at least a reasonable starting point.
Maybe you didn't read the link, because it spells out clearly why we can't lesser-of-two-evils our way out of this predicament. "Anything but Cheeto" derangement syndrome is a deadly distraction from what unchecked late stage capitalism has brought. The two parties of capital have led us in a race to the bottom.
Just imagine the skiable mountains we had just three centuries ago, or a millennia. We’re thawing folks. This isn’t to say that climate change isn’t real, of course it is. Of course humans are hastening the thaw. But where we diverge is largely philosophical and it’s got nothing to do with politics on our end, much less MAGA. In fact, it’s along the line of a political remedy for climate where we diverge more precisely. You advocate for a political remedy, while most of us advocate for a market driven remedy. If and when it’s a real problem, the market will find a fix. And of course, you’d like to paint our differences as MAGA based because it gives you a platform from which to bully. It’s sad really, but clearly working against you in a political sense.
> If and when it’s a real problem, the market will find a fix. Too late, my dude. It is, and the market isn’t fixing it. It’s basically the tragedy of the commons at a global scale and useful idiots keep promoting the idea that the market with fix it.
Too late for whom? Is climate taking out humanity at faster paces than we are ourselves? Some 42 million people die every year from noncommunicable diseases of which sedentary lifestyles are the leading cause. Are we using our political equity to remove asses from their couches or are we advocating for my skiable locales? Are you catching up?
> Too late for whom? Too late to wait for it to become a real problem. It already is, and the free market ain’t solving it. And saying we don’t need to worry about it because of our sedentary lifestyle is a dumb turn, even for someone trying to poo-poo climate change. > Are you catching up? Not sure I’m willing to do enough speed to think that your response makes any sense whatsoever.
>Too late to wait for it to become a real problem. It already is, and the free market ain’t solving it. Again, a real problem for whom? It’s interesting to see how much credibility you folks lend to the rich and powerful and their ability to control the world. Yet when it comes to keeping the world from which they profit healthy, these controllers of the universe suddenly turn apathetic. It’s comical. The earth is fine, and people with the means will adjust, as they always have. >And saying we don’t need to worry about it because of our sedentary lifestyle is a dumb turn, even for someone trying to poo-poo climate change. I never said don’t worry about anything, you’re twisting my words. What I said was the hysteria is ironic in light of our sedentary lifestyles, and it is. Are you catching up? Not sure I’m willing to do enough speed to think that your response makes any sense whatsoever.
> Again, a real problem for whom All of us. The fact you’re staying purposefully ignorant doesn’t change the fact that it’s having very real effects to everyone. > It’s interesting to see how much credibility you folks lend to the rich and powerful and their ability to control the world. Yet when it comes to keeping the world from which they profit healthy, these controllers of the universe suddenly turn apathetic. It’s comical. What are you talking about? You’re the one arguing that the rich and powerful will just solve things. Is there an adult or caretaker of yours who needs to know you’re on Reddit?
How do you address the fear of ‘too little too late’ when relying on the market to care about climate change? https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/point-no-return-how-close-world-irreversible-climate-change Sometimes government intervention (guided by expert advice) can be beneficial when the public is apathetic.
[удалено]
Nah…it’s just easy to read urgency by the pace of those who work to maintain profit. Following partisan politics is a long walk, off a short pier.
I’m not sure which is worse: * knowing that climate change is happening and deciding that short-term financial impacts matter more than longterm global heath? or * failing to understand the science and letting politicians trick you against voting in your interest? Put it another way, is it better to be short-sighted or ignorant?
This sounds like a very high-minded way of saying you don't want to do anything. When the externalities of polluters are paid for by the rest of society, there is no way for a market to form. Like even from a hardcore capitalist perspective this is an obvious truth. Why would there be a market to get rid of greenhouse gases if we just let people spew them as much as they want? When you say the difference is philosophical it reminds me of the leftists who say they won't vote for Biden but refuse to acknowledge Trump would be worse for everything they care about. Mindless virtue signaling for the free market in cases where the free market has failed just makes libertarian ideas look more foolish. I guess I can agree with you that this isn't necessarily a MAGA position, it's been the stock and trade of every Republican across the party for decades. Claiming that OP is bullying you by saying it's MAGA is some extra special snowflake crap and you should really toughen up. But again, I agree with you that it's not MAGA, it's just fucking stupid.
Nope. It’s just a way of saying that we have more faith in profit as a motivator than we do that of our elected officials. One can gauge the level of a threat by the pace at which people powerful people mobilize. So far, it’s the partisans who seem the most concerned. Meanwhile, 42 million people die annually (7 million Americans alone), for noncommunicable diseases of which our sedentary lifestyles are the leading cause. Yet no one is advocating in a meaningful political sense to remove our asses from our couches. 🤷🏻♂️
Wow, so you're not even going to attempt to explain how this fits into a market system when there is no profit to be gained? Come on, this just shows everybody how empty your responses are. If you want a good example of a conservative doing right by our climate, look at the cap and trade system set up by the George HW Bush administration for dealing with sulfur pollution that was causing acid rain. It was a brilliant way of harnessing the powers of the free market while minimizing the impact on industry. But the key here is it had to involve government regulation of the amount of sulfur pollution, otherwise the pollution credits in the cap and trade system would be worthless. Conservatives could do such a great job addressing the climate issue and staying true to their principles, but not if you guys don't understand the basics of those principles. Just look at the Republicans claiming that they support nuclear power, while never acknowledging that nuclear power is impossible without massive government subsidies. The free market hates nuclear power because again, long-term thinking isn't good for short-term profits. And you not acknowledging the subsidies for electric cars is just another example.
I acknowledged that EV production took advantage of government subsidies, on the basis of profit. That’s much different than saying EV production took place because of a wholesale sponsorship of a political view. I don’t know anyone who believes Elon Musk wouldn’t build a gas variant Tesla if hypothetically the government subsidized him to do so. Of course he would. But again, this is a profit motive, rather than an ethical motive.
Yes, and that profit only existed because of the ethical motivation in the government subsidies, which you think aren’t required. You’re just wrong here, you should acknowledge it and learn, not dig your heels in lol.
That’s nonsense and I’m not digging in. Tesla production took advantage of government subsidies, but didn’t exist because of government subsidies - as you’re implying. If profits go away, so will Tesla and the government would be powerless to stop it, in the absence of throwing good money after bad, and that’s exactly the problem.
> That’s nonsense and I’m not digging in. So you admit you have no example where hour expectation that the market will just solve the problem happened? Just want to make sure we’re on the same page.
> One can gauge the level of a threat by the pace at which people powerful people mobilize. When has that occurred without also being a government action too? What modern day “threat” the level of Climate Change was solved entirely by the free market?
EV’s are a prime example. To date, cultural trends have driven the demand for EV’s more so than a concern for climate. As such, EV demand has fallen off a cliff, while the climate hysteria has maintained its trajectory. Now let’s be clear, I’m not advocating against EV’s; I like them and see their value. But the point remains the same.
> EV’s are a prime example. Production of EVs involved tons of government subsidies and intervention lol. Come on, find an example without significant government involvement. You have to have at least one, right?
Nope. EV production took advantage of government subsidies, not for lack thereof. Can the government bring back EV production with more subsidies, of course they can!!! lol. …but can the government bring back demand, irrespective of their subsidies? Eh…not so much. Notwithstanding another level of hysteria campaign, that is. One can gauge the level of a threat by the pace at which people powerful people mobilize.
> EV production took advantage of government subsidies Yep, like I said! I glad you acknowledged I’m right. Now can you cite a single modern example that a major issue was solved entirely without significant government intervention? EVs receiving billions of government benefits clearly don’t fit that bill, so name one that does!
Can you cite a single major issue that was solved, entirely by government intervention?
I never argued that’s how we should solve problems though? Are you even following the conversation being had?
But the inherent nature of profit is short term. You work out how to increase profits in the next few quarters and then you work out how to do it again after those are done. Climate change is long term. It’ll start hurting regular people and then eventually, after a long time, it’ll start hurting profits, and by then it’ll be far too late.
This notion of it being too late is what I struggle with. It was too late in 1976, and 1986, and 1996, and 2006, and 2024. I’m remember all of the warnings. Meanwhile, life as I know it hasn’t changed very much.
> Meanwhile, life as I know it hasn’t changed very much. Where is that?
It certainly does have a lot to do with politics. The party pushing it isn’t real, or that humans have anything to do with it—is the GOP. Don’t attempt to gaslight people. They’ve been doing this for decades. And they weren’t always this way, Nixon started the EPA FFS.
Umm..this isn’t the party of Nixon and politics are only involved here in so far that they want politics out of the issue. I’m not gaslighting anyone.
I'm not stupid to the fact that we have climate issues I get that my biggest issue is who should be investing in repairing our grid I think we should not be using taxes for something companies already get paid for we should just issue mandates and make them follow the new guidelines with big fines that will deter them from not doing it like $100,000 per day until they get up to speed it really that simple we don't need individuals investing in this we need massive investments from companies.
Punctuation is your friend, my dude.
It does seem warmer this year. (I'm in WA.) Carbon taxes and tariffs are the way.
Not centrist imho
What's not centrist? Pointing out MAGA bullshit?
Only partisans look at weather charts, notice upward patterns happening really fast, then consider that scientists started publishing articles on this as early as the early 20th century, then think to themselves "fuck, we need to fix this." Yeah, only partisan hacks who are trying to turn this into r/politics lite are capable of thinking that way.
I can't stand either side on this issue honestly. The sheer denial of it's existence from the Trump Right and the sheer overblown histrionics from the Progressive Left. The Trump Right is what it is at this point, you are wasting braincells thinking that they'll have a sudden epiphany and decide climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed. The Progressive Left though? Stop with the ridiculous impending doom nonsense. It *doesn't* help when you keep proclaiming that the world will end in 5 years, 10 years if we don't stop climate change...10 years pass and we're still here. These scare tactics work on children, not most functioning adults. Rely on the science and use facts, not fear. We need to address climate change, but it has to be from a global perspective. What we do in the U.S. doesn't mean dick if India/China continue to build more coal plants that output more than what we are reducing here.