Growing Public Apathy on Climate Change Topic Worries Scientists

[Johnson McGee]

Seems to me that there's an inherent flaw with using Google Trends to gauge interest in something. People will search for things that they want to find out about, so when 'Climate Change' first appeared as a common term, people googled it to find out what it is; but now they know what it is so they don't need to google it as much.

In addition, as the symptoms progress from the nebulous concept of 'climate change' to actual events people are going to start searching for that instead. I would want to see the results of searches for 'climate change' as well as 'ice cap melting', 'wildfires' and 'floods' before definitively declaring that public interest is waning.

Aside from all that though, it's a shame that the warnings about 'in 50 years the sea level will rise a bit' were the ones that got popularized when a more convincing (and more reliable) argument would have been 'wildfires, droughts and floods caused by changing weather patterns will cost billions in infrastructure spending and make food prices increase in the very short term.'

 

[Dragonbums]

They keep predicting DOOM DOOM DOOM, but nothing is happening. The first warnings said the sea level would have risen by 1 meter by now, obviously nothing has happened.

People are starting to ignore the bullshit.

Only the stupid would be naive to think major climate change happens in 2 months.
We are spelling DOOM DOOM DOOM but at 30 years from now. Not that it matters whether the public cares or not because the great glaciers of the poles are already melting at an alarming irreversible rate and we expect to see New York a good couple of feet under water in a couple of decades. So keep ignoring the "bullshit" until it knocks on your front door.

The problem here is, they've ALREADY been saying it'll happen in a few decades for a few decades, and I think people are starting to view it the same way that people regard religious doomsayers saying the apocalypse will happen in 1981, then 1992, then 1999, then 2000, then 2012, etc., etc. pushing the date.

Time Magazine, 1987
I did my best to try to find a Nat Geo Magazine article picture I remember seeing from the late 1980's that showed a flooded New York and predicted it would happen within 30 years, then post the 2013 cover showing the Statue of Liberty up to her waist in water due to the ice caps melting within the next few decades. Couldn't find the original, however.

That still doesn't mean it's not going to happen. We are seeing these very effects happen to other people around the world. One island is even having to think of plans to evacuate the entire island because the sea levels have risen to dangerous levels there. http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2001/update2


What's our fantasy, is a lot of people's reality. It's hard to predict exact whether change time periods, but there is no denying that it isn't happening. And when it does come to the US, New York-being one of the places with the lowest sea level will be affected first.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Well I suppose it's because everybody could almost be a damn near expert by now on the subject; fossil fuels are bad, people fucking like rabbits increasing the worlds population is bad, and powerful companies that make billions of traditional power methods arnt going to let their money disappear... and cows are brain dead farting assholes.

If being green we're more economically viable in my area I'd do it only if it lowered my bills. I turn stuff off when I'm not using it not to save the planet, I'm doing it more me so I can eat next month, dang it. They should lead the shit with that.

 

[MrDumpkins]

To be fair, the public's opinion doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot when it comes to public policy. If politicians and corporations want climate change laws, there will be climate change laws. If politicians and corporations don't want climate change laws, there won't be climate change laws. Public opinion be damned.

Basically that, there are too many billion dollar corporations that would lose a lot of money if the world decided to go green. And in America they own the media and government so of course nothing is going to be done about it.

Best example I can give is Jimmy Carter decided to install solar panels on top of the white house to show that America is ready for progress. As soon as Ronald Reagan came in he tore them down because they were a joke. Carter thought reducing reliance on foreign oil and harnessing the power of the sun was the future. Reagan thought that corporate interests would dictate what would be right for the people. President Obama put them back in which is a good thing, too bad he hasn't done more about it.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

They keep predicting DOOM DOOM DOOM, but nothing is happening. The first warnings said the sea level would have risen by 1 meter by now, obviously nothing has happened.

People are starting to ignore the bullshit.

And were those warnings by scientists, or media reports that poorly paraphrased the scientists for click bait headlines?

Seriously, people need to learn to distinguish between the two.

 

[Lightknight]

Do you think caring and interest are the same thing? I mean, I care about the issue but I'm not particularly interested in it. I haven't really heard anything new in years besides the whole changing it from global warming to climate change.

I would think caring would presuppose some sort of interest, but I suppose they could be separate of each other depending on your interpretation of each word.

But in that case, I think this article does presuppose that caring equals interest, at least on some level. And I'd say that that's the case in general too or at least the point of the article; people don't really care about climate change any more.

What actually annoys me most about this is that, because I think most of this is irreversible, we should be thinking about how to cope with said climate change. But that seems to be a topic that's nowhere to be seen on the public agenda. And ignoring that is even more dangerous in the long run.

I think the public is supportive of legislation and innovations that support a healthier environment. The past several years have seen unprecedented strides in renewable technologies and a heck of a lot of funding to back them up.

airborne wind turbines that actually make sense for once [http://www.euronews.com/2014/04/22/turning-smog-into-diamonds/]...

We may not appear as "interested" in it. But there's a clear and growing demand for clean and renewable energy as well as clear financial incentives to pay attention the the kind of footprint we have. Eventually, we will have ways to produce the functions we've grown to enjoy without destroying our environment. We may not be shaking in our boots anymore over the looming threat of climate change, anymore than we're shaking in our boots over the looming threat of death. That doesn't mean we don't care about the issue. Only that we've become acclimated to its existence. If the article assumes interest means caring then I would be concerned that they jumped to the wrong conclusion.

As long as we keep putting money towards these kinds of products then we will continue to get amazing results.

 

[lacktheknack]

They keep predicting DOOM DOOM DOOM, but nothing is happening. The first warnings said the sea level would have risen by 1 meter by now, obviously nothing has happened.

People are starting to ignore the bullshit.

Only the stupid would be naive to think major climate change happens in 2 months.
We are spelling DOOM DOOM DOOM but at 30 years from now. Not that it matters whether the public cares or not because the great glaciers of the poles are already melting at an alarming irreversible rate and we expect to see New York a good couple of feet under water in a couple of decades. So keep ignoring the "bullshit" until it knocks on your front door.

You're also being alarmist and spouting nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

I question how New York will, as a whole, be under a couple of feet of water in twenty years if the sea is only going to rise about two inches.

You claim me spouting nonsense and yet you are unaware of just how major it is for the sea to rise just 2 inches. 2 inches is enough to put whole areas under water. It's bad enough when it rises by milimeters.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/314281317/for-n-j-mayor-the-time-to-adapt-to-rising-sea-levels-is-now

This doesn't excuse you from LYING and saying that

we expect to see New York a good couple of feet under water in a couple of decades.

Tell the truth, say what you know, don't embellish.

Where is the lie? There was a recent report saying that the melting of the iceburgs is now inevitable. And they noted that in a couple of decades we could see a rise in the ocean by inches. Which is why I said- in a couple of decades (whether that be 30-90 years from now) New York (which is already at a pretty low sea level to begin with) will be seeing itself underwater.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/melting-of-west-antarctics-glaciers-pass-point-of-no-return/27340/


You tell me to say what I know, and you keep going on about things you don't know.

Pssst.

"A couple decades" = 20 years.

No more, no less.

I know everything that you just said, so your assertion that I don't is wrong. Furthermore, you don't even know what "decade" means before you use it.

And you wonder why I'm unimpressed by your posts?

 

[Agayek]

That's the problem with the first world. Apathy. People just don't care about things that don't affect them directly. So long as we have food in our bellies and the power stays on, we're content.

As the saying goes. "Out of sight, out of mind"

That has nothing to do with the first world and everything to do with people. Very, very few people anywhere truly and honestly care about things that have no direct, observable impact on them or their lives. It doesn't matter what those lives are like; it's a pretty universal trait for humanity.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Because everyone's burnt out from it. We've gone numb to it. Also doesn't help that the way main stream media pushes on about it so much that it makes it look more like they're up to some kind of alternate agenda then anything else. This is why you have so many disbelievers now. As for myself, I don't know what to believe. Surely there must be some kind of climate emergency but to what severity and what the true time line is I'm still not sure. We all have enough immediate issues on our plates to worry what with the current state of politics, corporatism and the economy.

 

[llubtoille]

It's a bit like asking us to worry about the black hole that will consume the earth in ten thousand years,
it's beyond our scope of reality to full comprehend, and on an individual level there's not a lot we can do about it.

 

[faefrost]

That's the problem with the first world. Apathy. People just don't care about things that don't affect them directly. So long as we have food in our bellies and the power stays on, we're content.

As the saying goes. "Out of sight, out of mind"

Honestly people also do have a fairly good filter for poorly defined vaguely alarmist rhetoric. If they stopped paying attention it is not simply that they find it boring. It's that they find the entire thing pointless. They are not sold and probably aren't going to be.

 

[gigastar]

Im of the opinion that we need a mass extinction event anyway.

You know that'll include you and everyone you love as well?

Yes. Your point being?

 

[Fdzzaigl]

Aye. The problem is that even then, not all answers are easy ones- you mention geothermal and solar energy, but they're very expensive and the other clean, commercially viable energy source is pretty controversial- nuclear.

On the plus side, there's now a very interesting alternative to the old uranium reactors as far as nuclear energy is concerned:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600656-thorium-element-named-after-norse-god-thunder-may-soon-contribute

Yep, that's why I also think that we should stop demonizing nuclear. I'm a really odd green that way, but I completely turned around on nuclear after some research on the German situation and visits there.

The Germans are very much into renewable, but after Fukushima they did a fullstop on nuclear energy. Guess what they did to assure a stable baseload? Frekking re-opened old coal plants and started burning brown coal (the worst kind of coal) again. The result is massive ecological damage. At the same time air pollution kills more than nuclear power plants ever did.

Every time I hear the green party mention the "German model" as the best way forward, I feel my toes curl. They need to STOP with that shit.

Nuclear isn't perfect either and should be abolished once we have better alternatives, but going back into coal and making plans to do shale gas here in Europe really isn't that alternative. It's a cynical statement, but nuclear waste is a problem that will become supercritical several hundred year from now, emissions and air pollution is a problem that is supercritical NOW.

 

[Dragonbums]

They keep predicting DOOM DOOM DOOM, but nothing is happening. The first warnings said the sea level would have risen by 1 meter by now, obviously nothing has happened.

People are starting to ignore the bullshit.

Only the stupid would be naive to think major climate change happens in 2 months.
We are spelling DOOM DOOM DOOM but at 30 years from now. Not that it matters whether the public cares or not because the great glaciers of the poles are already melting at an alarming irreversible rate and we expect to see New York a good couple of feet under water in a couple of decades. So keep ignoring the "bullshit" until it knocks on your front door.

You're also being alarmist and spouting nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

I question how New York will, as a whole, be under a couple of feet of water in twenty years if the sea is only going to rise about two inches.

You claim me spouting nonsense and yet you are unaware of just how major it is for the sea to rise just 2 inches. 2 inches is enough to put whole areas under water. It's bad enough when it rises by milimeters.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/314281317/for-n-j-mayor-the-time-to-adapt-to-rising-sea-levels-is-now

This doesn't excuse you from LYING and saying that

we expect to see New York a good couple of feet under water in a couple of decades.

Tell the truth, say what you know, don't embellish.

Where is the lie? There was a recent report saying that the melting of the iceburgs is now inevitable. And they noted that in a couple of decades we could see a rise in the ocean by inches. Which is why I said- in a couple of decades (whether that be 30-90 years from now) New York (which is already at a pretty low sea level to begin with) will be seeing itself underwater.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/melting-of-west-antarctics-glaciers-pass-point-of-no-return/27340/


You tell me to say what I know, and you keep going on about things you don't know.

Pssst.

"A couple decades" = 20 years.

No more, no less.

I know everything that you just said, so your assertion that I don't is wrong. Furthermore, you don't even know what "decade" means before you use it.

And you wonder why I'm unimpressed by your posts?

So your playing smart?

I'm very aware a decade is 10 years. Had I of initially said a single decade to imply 30 years you my of had a point. Instead I said a couple of decades. Which is still more than one 10 years anyway. A couple is used interchangeably to mean more than two quite often.

So basically your just playing the diction police to dismiss my posts because you have nothing else really solid to stand on.

 

[lacktheknack]

They keep predicting DOOM DOOM DOOM, but nothing is happening. The first warnings said the sea level would have risen by 1 meter by now, obviously nothing has happened.

People are starting to ignore the bullshit.

Only the stupid would be naive to think major climate change happens in 2 months.
We are spelling DOOM DOOM DOOM but at 30 years from now. Not that it matters whether the public cares or not because the great glaciers of the poles are already melting at an alarming irreversible rate and we expect to see New York a good couple of feet under water in a couple of decades. So keep ignoring the "bullshit" until it knocks on your front door.

You're also being alarmist and spouting nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

I question how New York will, as a whole, be under a couple of feet of water in twenty years if the sea is only going to rise about two inches.

You claim me spouting nonsense and yet you are unaware of just how major it is for the sea to rise just 2 inches. 2 inches is enough to put whole areas under water. It's bad enough when it rises by milimeters.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/314281317/for-n-j-mayor-the-time-to-adapt-to-rising-sea-levels-is-now

This doesn't excuse you from LYING and saying that

we expect to see New York a good couple of feet under water in a couple of decades.

Tell the truth, say what you know, don't embellish.

Where is the lie? There was a recent report saying that the melting of the iceburgs is now inevitable. And they noted that in a couple of decades we could see a rise in the ocean by inches. Which is why I said- in a couple of decades (whether that be 30-90 years from now) New York (which is already at a pretty low sea level to begin with) will be seeing itself underwater.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/melting-of-west-antarctics-glaciers-pass-point-of-no-return/27340/


You tell me to say what I know, and you keep going on about things you don't know.

Pssst.

"A couple decades" = 20 years.

No more, no less.

I know everything that you just said, so your assertion that I don't is wrong. Furthermore, you don't even know what "decade" means before you use it.

And you wonder why I'm unimpressed by your posts?

So your playing smart?

I'm very aware a decade is 10 years. Had I of initially said a single decade to imply 30 years you my of had a point. Instead I said a couple of decades. Which is still more than one 10 years anyway. A couple is used interchangeably to mean more than two quite often.

So basically your just playing the diction police to dismiss my posts because you have nothing else really solid to stand on.

Nope. "A couple" means two. It has never meant "more than two" in any formal circumstance ever. Ever heard of a "cute couple" that actually referred to a poly-amorous group of three? No! Ever heard of "a couple hours" that actually meant five? Only if you're constantly late!

You said "New York will be under a couple feet of water in a couple of decades". I'm sure it means "two feet of water" in "ninety years" to you, because that's the only even remotely supportable wild assertion you can make, assuming exponential water rising (and there's no reason to believe that). But that's not what that means. If you ask any random schmoe, they'll say that you mean "two feet in twenty years", because that's what a couple means.

You don't GET to pull the pedantic card on me because you used words with very rare (yes, rare) variances to say something alarmist, and then I call you an alarmist. You don't GET to handwave away your ludicrous assertions because "meh, that word has variations." You're smart, you knew EXACTLY how people were going to read that line. It looks for all the world that you KNEW that you screwed up, and are now backpedalling like you're in a paddleboat heading towards a waterfall, but frankly, you're fooling no one. You said something stupid, and now I'm calling you out on it, as I should.

As for my solid standpoint:

Currently, the water levels are rising at 3 mm per year.

This means that the water levels will rise at 1.18 inches per decade.

Therefore, assuming no sudden disaster, the levels will rise between two and three inches in two decades. This gives us ample time to come up with evacuation plans, or even artificially raise low-lying areas. Or we can do what New Orleans does and build dikes that last a few decades.

You claimed, no matter how much you'd like me to believe you didn't, that water levels would rise multiple feet in twenty years.

This is ludicrous, unsupportable, and alarmist, because it allows us no time to react carefully.

Ergo, you're being alarmist.

Check. Fucking. Mate.

 

[Dragonbums]

They keep predicting DOOM DOOM DOOM, but nothing is happening. The first warnings said the sea level would have risen by 1 meter by now, obviously nothing has happened.

People are starting to ignore the bullshit.

Only the stupid would be naive to think major climate change happens in 2 months.
We are spelling DOOM DOOM DOOM but at 30 years from now. Not that it matters whether the public cares or not because the great glaciers of the poles are already melting at an alarming irreversible rate and we expect to see New York a good couple of feet under water in a couple of decades. So keep ignoring the "bullshit" until it knocks on your front door.

You're also being alarmist and spouting nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

I question how New York will, as a whole, be under a couple of feet of water in twenty years if the sea is only going to rise about two inches.

You claim me spouting nonsense and yet you are unaware of just how major it is for the sea to rise just 2 inches. 2 inches is enough to put whole areas under water. It's bad enough when it rises by milimeters.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/314281317/for-n-j-mayor-the-time-to-adapt-to-rising-sea-levels-is-now

This doesn't excuse you from LYING and saying that

we expect to see New York a good couple of feet under water in a couple of decades.

Tell the truth, say what you know, don't embellish.

Where is the lie? There was a recent report saying that the melting of the iceburgs is now inevitable. And they noted that in a couple of decades we could see a rise in the ocean by inches. Which is why I said- in a couple of decades (whether that be 30-90 years from now) New York (which is already at a pretty low sea level to begin with) will be seeing itself underwater.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/melting-of-west-antarctics-glaciers-pass-point-of-no-return/27340/


You tell me to say what I know, and you keep going on about things you don't know.

Pssst.

"A couple decades" = 20 years.

No more, no less.

I know everything that you just said, so your assertion that I don't is wrong. Furthermore, you don't even know what "decade" means before you use it.

And you wonder why I'm unimpressed by your posts?

So your playing smart?

I'm very aware a decade is 10 years. Had I of initially said a single decade to imply 30 years you my of had a point. Instead I said a couple of decades. Which is still more than one 10 years anyway. A couple is used interchangeably to mean more than two quite often.

So basically your just playing the diction police to dismiss my posts because you have nothing else really solid to stand on.

Nope. "A couple" means two. It has never meant "more than two" in any formal circumstance ever. Ever heard of a "cute couple" that actually referred to a poly-amorous group of three? No! Ever heard of "a couple hours" that actually meant five? Only if you're constantly late!

You said "New York will be under a couple feet of water in a couple of decades". I'm sure it means "two feet of water" in "ninety years" to you, because that's the only even remotely supportable wild assertion you can make, assuming exponential water rising (and there's no reason to believe that). But that's not what that means. If you ask any random schmoe, they'll say that you mean "two feet in twenty years", because that's what a couple means.

You don't GET to pull the pedantic card on me because you used words with very rare (yes, rare) variances to say something alarmist, and then I call you an alarmist. You don't GET to handwave away your ludicrous assertions because "meh, that word has variations." You're smart, you knew EXACTLY how people were going to read that line. It looks for all the world that you KNEW that you screwed up, and are now backpedalling like you're in a paddleboat heading towards a waterfall, but frankly, you're fooling no one. You said something stupid, and now I'm calling you out on it, as I should.

As for my solid standpoint:

Currently, the water levels are rising at 3 mm per year.

This means that the water levels will rise at 1.18 inches per decade.

Therefore, assuming no sudden disaster, the levels will rise between two and three inches in two decades. This gives us ample time to come up with evacuation plans, or even artificially raise low-lying areas. Or we can do what New Orleans does and build dikes that last a few decades.

You claimed, no matter how much you'd like me to believe you didn't, that water levels would rise multiple feet in twenty years.

This is ludicrous, unsupportable, and alarmist, because it allows us no time to react carefully.

Ergo, you're being alarmist.

Check. Fucking. Mate.

There is no check mate.

The only thing you did was catch me in a wording slip up. Yet what I said in entirety was actually backed up with links to scientific websites talking about rising sea levels and actual places that have to make real decisions in the near future to do something about it. One area actually having to evacuate their entire population.

So congrats on catching the word slip up.


There is no "alarmist" anything here. You can plug your ears and say blah blah all you want. And continue to ignore because it has no immediate effects towards your living comfort. But when the time comes, people are going to be wondering why nobody bothered to listen or do anything about it when we had the early warnings years ago.

 

[gigastar]

Ok, turns out the post i wanted to quote no longer exists. So reposting it would be rather pointless, not to mention the possibility of mod wrath.