Very few actually have climate anxiety

[C C]

Yeah, I figured there was no way for the experts to avoid admitting in the end that they wanted people to experience a mitigated version of it as a norm.
- - - - - - -

https://sciencenorway.no/anxiety-climate...ty/2085202

EXCERPTS: How many people actually have climate anxiety? British researchers have now studied this. The study is based on an online survey among 1,338 British adults in 2020 and in 2022.

Almost half of the participants in the survey reported that they are very or extremely concerned about climate change. This is roughly the same as the researchers in Norway have found through research here.

Only 4.6 per cent reported that they experienced climate anxiety.

Young people most often experienced what the researchers call climate anxiety. This was also the case for those who watched and listened to a lot of news, and those who already had other anxiety problems.

[...] Having anxiety suggests that some emotions are exaggerated and irrational. But it is rational to have negative feelings about climate change, she believes.

“I am therefore surprised that only around half of the population say they are concerned about climate change,” Gregersen says.

"It is important that we recognise that it is not at all strange to have this concern," she says... (MORE - details)

[Yazata]

I have far more concerns about climate change politics and forced-social-change ideology than I have concerns about climate change per se.

According to their own figures, the mean world temperature has only increased about 1.6 degrees C since the middle 19th century. And the period from the middle 19th century until about 1990 only accounted for about 0.5 degrees C of that rise.

1. Is a 1.6 degree C increase really anything to panic over? It's so small that absent all the hype in the media, most people would never have noticed it in their lives.

2. Is this small increase really anthropogenic? Especially given that far larger climate changes have occurred here on Earth that had nothing to do with human beings. The end of the last ice age most obviously. It seems to me that there is a big unclosed gap there, in demonstrating the causal connection.

3. Is this small increase really a bad thing? There are lots of alarmist stories about sea level rise, which almost sounds like an updated version of the Biblical flood myth. These seem to depend on the assumption that the polar, Greenland and Antarctic icecaps will totally melt. But how realistic is that assumption? Even assuming for the sake of argument that coastal cities really are inundated, we would have to balance that against warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons in Canada, Alaska, Russia and Scandinavia. That's the nature of all change, there are always winners and losers.

4. Given that 2/3'rds of the observed 1.6 degree increase since the industrial revolution has happened since the 1990's, what accounts for that increased pace? Certainly not the Western world which has been deindustrializing as fast as it can during that period. It obviously seems to be associated with the rise of China. So why is all the emphasis on forcing the West back into a pre-industrial economy while hardly anything is ever said about China's seeming responsibility for most of the temperature rise?

Color me skeptical...

[confused2]

According to their own figures, the mean world temperature has only increased about 1.6 degrees C since the middle 19th century. And the period from the middle 19th century until about 1990 only accounted for about 0.5 degrees C of that rise.

It would be convenient if the temperature rise above 1850 were proportional to the percentage of greenhouse gasses in the air. Even more convenient if the percentage of greenhouse gasses was proportional to the annual production. The alarmists fear that every year the temperature rise starts from where it left off the previous year and the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere decays so slowly that the figures we are looking at aren't what we produced in the last year but the sum total of everything produced since (say) 1850 less the amount removed by natural processes. Kind'a builds up and becomes more noticeable after 1990

Estimates of how quickly greenhouse gasses are removed vary widely.
Taking a wildly optimistic estimate of 5 years to remove 10%..
To keep the CO2 levels roughly constant at the current level we'd have to reduce CO2 emissions by 98%.
Given a choice between doing high school maths and going into politics I'd .. well there you have it.

[confused2]

Oops. I failed top follow my own logic .. the (say) 2% loss is 2% of what has built up not what was put in last year .. so a more complicated process to estimate the amount of CO2 that would maintain the current level. I'll have a think about it .. unless someone comes up with a number first.

[Magical Realist]

I don't have climate anxiety. Sounds selfish but that's just how I am. I am more worried about dying itself and what may lie in store for me. What if being dead is a horrible state that we long to escape from but never can? What if our life was the one big chance to be happy and we blew it? Death. Yeah.. That's my number one worry. :O

[confused2]

Don't panic.

[C C]

[...] What if our life was  the one big chance to be happy and we blew it? Death. Yeah.. That's my number one worry. :O

Who we are in the last conscious moment (before death) has no more future-ward experiences; but all the co-existing past stages still do. So in the context of that block universe view (when minus a "many-worlds" re-conception below)... Then yeah, the choices we made in the course of life are all there is.

If Jenny spent most of her days being a nun, then she eternally misses out on a lot. Like some constellation in the sky of a Greek god perpetually stuck in the details of his/her story or mythic legend.

Quantum immortality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_su...ty#History

Eugene Shikhovtsev's biography of Hugh Everett states that "Everett firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: his consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death".

But even if quantum immortality was the case... Surely the alternative worlds would eventually run out wherein one could still be alive, with respect to maintaining this current identity and its unique life history.

IOW, that branching of consciousness has to turn to incrementally differing histories where the body, personality, and memory of the past stored on it are slightly modified. With the latter gradually increasing and accumulating until one becomes a completely different person in another, parallel cosmos. One younger or healthier or whatever -- but radically different identity-wise from who one is here. (Virtually the equivalent of reincarnation, albeit countless incrementally changing bodies mediating in between.)

Being a cyborg might even enter the picture, in a version of the Earth where technology advanced more rapidly. But ultimately this particular "who we are here" gets lost in that chain of side-ways developments. It still becomes the equivalent of extinction by many slow cuts (modifications).

[Magical Realist]

"The world is hard and cruel. We are here none knows why, and we go none knows whither. We must be very humble. We must see the beauty of quietness. We must go through life so inconspicuously that Fate does not notice us.”
W. Somerset Maugham - The Moon and Sixpence

[RainbowUnicorn]

china & india & africa need to make the leap to renewables before they industrialize thier populations any further
but will they

what is important to remember is all those over populated countrys that have most of their population living on the waters edge in raw sewage and rubbish and don't recycle and have backwards cultures.

they will invade other countrys when their country becomes un-livable

look at new york going into a panic about immigrants being bused in by Florida
& Texas & new mexico

the system breaks down once you get over populated
and then its too late