UN Warns Key Warming Threshold Slipping From Sight (bbc.com) 142
There is "no credible pathway" to keep the rise in global temperatures below the key threshold of 1.5C, according to a bleak new UN assessment. From a report: Scientists believe that going beyond 1.5C would see dangerous impacts for people all over the world. The report says that since COP26 last year, governments carbon cutting plans have been "woefully inadequate." Only an urgent transformation of society will avoid disaster, the study says. There's just over a week until the next major climate conference, known as COP27, starts in Egypt. Mindful of the fact that the world's attention has been elsewhere since climate diplomats met in Glasgow last year, this week has seen a flurry of reports underlining the fact that climate change hasn't gone away.
No shit? (Score:5, Informative)
They've been screaming for decades that "if we don't do something" then global warming is going to go well over 1.5 C and the shit is going to start to steam.
If anyone actually thought anyone of significance was going to to anything that required effort, they were insane.
This is probably the best assessment I've seen. Season 3, Episode 3 of The Newsroom [youtube.com].
Better find a Plan B (Score:2)
because humans will do shit. Short-term and local concerns trump world climate concerns to voters and dictators.
Thus, either re-build and/or move based on projected climate changes, or dis-engineer the planet using things like cloud and ocean seeding, orbiting sun shields, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
either re-build and/or move based on projected climate changes,
That's already started to happen in Central America, but a lot of people here in the USA are already freaking out about the results.
or dis-engineer the planet using things like cloud and ocean seeding, orbiting sun shields, etc.
This is why we're all doomed. We're going to blithely shoot way past the point where billions of people's live will be threatened unless we do some kind of geoengineering. However, the whole COVID vaccine thing has made it abundantly clear that huge swaths of the public will be violently opposed to any such action, largely because it will be proposed by "eggheads" that they've
Re: (Score:2)
Most geoengineering schemes are incredibly dangerous, and have no ready "abort" switch if something is seen to be going wrong.
And we may be forced into using them anyway, but anyone who thinks they're a good idea rather that a "least bad option" needs to thoroughly rethink their approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you don't need to worry about intentional geoengineering. Like I said, that's probably not going to happen. More likely, we'll get to find out if the dire predictions about the effects of nuclear winter are justified or overblown.
Re: (Score:2)
That's already started to happen in Central America, but a lot of people here in the USA are already freaking out about the results.
What are you talking about? You think people are migrating from Central America to USA because of climate change??
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Farming in many areas there is becoming untenable because of persistent droughts and other problems.
Many people say we have to "adapt" to climate change and move from areas that become unsuitable to live on. Well, that's exactly what many of them are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Farming in many areas there is becoming untenable because of persistent droughts and other problems.
Where? Where exactly is farming becoming untenable? In Jiquilisco? In Santa Rosa de Lima?
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you Google it yourself if you find this so unbelievable.
Re: (Score:2)
No one screamed for decades that it was going to happen the next year. The change is gradual in terms of people but extremely rapid in terms of the geological and even historical record. We are already seeing effects that most likely are due to climate change; stronger hurricanes, longer droughts, historic extremes being more common. You could say it's all just chance, but that's like sticking one's head in the sand. Bangladesh lowlands could be decimated but someone will likely say "well, that's just B
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't think significant effort is being made then you have not been paying attention. Many countries have significantly altered their carbon reduction timelines in response, and committed to huge changes like banning the sale of fossil fuel vehicles and gas boilers by the end of this decade.
More needs to be done, but to say nothing that required effort has happened is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a lot of it was lip service and paper shuffling. I believe those countries that did significant things were so small parts of the equation it basically didn't matter. And I believe the things done by the larger players were only done if it was painless and easy, and many were reversed as soon as there was any cost involved. Talk is cheap.
Finally, I believe the bulk of the gains came accidentally, as a consequence of the Covid shutdown of a good chunk of the world for a couple years.
Well, that is far too kind (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the facts, there actually seems to be more like no "credible path" too keep it below 2.5C at this time. Well, unless all people come together, stop all wars, execute all oil executives and all super-rich assholes, stop producing to much offspring and make reducing this existential threat the primary focus of all human undertakings for a century or so that is. The way things are going, we will likely see 4C and may see 5C. We will not likely see 6C, because at that point humans will likely not be around anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot "Eat the rich!" Much less damaging to the environment than eating cows!
Stupid comment is stupid. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the facts, there actually seems to be more like no "credible path" too keep it below 2.5C at this time. Well, unless all people come together, stop all wars
stop wars? are you crazy? they've just now starting to profit from the brand new war in europe they've been engineering for years!
Re: (Score:2)
My estimate is closer to 3 degrees Celsius. And I hope I'm not being optimistic.
If action had started seriously a couple of decades ago, then 1.5C might be reasonable. Unfortunately, a lot of the action has been in the other direction, and there are lots of people talking about "carbon capture" which is NOT going to be cheap unless there's a real technological breakthrough in fusion power (if then). It's an inherently energy intensive process.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate is not modelled with sensationalist news crap. In fact it is not yet known if it can ever be modelled at all, which is a polite phrasing for "we don't know shit and chaotic systems are chaotic".
More like you do not know shit. Or you are directly lying here. Take your pick. Because your statement is not true at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to explain that reasoning? It's not like 6 degrees is going to cause the oceans to vaporize.
Re: (Score:2)
Look it up. And remember this is an average.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... wet bulb temperature.
Even then, that only means that parts or maybe even large swaths of the planet will no longer be habitable for humans. At worst,, most likely a dead zone in the tropics.
But that's still a far cry from humanity not being here at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... wet bulb temperature.
Even then, that only means that parts or maybe even large swaths of the planet will no longer be habitable for humans. At worst,, most likely a dead zone in the tropics.
But that's still a far cry from humanity not being here at all.
Indeed. Also much, much larger variability. But larger parts of the planet not being habitable anymore starts around 3C or so. And you still need to grow food and that means plants that can deal with both climate and soil conditions in a place. If climate changes over 10'000 of years, plants have time to adapt. With what we are facing, they do not. Large areas will just not have topsoil anymore because no plants to keep it in place. And then there is a second problem: Estimates are that somewhere between 4C
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong on all counts. Well, you have no honor, decency or insight, so direct lies obviously come natural.
Re: (Score:3)
An average of 1 child per family would, in principle, work,
Yes, but takes a generation. If we wanted temperature rise to stay below the 1.5 degree mark, that would need to be addressed in this generation.
And, globally, birth rates are in fact dropping; it's reasonable to expect that global population will in fact decrease within a century. (The reasons are lower poverty rates worldwide, higher levels of education, and greater access to birth control, three things that have been proven to reduce fertility rates without coercion.)
but the US has outlawed abortion
Abortion is a poor method of lowerin
Re: (Score:2)
It's the part of the US that'll get into power in the Federal government in November, though. There's no possibility of the Dems keeping the House and only a slim chance they'll keep the Senate. With both under the control of the Republicans, it'll be relatively easy for Federal bans on abortion and contraception to be passed with veto-proof margins. In a representative democracy, the nation will choose whatever those voting will want them to choose, and Democrat voters seem to be perfectly happy to pass th
Re: (Score:2)
Overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress. That is not likely to happen in this electoral cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
We absolutely HAVE to get things under control by 2030, no matter whose ego gets bruised
Well, that or it is going to be much, much worse than anything that ever happend. Currently most of the world seems to prefer the second option.
Let's see... (Score:2)
Lowest point in country at 115m above sea level... I think it's time to invest heavily.
In weapons. People might want to climb.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't bother with trying to defend anything so low. At this point, what you really want are some nice limestone caves on top of a high defensible hill with good views. Use the caves for storage/emergencies (and sally ports in the event of a major attack), the pop guns available to American citizens aren't going to pose any kind of threat under such conditions. What's more, water doesn't flow on the surface in limestone areas, it flows through the cave networks. So you've fresh water and any raiders do
Re: (Score:2)
I've already set up stakes in Perfection, Nevada. Safest place there is!
UN says: (Score:3)
Maybe not. This might be bruatally self correcting (Score:2)
The largest regions population-wise are in equatorial zones. India, Southeast Asia, Africa, South America. Already summer weather is borderline habitable in terms of temperatures. When the temperatures go up enough, the heatwaves will kill most people, not just the young weak and elderly. We'll probably see billions of people die. And they won't produce greenhouse gas anymore. We'll probably see a shitpile of people in more northern climes start dropping dead too. Again, less greenhouse gas.
It's not like ev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone can move, true. But enough will try to make things... interesting.
- best to just give up now - (Score:2)
Just build walls around your deluged coastal cities. Let the farmers choose different crops--or move. Generate more electricity for air conditioning. Begin migration toward polar regions. Take pictures of endangered species for posterity. Learn to eat bugs, plankton, fungus. Realize that energy and related (plastics, transportation, agrichemicals) monopolies are intractable and have power over every government--nothing can stop them.
Meanwhile... (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, the NY Times "This Morning" newsletter today in my inbox had this subject: "The climate's improved future", and starts with the headline, "Good morning. What was once the worst-case scenario for climate change seems much less likely", and has the sub-head, "An optimistic shift".
Can you say, "Mixed messages"?
Nuclear winter courtesy of uncle Vlad (Score:2)
that will keep global warming at bay!
--- (grim) Joke Alert ---
The UN cant stop the Russia-Ukraine War (Score:2)
It's a political issue... (Score:4, Interesting)
Think globally, act locally (Score:2)
Frankly, there's too much demand for attention spans. Elections, Climate Change, Ukraine, China, Inflation, Gas Prices
Do what you can for yourself and those around you to make things better. You can't control world politics or other peoples' lives.
The future is impossible to predict. (Score:2)
If the future can be predicted, there'd be no reason for it to happen.
Note, I am not saying anthropogenic global warming isn't happening. I am saying anything could happen randomly to make things different. For example, there was a supervolcona 1500 years ago that reduced global temperatures by a few degrees (and fucked up the world.) Yeah, so anything could happen to change things -- nuclear war, meteor strike, supervolcano.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only an urgent transformation of society will avoid disaster, the study says. There's just over a week until the next major climate conference, starts in Egypt
How about if we start by not having people flying all over the world for stupid, pointless conferences.
Oh, that's right, urgent transformation for thee, not for me.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
How else are they supposed to transfer large suitcases of money? Sending it via FEDEX/UPS/DHS is ill-advised as the border guards may confiscate it.
Simple. Have King Charles walk the suitcase through in plain sight. Just like he did with the millions of Saudi dollars he laundered for them a few weeks back.
Re:Again ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Good job, gold star, you've identified 3.5% of the problem [ourworldindata.org]. It's less than the 5.3% estimate from fugitive emissions (gas leaks in pipelines, storage, valves, etc). Less than the 11% from agriculture. And way less than the 30% used for electricity and heat.
I think there are two good criteria for going after green house gas emissions. First go after the pieces with the biggest impact, cutting a 30% source by 15% is more practical than cutting a 3.5% source to 0%. Second go after wasteful practices that are unnecessary but relatively inexpensive to fix, even if those sources are small.
Sometimes I feel like people who argue against doing anything about climate change are disingenuous about their position. I can't really believe that people would be fine with riding this all the way to the logical end, civilization collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
So it sounds like we should immediately switch to non-fossil electricity generation (25% of all CO2 emissions) with the best tool we have available - nuclear power. After we have adequate electrical supply, or at least as we're on our way to that, we should work on maximizing use of electricity in transportation and heating. While we're at it we could shave a few percentage points by converting large-scale shipping to nuclear too, and minimizing use of air for transporting non-urgent goods.
We seem to be doi
Re: (Score:2)
If you plan to move over to electricity later you will need the EV's anyway, so you may as well start designing/developing/perfecting them now.
Re: (Score:3)
Give it time, Atlantis wasn't flooded in a day.
Re: (Score:2)
The tsunami very well could have flooded Atlantis in a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine, we aren't likely to know for certain. There was some discourse a decade or so ago that it was located north of Cardiz, Spain.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, Doggerland and Beringia are (from a Greek perspective) north of the north wind (one of the descriptions for it). Always assuming, of course, that the myths (a) refer to the same place, (b) a single event, and (c) are all true in some sense. None of which is guaranteed. Two of the many problems with oral traditions are that it's easier to merge two or more similar stories into one more spectacular narrative than the other way around, and for the very same reason, events are going to be mad
Re: (Score:2)
North of Cadiz? You mean like the middle of Portugal? Or somewhere in Extremadura? That theory doesn't hold water.
Re: (Score:2)
Buried under marshlands of Donana National Park was the reference - showed up via satellite imagery. Might well not be the site, but that particular site did get buried swiftly.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating. Thanks for the clarification.
Re: (Score:3)
Or there was never an Atlantis at all and just an early proto sci-fi story. Myths don't need a real world explanation, that's why they're myths.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it was an early political story, in the first incarnation we know of. But Dogerland seems a bit unlikely. And i's in the wrong place. But there are lots of other places that ended up submerged for one reason or another. It was supposed to be in North Africa near "the pillars of Hercules", but that was half-way to Ultima Thule, and the place where all sorts of mythical things happened. More likely it's the memory of a Tsunami that happened after a volcano exploded, possibly Thera. (That may also
Re: (Score:2)
More likely massive rains causing fast flooding. I've watched the Missouri visibly rise before. Scary stuff. That makes the biblical likely descended from that.
Re: (Score:2)
Volcanoes generally erupt more than once, and I just named Thera because it was famous. But there's lots of things besides volcanoes that can cause massive flooding. I don't think rains would be it, but rains causing a river to re-channel it's banks might do it. Or a glacier in the Himalayas (or nearby) might have held a lake that suddenly broke through. The stories all seem to have a feeling of suddenness in them, though, so probably not something that just caused a slow subsidence.
(OTOH, people seem t
Re: (Score:2)
One tale I read and no, I don't recall it's origin, tells of a king who heard the rumbling of massive amounts of water, jumped his steed and rode out of the tidal wave with its foam at his horse's hooves.
Great visual.
Re: (Score:2)
Atlantis wasn't flooded in a day.
[100 years in the future] We used to call it Atlanta!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess you don't live in Pakistan... or Australia... or Kentucky... or Florida
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Again ? (Score:2)
Re:Again ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider yourself blessed if you're in position to look beyond your own immediate survival. Even our own citizens in precarious situations are still better off than a lot of the wo
rollin' coal (Score:3)
Then a certain contingent will pay a premium to burn some more just to be contrarian.
THAT 's the reality that we need to be prepared to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm sympathetic to people who had to carry on just to survive, masks were free, and vaccines were free. I suppose getting vaccinated might mean a day where you can't lift heavy things, but masks make zero difference to most jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Again ? (Score:2)
Exactly how should scientist and science reporters present information on a long term threat that gradually emerges and accelerates over decades such that you, Crashmarik, decided "hey, maybe we should do something about this"?
I'm genuinely curious if there's any format you would find compelling it if you're sitting smug in America's agricultural heartland knowing it'll be quite a long time before this impacts you.
Lived through the future, again [Re:Again ?] (Score:5, Informative)
Well there's another apocalypse I will somehow manage to live through.
You do realize that this is an effect that is predicted to happen in the future, right?
You won't have "lived through it" until another 78 years.
Still waiting for my home to be under water.
You do realize that this is something that is predicted to happen in the future, right?
If your house is a meter above sea level, expect it to possibly be underwater by 2100, according to current models (which predict 0.6 to 1.1 meters of sea level rise by 2100).
Re: (Score:2)
Well,,, you know it's not that simple. The sea level rise won't be distributed evenly, and it will be lower if you live near Greenland (or, I suppose, Antarctica). IIRC the North Atlantic hasn't seen much rise at all yet, as most of it's elsewhere on the planet. (Probably, judging from who's having problems, the Pacific south of the equator and South-East Asia.)
So if there's a meter rise in sea level, the North Atlantic may one see (at a wild guess) 95cm rise. This, of course, will change if Antarctica
Predictions [Re:Lived through the future, again] (Score:2)
You say things that are correct but irrelevant and things that are incorrect. Looking at your first point:
There are several things wrong namely: 1 It's a prediction only
This was in response to "Crashmarik", who (sarcastically) said "Still waiting for my home to be under water,". I was pointing out that predictions did not say this would have happened by now, not even if his house is one meter above sea level. So, yes, the fact that this is "a prediction" is not "wrong", but the very point I was making. You don't seem to have any disagreement with this.
and past climate predictions have failed miserably.
Here you are wro
Re: (Score:3)
Still waiting for my home to be under water.
Well I just got off a meeting before lunch with a colleague I hadn't talked with for a month since she lost all power and Internet when a hurricane flooded her home. The damage from climate change was a future prediction a few decades ago; we are already living it today. More severe storms, increased droughts, wildfires, loss of biodiversity, and other effects are already here.
Of the $2.2 trillion in damages from weather disasters in the US over the last 42 years, 33% has happened in just the past five year
Re: (Score:2)
If you seriously think hurricanes are a recent phenomena caused by global warming and raise the sea levels, do the gene pool a favor and remove yourself from it assuming your other characteristics haven't already.
Other than poor reading comprehension, I'm not sure how you think I claimed hurricanes are a new phenomena. The only thing that is new is the steady trend of increased quantity and magnitude of hurricanes (and other weather disasters) in recent decades.
Re: (Score:2)
If you seriously think hurricanes are a recent phenomena caused by global warming and raise the sea levels, do the gene pool a favor and remove yourself from it assuming your other characteristics haven't already.
Other than poor reading comprehension, I'm not sure how you think I claimed hurricanes are a new phenomena. The only thing that is new is the steady trend of increased quantity and magnitude of hurricanes (and other weather disasters) in recent decades.
Steady increase ?
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Hmmm what do you know the peak was 1941-1950
Oh and this year there have been 1
Do I also need to explain how rising population and property values make storms more damaging while they don't actually become stronger? Or do you have enough brain power to figure that on your own?
Re: (Score:2)
The Obamas bought a multi-million dollar mansion on Martha's Vineyard... an island, i'm not worried.
And if it sinks into the swamp. He'll buy another. If that one also sinks into the swamp he'll buy a third. It that one burns down, falls over and then sinks into the swamp he'll buy a fourth. He's got plenty of money.
Re: (Score:2)
The Obamas bought a multi-million dollar mansion on Martha's Vineyard... an island, i'm not worried.
And if it sinks into the swamp. He'll buy another. If that one also sinks into the swamp he'll buy a third. It that one burns down, falls over and then sinks into the swamp he'll buy a fourth. He's got plenty of money.
Yeah not bad for civil service work, whats that quote from Harry Truman
You Can’t Get Rich in Politics Unless You’re a Crook
--- Harry S, Truman
So you are a wannabe crook or wannabe victim?
Re: (Score:2)
Talking of buying into lies, I see you bought into the "oh, scientists for the past 120 years are all conspiring against us" fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, no, no scientist talked about ice. You're thinking science fiction.
Well, no. no scientist in 1990 or 2000 said NYC would be under water in 2020 - as strange as it may seem, Al Gore is not a scientist, let alone a leading one.
No, the lying is entirely on your side.
Re:More Bullshit, so just another day. (Score:5, Informative)
"Scientists" in the 60s and 70s were screaming about the incoming man-made ice age
They were doing no such thing. That's a myth that was hyped by the press. See, for example, this article [ametsoc.org] from the American Meteorological Society.
Re: (Score:2)
"research" [Re:More Bullshit, so just another day. (Score:2)
Hi Geoffrey Scientists were predicting a new ice age in the 60's and 70's. Obviously you have not done your research.
Wow, your "research" includes not a single actual science article. We have different meanings of the word "research".
Case closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah sure, tell me about it. I lived then and I personally remember this ice age crap.
We already know that you don't read actual scientific literature (we know this because you completely skipped over the American Meteorological Society article that I linked.) Since you don't read the actual science, I assume you get your information from sensationalist headlines.
Or maybe from science fiction? I read Time of the Great Freeze [wikipedia.org] as a kid, too, but I did know it was science fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
More suffrage is a good thing, no? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
So propose a solution that doesn't involve more government.
I'm not sure this can be done, as this seems a clear "tragedy of the commons" situation, but if you could, I'd like to hear it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently, you don't understand the difference between mass media and peer-reviewed, scientific literature.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, you don't understand the difference between mass media and peer-reviewed, scientific literature.
I see. And what exactly was Al Gore's excuse then?
Or for that matter, the rest of a gullible planet?
Re:Chicken Little at it again (Score:5, Informative)
The science is published [www.ipcc.ch] with remarkable transparency. If you know it be bogus, just point out where and explain what is wrong with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's continuously moving predictions for the rise in temperature and the fact we now have even more arctic ice than 1970.
Oh yeah there was that time when the science changed from global warming so any example of the climate changing became proof of the concept.
Oh there were those emails out of U Penn where the researchers decided to do a study to prove the decline in temperatures didn't happen. Last time I checked you were supposed to be at least a little unbiased, not treating competing hypotheses
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's continuously moving predictions for the rise in temperature...
What's your conclusion from this? Mine is that the work is continuously being refined and that predicting the future is hard. There is a lot of disagreement between models (as can be seen in the IPCC report), but it still seems like the average of those models is our most educated guess. Do you know of a better prediction available?
...and the fact we now have even more arctic ice than 1970.
You might be able to cherry pick this sufficiently to be true (e.g. winter 2022 may have more ice than summer 1970), but the declining trend is pretty clear. See for yoursel [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Of all the evidence one might consider regarding climate behavior, I'd rank cherry-picked media headlines and politician statements really low.
Very true; however, most people either do not have the intellectual capacity or the desire/interest to do research on something that individually, they have no control over. So, they are informed by the mass media... if they pay attention at all. Most are worried about paying rent next month, so do not count on the masses to really care about any of this.
Society itself needs to be restructured if anything is to be done about this. It is not my choice to drive a car to go to work, get groceries, etc. It is n
Re: (Score:2)
It is necessitated by society, which is controlled by a select few.
I have qualified agreement with this. My perception is that in a representative democracy, society is controlled by the politicians, who are controlled by the voting masses, who are controlled by the media, which is controlled by a select few. For the most part, the commoner head beatings seem to be motivated by self-serving political interests. Stoking voters' suffering and blaming it on the opposition (those idiots are destroying the environment/economy!!!) is
Re: (Score:2)
This story disappeared for hours... I went from +3 to "0 Troll"... But it's true... We get 2 CC stories on /. per day... Minimum... I'm not the troll... The /. Editors are playing you...
Not important to voters [Re: Two Climate stori...] (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, polls show that while people are generally somewhat concerned about climate change, it's low on the list of issues that affect voting.
Inflation is number one. Gun violence is number two, with health care coming in behind. No other issues even get double-digits of importance.
e.g., see https://news.northeastern.edu/... [northeastern.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Hi Geoffrey
You must have missed this poll.
Not sure what poll you're referring to, but there are several which vary in minor details but are all in agreement on the main priorities voters care about. In none of them is climate change high on the list of the issues determining who voters will vote for.
There's the article I linked above: https://news.northeastern.edu/... [northeastern.edu], which discusses a Quinnipiac poll but also links to a Gallup poll. Some others are here https://headlines.liu.edu/?p=4... [liu.edu] and here: https://www.deseret.com/2022/7... [deseret.com] Fivethirtyeight
Re: (Score:2)
If gun violence was really no2 it would have been solved by now.
Do keep in mind that people who think it's an important issue include both the "hands off my guns! any regulation is just a prelude to confiscation" and the "stop killing kids, ban assault rifles now" opinions.
If health care really was no3 it would have been solved by now.
18% of Democrats listed it as important, but only 6% of Republicans (source [liu.edu]). With a nearly-equally divided country, that's apparently not enough to solve the problem.
1. Make sure your team wins.
2. make sure the other team loses.
3. see #1 and #2
Yep, that's the nature of the problem indeed.
2. also includes "blame the other side for not making progress".
Re: (Score:2)
For more information on that and a whole bunch of other climate myths you may be susceptible to that are demonstrably false, see:
https://skepticalscience.com/