'Boiling Frog' Effect Makes People Oblivious To Threat of Climate Crisis, Shows Study (theguardian.com) 154
An anonymous reader shares a report: Surveys show that the increasing number of extreme climate events, including floods, wildfires and hurricanes, has not raised awareness of the threats posed by climate change. Instead, people change their idea of what they see as normal. This so-called "boiling frog effect" makes gradual change difficult to spot.
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania wondered if climate change could be made more obvious by presenting it in binary terms. Local newspaper archives describing ice skating on Lake Carnegie when it froze in winter inspired a simple experiment. Some test subjects were shown temperature graphs of a fictional town's winter conditions; others had a chart showing whether or not a fictional lake froze each year. The result, published in Nature, showed those who receiving the second graphic consistently saw climate change as more real and imminent.
Binary data gives a clearer impression of the "before" and "after." The disappearing ice is more vivid and dramatic than a temperature trace, even though the underlying data is the same. "We are literally showing them the same trend, just in different formats," says Rachit Dubey, a co-author of the study. These results should help drive more effective ways of communicating the impact of climate change in future by finding simple binary, black-and-white examples of its effects.
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania wondered if climate change could be made more obvious by presenting it in binary terms. Local newspaper archives describing ice skating on Lake Carnegie when it froze in winter inspired a simple experiment. Some test subjects were shown temperature graphs of a fictional town's winter conditions; others had a chart showing whether or not a fictional lake froze each year. The result, published in Nature, showed those who receiving the second graphic consistently saw climate change as more real and imminent.
Binary data gives a clearer impression of the "before" and "after." The disappearing ice is more vivid and dramatic than a temperature trace, even though the underlying data is the same. "We are literally showing them the same trend, just in different formats," says Rachit Dubey, a co-author of the study. These results should help drive more effective ways of communicating the impact of climate change in future by finding simple binary, black-and-white examples of its effects.
The climate changes have been obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
People are just fucking stupid.
In the past 12 years, I have noticed longer periods of winter warmth, far heavier rains if and when they come, and far longer dry periods. I'm in Lahaina right now. There was a fire here two years ago. You may have heard of it. There's water rationing thanks to a drought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that local weather patterns will change because of world wide climate change, don't you? The jet stream over the country has changed its pattern which is why we get colder winters and hotter summers.
Or less rain than usual in one location and more rain than usual in another.
There's a reason it's called climate change and not weather change.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: The climate changes have been obvious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We need a different metaphor for "mistaking the weather for the climate."
How about:
climate = forest
weather = trees
Does this help?
Re: (Score:2)
Does this help?
Don't ask me. Ask the GP.
Re: (Score:2)
Weather = extent of individual waves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We need a different metaphor for "mistaking the weather for the climate."
"Snowball in Congress" -- Senator Inhofe brings snowball on Senate floor as evidence globe is not warming [cnn.com]
(Granted, that could be mistaken for the members of Congress. :-) )
Re: (Score:2)
We need a different metaphor for people who don't understand that climate is the statistics of weather, so people talking about trends of weather are talking about climate.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a kid in the 80s, our halloween costumes were sized to fit snow suits under them.
A few decades later, we had a green Christmas, and it was so odd that we made a Caribbean theme to go with it.
Nowadays, it's even money if we'll have snow on the ground at Christmas any given year, and it was 30c on Halloween.
Re: The climate changes have been obvious (Score:2)
Re:The climate changes have been obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
People are just fucking stupid.
Unfortunately, that is the core of the issue. And there is no known way to fix that. Education has failed. It makes the few that can fact-check (about 10-15%) smarter, but the rest just ignores what they were taught.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no Maui water rationing "due to a drought." If there's water rationing, it's because the natives have obstructed the construction of sufficient aqueduct capacity to match the increase in population. Plenty of fresh water falls in the rain forest and uselessly empties into the sea. You just have to pipe it to where the people live.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope....never heard of it...
Re: (Score:2)
When I moved to Georgia 20 years ago, it was during a period of extended drought. A State official actually said, "if it's yellow, leave it mellow". Lake Lanier was well below normal levels for years, with piers ending up well away from the water's edge. That's all over now. There's no drought anywhere in the State anymore.
Major Problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Surveys show that the increasing number of extreme climate events, including floods, wildfires and hurricanes
There's a Major problem with this. The claim about hurricanes is false. Hurricane numbers for the last 40 years show no significant trend. There are occasional spikes, but the overall trend is unchanged. https://tropical.atmos.colosta... [colostate.edu]
So, what other falsehoods are being claimed that I can't be arsed to bother fact checking?
Re:Major Problem (Score:5, Informative)
Study: Ocean warming has intensified recent hurricanes
https://www.climatecentral.org... [climatecentral.org]
"Due to global warming, global climate models predict hurricanes will likely cause more intense rainfall and have an increased coastal flood risk due to higher storm surge caused by rising seas. Additionally, the global frequency of storms may decrease or remain unchanged, but hurricanes that form are more likely to become intense."
https://science.nasa.gov/earth... [nasa.gov]
Global increase in major tropical cyclone exceedance probability over the past four decades
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.10... [pnas.org]
This is just from some quick googling. Note that your link only lists category 3 hurricanes.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to look again and avoid confirmation of your own bias.
The link I provided shows total hurricanes and hurricanes Cat 3 or greater. It shows other information as well.
Your links refer to increased risk, models predict, etc.
I'm presenting historical data of actual events, not predictions or models, that show that the claims of the post are based on a false premise or claim. NONE of your links change that or invalidate its accuracy.
I'll go a step further to point out that these types of inaccuracies an
Re: (Score:2)
You need to look again and avoid confirmation of your own bias.
Yeah, I suspect many of your arguments devolve into name calling with conciliatory statements like that. I'm glad someone completely free of bias has pointed out the errors of my ways.
Having an argument about the number of storms, while ignoring effects and intensity, is not a useful exercise. Why does that table, which for some reason appears to be sponsored by some insurance companies, only have category 3s, and not 4s and 5s? It seems like a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Almost all of them are deceit through omission, deception, or outright fabrication. So much of their data is falsifiable, particularly when it gets to the media as some sensational datapoint - like "The Gulf of Mexico is 110F! Climate change disaster!" or some such nonsense - when they're getting the data from the reading from one buoy inside a single marina. Happens all the time.
Re:Major Problem (Score:5, Informative)
Of course not because the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) [wikipedia.org] cycle lasts 30-45 years. Try this link [colostate.edu] that goes back to 1851.
Re: (Score:2)
40 years? That's so cute.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've seen the problem you're pointing at is with the listener and not the speaker. Weather forecasters and climate experts almost always qualify allusions to climate change so say things like "climate change likely increased the odds of this flood happening" or something to that effect but somehow a lot of people hear "climate change caused this flood".
Re: (Score:2)
I do accept it. CO2 is 0.042% of our atmosphere. It has not been shown that CO2 is primarily or even significantly contributory to the greenhouse effect, however.
Even if it would, an increase of 500ppm (which would make the atmosphere itself terminally toxic to most mammal life) would only increase the global temperature 0.18C (according to original calculations I had chatgpt just do), which is hardly consequential in and of itself. And CO2 isn't going to increase that much from human action alone.
Nothingbu
Re: (Score:2)
So you had ChatGPT do calculations based on unknown inputs (since you don't provide them) and claim that 500ppm causes the death of all animal life, when in fact there are perfectly livable environments that are many times higher than 500ppm
Or in short, you're either a moron or a liar, and I'm leaning towards moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Or in short, you're either a moron or a liar, and I'm leaning towards moron.
You're engaging in a logical fallacy known as a "false dichotomy" here.
Re: (Score:2)
Being a liar would suggest that they in fact know what they wrote was bullshit. The fact that he admits using ChatGPT and actually thinks 500PPM is lethal would indicate he's simply stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Please reread the posted article statement. I also quoted it in my comment.
It says increased NUMBER of hurricanes. This is false, as I have demonstrated.
I'm not referring to the increasing strength because the article did not state increasing strength.
invalid premise (Score:2)
"Surveys show that the increasing number of extreme climate events ... has not raised awareness of the threats posed by climate change. Instead, people change their idea of what they see as normal. This so-called "boiling frog effect" makes gradual change difficult to spot."
This is not the "boiling frog effect" because changing what is perceived as normal is not the cause of a failure of awareness. The failure of awareness is caused by partisan actors lying to the public.
"Researchers ... wondered if climat
It's irrelevant if the average person acknowledges (Score:5, Insightful)
You can show all the graphs, charts, and data that you want, but you're effectively showing it to the customer service department trainees, and expecting them to make Industry / Company / Government level changes. Governments don't want to regulate anything because once they regulate, they get cut off from the kickbacks, and once that money stop, they need to find new sources of funding.
Governments fake caring about this issue, they hold summits to come up with plans, just so they can appear to care. They ask companies to self-regulate, which has all the effect of letting the kids plan what's for dinner with an unrestricted, an overflowing ice cream stash.
Should we discuss the joke that is recycling? Emission control? Packaging control? An aggressive approach with meaningful hard regulation would tackle the climate change problem in years, but since no governments have backbones, that will never happen
Re:It's irrelevant if the average person acknowled (Score:5, Insightful)
All of that is why getting voter educated matters. Hence the article.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am guessing you missed the post by Gweihir earlier:
https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
As individual you _can_ make a difference: energy consumption per capita for the US is about 279 MMBTU, for the EU this is 86 MMBTU - less than a third so it is possible. Due to larger distances you won't get to the European figure, but reducing your energy consumption by 50% would already account for 350 million times 140 MMBTU = 49 billion MMBTU per annum. The cut down in CO2 emissions for 49 billion MMBTU is approximately 2,597,000 kg (5,725,40
most people have never done a multi year project (Score:2)
Like electing a President and finding out after the midterms that you actually have a King. Who could have seen that coming?
Re: (Score:2)
I do not know whether doing a longer project would help. There seem to be plenty of those that fail.
What I think is that the 10-15% fact checkers we have in the human race can see long-term effects, but the rest just does not have the mental skills.
\o/ (Score:5, Funny)
Presumably the truth of both climate change and the boiling frog effect will soon be revealed as bodies of water containing frogs heat up.
Obligatory XKCD (Score:5, Insightful)
Cold [xkcd.com].
It’s obvious to me. (Score:4, Interesting)
R's prefer ICE to climate data (Score:2)
Whoda thunkit?
Increase? No. (Score:3)
The thing is, there hasn't actually been an increase in extreme climate events. There's actually been a decrease.
Our infrastructure has simply become more intolerant of them, because we haven't been maintaining it or building it towards the possibility of exceptional weather. The result is more damage and more death, but it isn't caused by an increase in either the frequency or the severity.
You can quite quickly see there's a strong correlation between solar activity and the status of our severe weather events, too - it's well known and established fact - so I'm unclear how this in any way relates to (human-caused) climate change. Someone explain this to me?
Re: (Score:2)
If you are unable to detect that the climate has changed since you were a child, you are either very young, near the equator, or just completely unobservant.
Are the explanations offered sufficient to describe what is going on? Nope. Are they more explanatory than wild guesses or denial? Most certainly. The only reason there is any confusion at all is because the people making the money are doing things they know will add to changes in the environment and they don't want their personal lives to change. In fa
Tornadoes (Score:2)
Growing up in the Midwest, we were very much aware that nuclear war could end humanity's existence with scarcely more than a half hour of warning. Climate change is positively tame by comparison.
What these researchers misunderstand is that most people are not so privileged that climate change even makes the list of their concerns. It's not that they don't care, but that they just don't have the time or money to do anything effective.
The average person cannot afford an electric car.
The average perso
Re: (Score:2)
Growing up in the Midwest, we were very much aware that nuclear war could end humanity's existence with scarcely more than a half hour of warning. Climate change is positively tame by comparison.
I can relate. I also grew up in the Midwest I can recall people talking about how while nothing around us would be considered a primary target in any nuclear war, but there were plenty of secondary targets. There were locks and dams on the rivers that would likely be taken out with nuclear warheads. Then was a nearby nuclear power plant. The one "big" airport would likely be a target. We'd likely survive the first strike, maybe even the second strike, but the area around us would be radioactive.
The average person cannot afford an electric car.
And the
Why does it matter if they believe? (Score:2)
Why does it matter whether people believe in the alleged climate crisis?
This may seem an odd question, but bear with it for a few lines. Whether or not people in the US believe in it, and endorse doing something about it, its surely obvious now that nations accounting for at least 75% of global emissions do not. And its even more obvious that they have no intention of reducing their emissions. You want evidence? How many have updated their targets with real plans and commitments? Hardly any. As for the
So far it's been a beautiful summer (Score:2)
Sunny and seasonably hot for mid-July, 88 degrees with a light breeze today. Same as it has been this time of year every year for decades.
And "The Guardian" is a rag that has been publishing crap for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
And so are you.
Climate change is real and will destroy civilization unless the clever people can force the stupid pricks, like you, to act.
Re: (Score:3)
The Grauniad is indeed full of crap.
And so are you.
Climate change is real and will destroy civilization unless the clever people can force the stupid pricks, like you, to act.
I did act. I adjusted my swimming pool heater down a degree F.
All a smart person needs (Score:2)
https://skepticalscience.com/images/CO2_Emissions_Levels_Knorr.gif
what's a function graph? (Score:3)
I teach math to unprepared college students at an inner city university. I would never show a college freshman a temperature plot with time on the x axis and expect them to understand it. Incoming freshmen have something like a traditional 4th grade mathematical background. And these are college students.
There may be cognitive biases that explain why the ice/no ice imagery works better. But another factor is that anything mathematical that doesn't make sense to a fourth grader doesn't make sense to a vast swath of the population.
Re: what's a function graph? (Score:2)
Incoming freshmen have something like a traditional 4th grade mathematical background. And these are college students.
Serious question, why are they in college? After 12 , 13 or even 14 years (if the went to free Pre-K classes) if their math ability is still at the 4th grade level, why are they considered candidates for college degrees? Seems to me they'll just wind up with tens of thousands of dollars of student debt and wind up Ill-prepared for a traditional job that traditionally requires a college degree.
You can blame the schools, you can blame the family, you can blame the community, you can blame whomever you like, b
Re: (Score:2)
Why are colleges covering up the failure of the rest of the system?
Re: (Score:2)
Is your job just covering up the failure of the primary and secondary education systems in your city?
"Real and imminent threat" (Score:2)
In my opinion, the researchers are preoccupied with the wrong question. "Awareness" of climate change is, at the end of the day, very nearly useless as a tool for actually preventing climate change. "Awareness" is the left-wing equivalent of "thoughts and prayers".
There's a whole list of reasons why human beings allow climate change to proceed despite the fact that we ought to know better. One of them is the fact that the threat is not, in fact, "imminent"; it's insidious and long-term. (Maybe you can n
Of course... (Score:2)
'Boiling Frog' Effect Makes People Oblivious To Threat of Climate Crisis, Shows Study
Of course, 50+ years of being "just 10 years away from a climate apocalypse!" hasn't numbed most people to the constant drum beat of impending climate apocalypse...
The thing "progressives" always miss... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is on display right here in one posted story.
If you are pushing a message, and claim it's "the SCIENCE", and you are not getting the reception you wish for among the populace and your conclusion is that you need a way to either massage the information or manipulate the way you present it in order to manipulate people into doing what you want, You are NOT "the SCIENCE", you are NOT doing science, and you are going to undermine your credibility and the credibility of all science - you are doing POLITICS and everybody can see it. The manipulation of populations is POLITICAL. Science is APOLITICAL.
We can all go back and forth arguing about "climate change" - we've done it here on Slashdot many many times and no-doubt will do so into the future. This story, however, is less about climate change or science, generally, at all than it is about left-leaning politics and the complete blindness to the concept that by swirling politics and science together and using political techniques to try to manipulate the public, the very people who keep claiming to be the ones embracing science are actually the ones stomping all over the reputation of all sciences in the minds of the masses. I have come to despise this destruction of confidence in science which is being done by all this garbage. Stop claiming to love science while doing everything you could possibly do to undermine the public's confidence in it! People can tell they are being politically manipulated on the climate stuff. Stop it. If you keep this up, you will end up convincing people not to believe in chemistry and physics and think that even those "pure" sciences are actually just politics-in-a-mask.
If you are so certain about climate change, then by all means do your research and publish your results just as would be done in any other field of science, but then you need to let the public do what they will about it, as any other field does. It's NOT a scientific act to try to swing public opinion to accept a conclusion. You never see physicists trying to manipulate public opinion like this. The people involved in this are guilty of a classic error; they think THEIR field is the only field, or the most important field, and that everybody must be made to agree with them because they are the keepers of the sacred knowledge. The hubris is astounding.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just a very wordy way of saying that you don't like the conclusions that the science has come to, and don't want to change your lifestyle, so are blaming the Leftist Boogieman for making it too political.
Re: The thing "progressives" always miss... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The thing "progressives" always miss... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's what we heard for decades. Untrustworthy people
Re: (Score:2)
You are saying that rather than trying to understand the science or listen to the scientists, the fact that people you disagree with politically have championed it is making you reject it.
It's just a milder form of this: https://files.libcom.org/files... [libcom.org]
Re: (Score:2)
See also (Score:2)
Alarm fatigue [wikipedia.org]
Social problem (Score:2)
I think this is more of a social problem than a boiling frog problem. People notice it is hotter than when they grew up.
People aren't given a clear goal how to improve the situation. Something unified. I couldn't see the US getting together for a cause like WW1 or WW2. I mean, half of the US thinks giving up their citizenship is a better way to fix the US than voting. Something needs to change.
not sure (Score:2)
Almost all people around are aware this is the hottest summer in known history
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this about marketing? (Score:2)
Re:What is boiling frog effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not an actual way to boil a frog. The frogs sense the heat change and leave.
It's used as a metaphor for humans getting used to change in something that will hurt them. If we picked some other human activity as an analogy, it would likely offend someone, wouldn't be as funny as comparing us to frogs, and some asshat would (in a "good faith" effort) stretch the analogy to the point that it failed to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does that effect exist either? If what you think is happening is analogous to something that doesn't actually happen, mightn't that first thought be wrong as well?
This is why I was careful to use the word metaphor instead of analogy, oh careless one.
'splainy 'splain [prowritingaid.com]
Re: What is boiling frog effect? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot?
Boiling frog effect is an analogy! (Score:2)
The fact that it is a myth that very slowly raising the temperature of water keeps a frog from jumping the pot does not invalidate the sociological research being performed. The fact they used a
Re: (Score:2)
> At what point does the unusual become usual? When does abnormal become normal? I guess that depends on context, which is why research like this is very useful.
I disagree. This research does not answer those questions nor is it even related to that. This research is about comparing two different visual presentations, which are both revealed instantly. Two answer your questions or to be related to the frog myth, you would need to reveal data one bit of a time during some period of time. And then compare
Re: Boiling frog effect is an analogy! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So ... what's really happening is: bad weather happens. Bad weather happens more often. People complain. Then they relent and adjust their life (buy an AC, put better shingles on their roof, or a better whole roof, relocate out of a flood plain or otherwise adapt to the change in climate), and once adapted, they stop complaining.
Perhaps it's not that people don't notice, but rather at some level they at least think they can adapt to the changes and stop being overly concerned by them.
The big question
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that it is a myth that very slowly raising the temperature of water keeps a frog from jumping the pot does not invalidate the sociological research being performed.
Exactly, it simply graphically expresses the idea that even catastrophic changes will sometimes be tolerated if they happen slowly enough. Its not clear the research really shows that is happening. It seems to have started with the assumption of the concept and looked for evidence it was true.
I don't think the reason people aren't responding to climate change has anything to do with the "boiling frog" effect. Instead, using the analogy, there is a cover on the pot and there is nothing they can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What is boiling frog effect? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For a second there it seemed like you were comparing weather to climate.
Climate is weather averaged over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Climate (from Ancient Greek ÎÎÎμα 'inclination') is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period.[9] The standard averaging period is 30 years,[10] but other periods may be used depending on the purpose.
Someone commenting on the weather over the last 10 years versus the 10 years prior to that is a comment on the changing climate.
Here's something to consider, the climate always changes. When thinking of climate changes over spans like 30 years that's a good sized portion of someone's life. To rule out small natural shifts in climate, such as those caused by an El Nino cycle, a volcano or other geological event, and more there would ne
Re: What is boiling frog effect? (Score:2)
Re: What is boiling frog effect? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sowing doubt, it appears you misunderstood.
I don't like the term "climate change" as it leaves an opening for denial. I prefer the more accurate and desriptive term "global warming". What would be better still is "anthropogenic catastrophic global warming" but that is quite a mouthful.
The issue is not that the climate is changing, it is that there's warming. But then is an argument that warming could be beneficial so we must be clear that the issue is that the warming is bad, or the warming is to
Re: (Score:2)
Modern Climate Deniers (Score:2)
There is a science called phenology which is the study of the changing seasons. Unless you have kept a diary for several decades you don't really notice the changes. Record temperatures are to be expected, But when all the signs of season changes have moved considerably earlier in the spring and considerably later in the fall it is a sign that the climate is changing not just the normal variations in weather or some extreme event.
There is no doubt that the planet is getting warmer by any objective measure.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no doubt that the planet is getting warmer by any objective measure. Whether we will do anything to stop it is doubtful.
I believe something will be done about greenhouse gases, that it is certain to happen, and that it will happen very soon. All it takes is to make note of how there's a general decline in fossil fuel production, which comes with rising prices, and the decreasing costs (at least relatively speaking) of alternatives like onshore wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear fission. We are seeing nations fight over access to fossil fuels, such as Putin's invasion of Ukraine to be at least partially motivated by seeki
Re: What is boiling frog effect? (Score:2)
Re: What is boiling frog effect? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the real point is that human beings are, like the chimpanzee cousins, rather good at assessing proximal risk. We're hardwired to see something like fire or even strange movement in the tall grass, and move swiftly from assessment to reaction.
Assessing risk that is more remote requires someone to actually put the cognition to work. It means putting aside emotions, whether they be fear, denial or a sense of comfort, and actually analyzing the trends and what they mean at some point in the future. I th
Re: (Score:2)
You may be leaving out a substantial number of people that. "Just don't care"....
I'm leaning pretty heavily towards that group of folks.
I mean I don't see this destroying the world of my way of life in my lifetime..
Re: Also don't forget (Score:2)
If your not willing to disappoint 34 people, why are you trying to disrupt millions?
Re: (Score:3)
Beef prices are skyrocketing and a huge part of that is drought caused by climate change.
Here's a reference that details some of that, and also notes it's probably going to get even worse if/when Trump's tariffs kick in:
Beef prices are soaring: Here’s why [thehill.com]
The countries that export a significant amount of meat, such as New Zealand and Australia, are facing a 10 percent tariff, while others, like Brazil, which has exported 216,119 metric tons of meat this year, might be staring at a 50 percent tariff.
Still, multiple other factors have contributed to the rise in beef prices, including drought conditions, a downward trend in the number of herds, high supply costs and a parasite impacting some imported cattle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, pretty accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
We've literally had the climate crisis drilled into us since the 90s.
It's been going on longer than that. Look at some of the TV shows and movies from the 1970s, there were plenty of mentions of a "climate crisis", either mentioned in passing or as a major plot element. The problem was not likely to be described exactly as a "climate crisis" but much the same concerns and issues were there.
Every time it is always "we have only 5 years to act before the point of no return." The problem is when you cry wolf like that for 30 years straight no one believes its a crisis anymore. Today, are we still already 5 years from no return again?
If these people had put their money and time into developing the necessary technologies to reduce reliance on fossil fuels than put it into "awareness", or whatever they claim to be doin
Re: (Score:2)