But the point is, surely at this stage people aren't still looking up at a clear blue sky and saying "looks fine to me." Not in my neck of the woods they aren't. They are looking up at a clear blue sky and noting that we seem to be getting a lot less rainfall lately. And saying, "climate change."
Too fucking late to stop it now of course. Have to move those cities inland a few miles instead. And build domes over them. Though people haven't woken up to that yet.
But only the really dim-witted are still thinking, oh its a nice day today, so all's well with the world. I don't know anyone that stupid. Do you? Surely even Americans aren't that thick?
...........
Stupidity exists, but it isn't a sufficient explanation.
We accept the reality of climate change. Our acceptance shapes the way we interpret information which, to those who don't share our POV, appears to be isolated bits of data or, explainable via some other framework besides anthropomorphic climate change (a few bad years, increased solar activity, etc).
Do you know why we now use "climate change" instead of "global warming"? It's because the word 'warming' confused many people and gave our enemies rhetorical ammunition. Even today, it's typical to hear someone say, 'I'm cold. Where's this global warming Al Gore's talking about?" To Americans shivering in Minnesota, a general 'warming' trend doesn't sound so bad. Sure, we might have to deal with hornets all year round, but the growing season might be longer too.
In the long run, things would balance out.
The pleasant sounding 'warming' fails to convey a wild truth: the planet's climate system is not becoming universally balmy but more energetic. And this increased amount of energy will produce wide ranging effects, many of which are very, very bad.
This is a subtle point; not as easily grasped as climate change veterans (and gung ho newcomers) typically suppose. A related issue is that we're talking about a planet wide event which will manifest in different ways in different locales. In Tasmania, you're seeing decreased rainfall. Armed with years of area experience and the anthropomorphic climate change POV, you reach logical conclusions. Others, living on a different spot on the planet and seeing different effects (and not sharing our opinions regarding climate) reach different conclusions.
I'm not going to call people "dopey" or "stupid" for having a hard time getting it. Particularly when there has been no consistent message from government and media. (Gore's movie and various activist efforts are important, but they're marginal when compared to what central governments could do.)
The point I'm trying to make here is that this is big. In terms of scale and type of problem, there is simply no parallel in human history. Yes, I know that Jared Diamond has written and spoken eloquently about how bad decision making and environmental abuse destroyed past civilizations. But in that past, it was possible to literally walk or sail away from a dying society if you were young and strong enough. There was always some other, still functioning place to go.
Even the air and water pollution concerns of the mid to late 20th century could be addressed by, for example, not dumping industrial waste in a lake and enacting smog control legislation.
But climate change is orders of magnitude more serious and complex. It's not as easily understood as "pollution" which implies that direct cleaning methods are possible. It involves the behavior of carbon in the atmosphere (and it appears, the even more green house intense methane too, unfortunately) over long periods of time. What it really means is that we have fundamentally changed the atmosphere's composition. The Earth has a differently evolving climate system because of us.
It's everywhere and yet, appears to be nowhere. Unlike a polluted river or dirty sky, you can't point to an effect and see the cause without first accepting a complicated theoretical framework. Those of us who accept that framework -- unless we're climatologists, capable of reviewing the information ourselves at the highest technical level -- are placing our faith in the consensus view of specialists.
I think we've made the right decision. But I can understand why others don't share our confidence; particularly in a noisy, contentious, heavily propagandized information environment.
It's an extremely serious problem. Do we leapfrog over the unconvinced to pressure 'decision-makers'? But without mass pressure (and not just the angry shouts of people like us), why would decision-makers move as swiftly and totally as required?
.d.