Why did the recycling movement in the 90s succeed where action on climate change fails? Was it a much different government administration and publicization strategy, less dilution of memes via internet? Was society simply more organized and leadership competent? — Enrique

The reason action on climate change failed is that it was strongly opposed by big oil companies and similar interests, who managed to pull the wool over the American public's eyes for decades, and made them believe that it was a "hoax".

most importantly car culture, which I would argue is the ontological basis of Western individualism and consumerism (I am not of this world because I am in a car). — boethius

I drive therefore I am.

Yes, one of the more successful campaigns at getting us to buy things we don't need. I imagine a smoke-filled board room in Manhattan somewhen in the late 1920s -
"People have already bought all the labour-saving stuff that makes their lives easier, it lasts a lifetime, we're going to go out of business. Any ideas?". Long silence.
"We could always sell them stuff they don't need...or make the stuff they do need break...".
"Excellent. We'll do both",
"But people would have to either be really stupid or really desperate to buy stuff they don't even need which breaks after a year",
"Excellent. We'll do both".

Not just in the USA. Climate change denial is alive and well with about 20% of people in the Netherlands and that's probably true in most Western countries. Two recent posts making the rounds, an overview of heat waves in the Netherlands since 1900, which ignores the local nature of those, and a table with CO2 levels in the cambria period (which we're 10 times as high as now), ignoring water temperatures at the time that would kill every living aquatic thing existing now but solely pointing out the average temperature was lower. There were also no ice caps so we can imagine what coast lines would look like. All in all, there's a large segment still resisting doing anything.

I was just responding to your original claim that before Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, almost nobody knew about CC. — Olivier5

I just meant that the average person didn't know. It was mostly science nerds who knew.

Except in France where everyone was a damned climatologist at a time when those in the field described it as "a science of wild guesses.".

in the field described it as "a science of wild guesses.". — Tate

Wild guesses do not apply in thermodynamics... It is a proven fact that CO2 traps more heat than N2 or O2, the other principal components of the atmosphere. Based in this fact, pumping CO2 in the atmosphere was bound to raise average temperatures.

Many people have been conned into doubting CC for far too long, by a well-oiled machinery of deception.

Many of them in the US.

https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/america-misled/

I drive therefore I am.

Yes, one of the more successful campaigns at getting us to buy things we don't need. I imagine a smoke-filled board room in Manhattan somewhen in the late 1920s -
"People have already bought all the labour-saving stuff that makes their lives easier, it lasts a lifetime, we're going to go out of business. Any ideas?". Long silence.
"We could always sell them stuff they don't need...or make the stuff they do need break...".
"Excellent. We'll do both",
"But people would have to either be really stupid or really desperate to buy stuff they don't even need which breaks after a year",
"Excellent. We'll do both". — Isaac

It's so frighteningly simple.

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed.

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed. — Tate

Maybe you should get up to speed on what's already been discussed on this very thread.

For people who don't want to spend effort doing basic web searches about this topic before debating it.

Here's a presentation by a credible scientist on the issue of collapse and climate change:
— boethius

Is a comment from 12 months ago, posting a video for those who can't "google" as you recommend others to do.

The key words in "climate change" are "change" and "climate", as in we are changing the climate from ice-age to not-ice age, through the green house effect that heats the planet, heat that is not good for ice.

And to respond ahead of time to your bullshit.

How do you know we've been in an ice-age as you say?

Did you drill those core samples yourself? Or are you just repeating things that scientists who do that research say?

If their credible on the ice-age scientific facts you base your argument on ... why are they not credible on their opinions on climate change?

You cannot simply selectively pick someone's credibility, when it supports your world view and just dismiss anything else they say when it doesn't. You must at least provide:

A. you understand their analysis that you think is wrong; if their credible on something else, clearly their analysis is something that at least needs contending with.

B. compelling reasons and evidence that their analysis you disagree with is in fact wrong.

Scientists can for sure be wrong, even whole communities of scientists, but one needs compelling reasons and can't just dismiss their wrong-ideas off hand when convenient without justification. It is critical in such situation to make clear what they get right, why they get it right, demonstrate deep understanding of what they get wrong and compelling analysis and evidence that they are in fact wrong.

For example, Einstein didn't just declare "Newton is wrong! Don't believe anything he said!" but rather demonstrated a deep understanding of Newtonian gravity, why it works well in our local context, a deep understanding of where it maybe deficient, and a new theory that addresses those deficiencies with compelling analysis and proof (without contradicting, but providing a deeper explanation of, whatever is true in the old theory).

Truism like "we're in an ice age!" or:

↪boethius In my humble opinion, the biosphere is able to self-correct any perturbations from the equilibrium point. — Agent Smith

Is not scientific theory, but things that sound clever to libertarians (who are collectively dumb as toast).

as in we are changing the climate from ice-age to not-ice age, — boethius

It's not clear whether increased CO2 will take us out of the present ice age or not.

How do you know we've been in an ice-age as you say? — boethius

That's the standard scientific perspective at this time.

If their credible on the ice-age scientific facts you base your argument on ... why are they not credible on their opinions on climate change? — boethius

Global warming is real. Nobody said otherwise.

What’s the relevance of this remark?

Is not scientific theory, but things that sound clever to libertarians (who are collectively dumb as toast). — boethius

The Wikipedia article on The Balance of Nature says that one scientist declares that it's an "enduring myth." It's considered an obsolete theory.

However, what's the explanation for the long delay in changes to atmospheric CO₂ levels, not to mention the deviation from normal are miniscule. One explanation is there are some negative feedback loops that regulate the concentration of gases in the atmosphere and that's precisely what autoregulation is, oui?

It's not clear whether increased CO2 will take us out of the present ice age or not. — Tate

To remind you of your position in the thread:

↪boethius In my humble opinion, the biosphere is able to self-correct any perturbations from the equilibrium point. There's this concept in physiology termed homeostasis and my hunch is a similar mechanism exists for the living world on the global scale as well. — Agent Smith

Which you have yet to contradict, so are still defending? Or then some cowardly non-defence but ... also not admitting a contradiction!?

You say:

"""
"The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually."
— Tate

And then contradict that statement with:

"As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the oceans will increase. It's Henry's Law."
— Tate
"""
— boethius

That's not a contradiction. — Tate

And, what is clear in the current science is that the amount of CO2 we've released so far into the atmosphere will cause severe damages to earth systems, is already causing severe damages, nothing can now stop that.

What's also clear is that the risk of feedback mechanism (aka. tipping points) is exceedingly high.

And what matters is risk, not guarantees. It is irrational to take an even small risk of melting the Arctic ice-cap and most mountain glaciers and and Greenland. It is irrational to take an even small risk of entering an entirely ice-free climate with the melting of the Antarctic as well.

These are not reasonable risks to take. "100% certainty" is a fossil lobby delay tactic that the gullible fall for (more importantly, a talking point for corrupt politicians knowing they are killing people and destroying the planet for money ... or then just useful idiots financed from the beginning because they're clueless).

For example, let's say it isn't certain as you say.

What is the uncertainty? i.e. risk level.

Why would that risk, even according to your numbers, be worthwhile to take?

That's the standard scientific perspective at this time. — Tate

Did you even read what I wrote? My point was you know this because scientists told you.

The same scientists saying that the climate is not self correcting and our modifications to the atmosphere are of extreme concern and may kill billions of people as well as cause a mass-extinction of life on earth.

Why listen to one thing they say, but dismiss off-hand another?

Global warming is real. Nobody said otherwise. — Tate

Again ... (ignoring the other climate change gas-lighters that drop in from time to time) you yourself literally stated:

↪boethius In my humble opinion, the biosphere is able to self-correct any perturbations from the equilibrium point. There's this concept in physiology termed homeostasis and my hunch is a similar mechanism exists for the living world on the global scale as well. — Agent Smith

... Explain how that's somehow not contradiction again?

You're attributing someone else's words to me.

Which one?

Which you have yet to contradict, so are still defending? Or then some cowardly non-defence but ... also not admitting a contradiction!? — boethius

Fact: CO₂ levels didn't change despite increased emissions since the 1800s.

Hypothesis: Negative feedback loops aka the balance of nature.

What's wrong with the hypothesis? Note Henry's law is a component of autoregulation.

Fact: CO2 levels didn't change despite increased emissions since the 1800s. — Agent Smith

CO2 levels have increased dramatically since the 1800s. What are you talking about?

Hypothesis: Negative feedback loops aka the balance of nature. — Agent Smith

The climate changes drastically from time to time. Changes in CO2 levels have been the main culprit in numerous climate change events in the past.

Which one? — Tate

The one I linked to. Just click it on and it'll take you there. Are you truly unaware of how this forum works?

If that's too difficult, I'm referring to the following:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed. — Tate

What is the relevance of this remark?

What is the relevance of this remark? — Xtrix

No need to get testy. A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity.

Is this news to you?

Worth remembering:

However, what's the explanation for the long delay in changes to atmospheric CO2 levels, not to mention the deviation from normal are miniscule. One explanation is there are some negative feedback loops that regulate the concentration of gases in the atmosphere and that's precisely what autoregulation is, oui? — Agent Smith

The earth system is not stable, there are no negative-feedback mechanisms that return it to the same state.

The earth-system has a lot of buffers that make change slow. Most of the time change and patterns of change are relatively constant and life easily adapts to these changes.

Thus, total biodiversity can be stable over long periods of time, but even then species themselves are not stable but going extinct and new one's evolving constantly.

This apparent stability is due to large buffers in the earths system that slow down change (but are not negative feedback loops).

A better visualisation of the earth's system is simply a large boat in calm water. It seems stable as long as there's no wind, easily confused with a boat at anchor.

A light breeze and it gently floats somewhere else, totally unpredictable which direction, how far it goes etc. Slow enough the boat can easily just lightly beach itself and later free itself, bounce off rocks and docks etc.

The wandering around of the boat represents evolution.

Where the boat is at any given time we can understand as its journey through evolutionary space (each point on the lake represents some possible configuration of the earth's living systems, and the whole lake represents all possible configurations).

It's a very heavy boat, so takes a significant input of energy to crash it.

Such energy inputs only come around once in hundreds of millions of years: production of large quantities of oxygen for the first time, giant asteroid, volcanic traps, or "perfect storm" combination of various disasters.

Crashing the boat onto rocks represents a mass-extinction, the points along the short that require significant momentum to reach representing low-biodiversity configurations of the earth-life-system.

Same analogy can be made with something that's heavy, that rolls, that seems "stable" but someone gives it a nudge and off it goes, compared to an actually stable situation where the brakes are engaged.

CO₂ levels have increased, not denying that. However, the spike in CO₂ levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO₂ emissions.

CO2 levels have increased, not denying that. However, the spike in CO2 levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO2 emissions. — Agent Smith

Didn't know that. Reference?

A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity. — Tate

The global average temperature is rising at an alarming rate because of greenhouse gas emissions. That's not difficult to understand. I have no idea why the laws of thermodynamics are being invoked, but it's irrelevant.

There are complex variables involved, most of which have been accounted for by climate scientists -- including natural variation. Stating "we're in an ice age" in this context is still odd to me, and I fail to see the relevance. If it was in response to what someone else said, fine -- but you didn't quote them and didn't reference them.

A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. — Tate

Climate change is easy to understand: change the composition of the atmosphere to trap more heat ... and more heat is trapped.

You are confusing basic understanding of a particular issue in a particular subject with modelling the whole subject.

The basic driver of climate change is incredibly easy to understand, and is basic thermodynamics (it's called the green-house effect ... because it's as simple as a greenhouse).

In the 70s there was some debate as to whether another simple effect of pollution, that dust creates shade, would in fact be stronger than the warming effect of greenhouse gases.

One does not need to model the entire climate, or understand everything about it, to understand the globe is warming, why it's warming, and why that's bad for humans and other species.

It's really not complicated at all. It would be complicated and require deep expertise to create a predictive model.

However, it is not difficult to understand the mechanism of warming, the data that supports that conclusion, and what climatologists are talking about when they explain climate change in simple terms.

Stating "we're in an ice age" in this context is still odd to me, and I fail to see the relevance. — Xtrix

It's a fact about the climate. We're talking about the climate. Problem?

With global warming

1. The greenification of Antarctica will occur.

2. The northward march of the timber line has been predicted.

Negative feedback loops, oui?

CO2 levels have increased, not denying that. — Agent Smith

Then the following...

Fact: CO2 levels didn't change despite increased emissions since the 1800s. — Agent Smith

...is meaningless.

However, the spike in CO2 levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO2 emissions. — Agent Smith

According to whom? Where are you getting this from?

The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are not going to correspond exactly to emissions. No one has ever claimed that. Why? Because the oceans absorb a great deal of CO2, and plants increase their CO2 uptake -- to name two factors.

CO2 levels have increased, not denying that. However, the spike in CO2 levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO2 emissions. — Agent Smith

The CO2 has to go somewhere, and it was difficult to predict how efficiently the oceans could absorb new CO2.

However, the oceans absorbing CO2 is not a good thing, as causes ocean acidification.

Likewise, other sinks, like rain forests, that can absorb more CO2 as plants can grow a bit faster with more of their food in the air, is not necessarily a good thing if we destroy those forests anyways, with slash and burn farming for cattle, or then climate change causing massive forest fires, which simply releases that CO2 back into the atmosphere.

For example, the entire Amazon forest may have already went from being a sink of CO2 to a source.

Edit: beat me to the obvious response, as with the previous response.