Young People Are Anxious About Climate Change, Say Governments Are Failing Them

People are not even "selfish". Wanting a nice, stable, predictable environment just like you have had it all your life could be categorized as selfish. And that's fine.

Taking a massive gamble on injecting huge amounts of energy into a system which looks like it will be destabilized is just..... foolish? stupid? I dunno.

According to the Canadaland podcast there is a recent survey taken during the federal election campaign which suggests that 1 in 4 voters still do not accept anthropogenic climate change as real.

I am baffled.

Most of us would benefit from some sort of Green New Deal with a re-organization of the economy. I can completely understand the top 5 or 10 percent balking at any shake up of the system on purely economic advantage grounds, but what about all the other 85%? And even with a shake-up I find it hard to believe that any productive/active members of the 5 to 10 percent would not thrive relatively in any new situation and indeed be better off than in a severely disrupted environment.

Something other than rationality is going on here.

> The IPCC reports are quite conservative. The reason the 2021 reports were so dire is because they began including some of the feedback loop modeling the scientists preparing the report have become more confident in. More is in the pipeline.

And what's even more frustrating is that we've known about these feedbacks for 15-20? years.

I've been reading about climate change and feedbacks for the past decade and I'm just part of the general public.

Sometimes I wonder if people indeed believe climate change isn't real. I have difficulty imagining that there are so many that believe it's a myth.

Maybe what is more common is that people do believe climate change is real, but they also think it doesn't really matter in long run - because of maybe something like a black swan event or something - dont know. So they see all this as just fear mongering.

>> The people are selfish, more concerned with their property values and if their neighbour mows their bylaw required lawn, than if the next generation will be able to have a similar quality of life. Why wouldn't you be cynical if you were young?

The IPCC reports say that if we do little to ameliorate the effects of global warming, in 2100 future generations will have a GDP per capita several times higher than today's, but lower than it would be if actions are taken. That's not an apocalypse. I would worry about other things if I were you.

You are asking old people now to lower their standard of living so that future generations will have a standard of living that goes from "much higher than yours" to "much higher than yours plus x%", while calling them selfish.

Climate change solutions require people and countries, across the world, to work together towards a common goal, this challenges fundamental assumptions of many political ideologies.

I can't regularly find fruit that was plentiful a few years ago at my grocery store. Produce this year was poor quality and wasn't available at the same times.

Most people don't dispute the climate scientists, most people dispute the solution. One side wants oil/coal/business as usual, the other wants exclusively wind/solar.

I think there's enormous reason for concern, but... I also think there's a not-so-fine line between saying (A) that we will go through some major hardship and decreased quality of life as we attempt to mitigate and adapt, versus (B) civilization is finished, there's nothing left but despair and destruction, kids have no viable future on this planet, etc. The latter strikes me as a mass projection of millenarian eschatological thinking onto what is admittedly a troubling set of data. I suppose that policy makers find it useful, therefore, to stoke a certain amount of sky-is-falling panic, particularly among teenagers who are more inclined to be attracted to and scared of doomsday scenarios. But by the same mechanism (ie supplanting rational discourse with doomsday panic), a counter-movement scores easy points saying "look, nothing's happening." The same basic flaw on public messaging pertains to vaccines and masks. What seems to have happened is that those in charge of public messaging have concluded that the majority don't know enough or care enough about science, and so they need to tap into raw fear and emotional appeals just like the science deniers do. What this does, unfortunately, is cheapen the conversation to the point where we're measuring the stress levels of teenagers as if that were a useful metric of how severe climate change actually is or will be. Their stress levels, just like the stress levels of anti-vaxers, aren't based on rational thought; they're generated by fear-peddling from one messaging system or the other. As both these systems try to out-alarm each other, they tend to drift further toward worst-case scenarios and their exponents move closer to shouting for revolution (e.g. Jan 6th), if only to serve as post-justification for the hysteria they engender to serve their goals. Climate scientists shouldn't stoop to the level of deniers. It's too short a game to keep people in panic at all times. If we've learned anything from the failure of messaging during covid, it's that trying to sustain an endless freak-out doesn't work, and it's ultimately counterproductive, because daily life causes drift away from any singular narrative, and groups of people then grow stronger counter-narratives even more dangerous than those they had before.

I feel sorry for kids whose lives are made to feel meaningless and short-changed by this information warfare on both sides. Yes climate change is real and dangerous and yes the world needs to be proactive, and yes quality of life will decline, more in some places than others, and mostly falling on the global poor. Yes children should be educated about it and yes adults need to get ahead of it, including changing systems and practices that there is deep resistance to changing. But panicking the hell out of 14 year olds - or in this case, 50-somethings, that civilization is imminently coming to an end is going to have the terrible consequence of hastening or creating an end through instilling abject despair, rather than cultivating the means and the will to make the necessary changes.

> Or the powers that already be in this world desperately trying to hold onto their positions? I don't know about you, but I think the latter is far more likely.

The word "desperately" is doing a lot of work there. The ruling class doesn't seem very desperate at all to me, actually.

Matter of fact they like the climate change problem as far as I can see. It is yet another wedge they use to divide people and make them fight one another, meanwhile they continue to do what they please.

Climate science denialism and conspiracy theorists are not the problem, even in USA which is called a "hotbed" of this thinking, climate deniers are under 20% of the population. It's not the brave and valiant Joe Biden and friends battling against the evil corporations and deniers to tackle the biggest threat facing humanity. It's the rulers pointing out the unemployed coal miner from West Virginia and telling you that he's the reason for all your problems, while at the same time they're pointing you out to him and saying the same thing.

You really think they actually believe < 20% of some of the least educated and most disadvantaged people in the country are responsible for preventing them from addressing the most important issue they have ever faced? Please, they happily go to war and destroy other countries with far higher disapproval ratings than that.

It's almost like the ultra-rich """elite""" will risk everyone's existence rather than surrender any of their hoard.

All one has to do is look at the distribution of wealth to see where the money exists to fix this, technologically, policy, or a combination.

This at least is one of the true environmental effects the rich can't easily run from. Go ahead, get your little fortress in New Zealand. Tell yourselves you can hop your private jet.

Global warming will displace a billion people at least. That will make the syrian refugee crisis look like your brother in law crashing in the basement in comparison.

Remember that environmental and resource wars aren't easily recognized as such. Scarcity and strife always break down along ethnic or religious lines and will appear as ethnic wars, like the Sudan which is actually about freshwater.

It is ridiculous that science is held up as some grand conspiracy, a brilliant coordination of millions of dollars of funding to bring down the brave, oppressed, helpless hundred billionaires and their trillionaire corporations.

> You don't have to look very far to see our supply chain impacted by nature.

Why would that be a problem? Everything is impacted by nature, always has been.

> Pandemics such as COVID were and are predicted to become more frequent.

Key word is "predicted". Most of the alarmist predictions tend to be exaggerating either the effect itself, or its impact on us.

> My local supermarket doesn't just have higher prices, the selection has gone down in many categories

I think this is your local supermarket's problem. The supermarket I go to has better selection than ever, and prices are not any higher.

I'm not convinced that climate change has a high probability of ending technological civilisation[0]. Even large-scale climate wars might not end it.

The scenarios that fall short of ending civilisation, e.g. losing hundreds of millions of lives to famine or war, are obviously still very bad. This is not to downplay climate change in the slightest. It's just... at some point, people start dying, and that frees up ecological carrying capacity again. You need to make pessimistic assumptions about a lot of positive feedback loops in ecological and social collapse to predict that all human civilisation is going to be wiped out in the sense of regressing back to before the industrial revolution.

[0] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/13/18660548/climat...

Climate change is bad but technological collapse doomerism is completely unsupported by science.

People like the romance of dramatic and exciting extremes, of paradise and apocalypse. The mundane probability of having to adapt to somewhat worse conditions isn't that entertaining.

54 and likewise. I've been aware of IPCC reports for a couple decades now, just kind of monitoring what they've been saying and noticing that more often than not, the media reports only the best-case scenarios while at the same time the worst-case scenarios are actually what's come to pass and much more quickly than expected. The denialism in this thread baffles the hell out of me.

The near-term collapse of technological civilization has the silver lining that wild things will have a chance to recolonize the planet. The alternative—a world of ever increasing control and declining standard of living for almost everybody on behalf of a tiny few—is far more terrifying to me.

When I was in elementary school (early 90's) we were taught that half of New York would be underwater by 2020. Obviously didn't happen. Stop reading the news, they're fear-mongers and outlandish predictions have been happening for decades.

aren't you excited about having live through both the great rise of civilization and then also the biggest decline?

you may have gotten to see the absolute peak of society.

> God grant me the serenity

> to accept the things I cannot change;

> courage to change the things I can;

> and wisdom to know the difference.

Civilisation as we know it, and perhaps even humanity is in the process of ending. The ending is inevitable, whether it is now or nearer to the heat death of the universe.

If you can personally try and affect change, then you should do it. But more likely, you are a slave to the same system that everyone else is. I'd recommend working on acceptance at this point.

I think it's irresponsible to act as though the climate crisis is just a matter of weather, and not how also we will respond to it. Resource shortages caused by the climate crisis could cause resource wars, and if weapons of mass destruction are deployed during those wars, that could easily finish off homo sapiens.

The mere collapse of civilization and mass death should be bad enough that we take drastic action to prevent it, but I do also think it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility of human extinction.

I think what people mean by 'humanity is doomed' isn't about whether the homo sapiens species will continue - it will.

The fear is more that society collapses. Our way of life may be doomed. With our extreme focus on career specialisation over the past century, very few, if any of us have the generalist skills to thrive in a world equivalent to pre-industrial times. It's not something to shrug at. What country can actually live as a self contained unit without global supply lines and dependencies? What families or individuals could?

It's also true that there will be substantial areas of habitable climate. The problem is that people who weren't lucky enough to be born and live in one, won't simply accept their fates and die. Eight billion people will surge into a relatively small habitable band - in the process this will destroy the arable land and severely strain systems like water, power, waste and healthcare.

You're talking of billions of deaths from famine and conflict from displacement. Should young people not be alarmed about the idea of a few hundred of millions of humans relegated to the poles of the Earth because the species was too stupid to stop destroying their own planet?

If we can't prevent - or based on comments here, completely reject the reality of - the massive and preventable degradation of the only habitat in known universe where we can survive then we are in fact quite doomed.

Even amongst people who are presumably, on the whole, intelligent, and by definition (due to the nature of the work that attracts people to HN) good at understanding complex systems, the amount of down-playing and hardheadedness and frankly closed-minded thinking -- all in the service of a kind of soft denial -- displayed throughout the comments here is astounding. And it seems to stem from either unwillingness or inability to truly see the magnitude of the problem, the system affected as a whole.

Climate change is not happening in a vacuum. You are completely underestimating the monumental effects of what you're conceding will happen (disproportionate harming of lower income equatorial countries), and overstating the consolation of there still being substantial areas of habitable climate.

We are poised to see the largest refugee crisis in history. The global supply chain will lose its most foundational workers, the destruction of its most foundational resources. Wealthier nations will not welcome those refugees with open arms, and we can all but expect their arrival to even further foment the rise of right-wing extremism, which will continue to contribute to instability in their own native countries.

Furthermore, those shrinking but still existent areas of habitable climate will encourage violence simply by way of everyone on the planet becoming more and more aware of how rare they are. And even that ignores the fact that "habitable" does not mean "untouched." Those places will have their own purely-climate-related problems, politics and violence aside.

And that is but one of dozens or even hundreds of equally massive, intertwined, complex issues resulting from climate change.

The very literal existence of humanity may not be doomed (though it very well may be), but any semblance of global order and a functioning society very much is.

Climate change is the underlying problem, but most of the "doomed" feeling I've heard from others comes from the inevitable strife that will follow widespread climate displacement, famine, drought, and other increasingly severe weather. Not to mention feuding governments.

My feeling is that we could survive climate change easily, but it's the other people that will do us in.

We've lost ~4.5 million people globally to covid and things have been a little weird (this is certainly an understatement for some). What happens when that's 50 million? 100?

> I'd have been genuinely scared to death about the ozone layer being depleted or acid rain making the planet unlivable by now, yet here we are.

It's retroactively very extreme sounding, but that's because governments collectively acted to enact environmental regulations. The ozone really was on its way to just vanishing and still isn't fully recovered.

The difference is that governments are full of people who don't realize that active efforts prevented disaster scenarios, and they're paid to say the bad things that are happening aren't happening. What was a slow moving disaster is now accelerating and people are still pretending humans can magically fix everything they knowingly fucked up.

I don't use social media, HN notwithstanding, and it is plainly obvious to me from just looking out the window that climate change is substantial and accelerating. It is the most urgent and dangerous issue facing the planet.

I agree social media is awful, but it does not follow that climate change isn't cause to panic.

If anything, half of Americans are nowhere near panicked enough about climate change as the result of social media.

The difference is that people took action on the ozone layer and acid rain. Now they aren't problems.

I can't understand the viewpoint that climate change coverage is some sort of clickbait to drive ad revenue. I can't think of anything worse to read about. It's so depressing and makes me avoid the news and see less ads if anything.

> already been a solved problem for decades

How solved is it if the solutions aren't getting deployed?

I’m convinced now the reason we don’t live in a galaxy full is interstellar species is that ad-driven engagement has ended every society before it gets to that level of technology.

> Now let's look at the source for their graphic and look back further at earlier dates from the same source. [3] - kind of paints a different picture, no?

Yes, but not in the way you're portraying it. The big shift downwards comes in a major shift in strategy in dealing with forest fires in the early to mid 1900s; it doesn't tell you much about the climate at the time. https://foresthistory.org/research-explore/us-forest-service...

> In 1935, the Forest Service established the so-called 10 a.m. policy, which decreed that every fire should be suppressed by 10 a.m. the day following its initial report. Other federal land management agencies quickly followed suit and joined the campaign to eliminate fire from the landscape.

I too find that wildland fires on the West coast being conflated with climate change as bad messaging. You can read about the California valley being filled with smoke consistently during the late summer in "Up and Down California", a series of journals written between 1860-1865[1].

That said, I backpacked in the Sierras this summer and alarmingly saw many old Pine stands recently dead from what I assume is the drought. I also find the perilous state of the arctic ocean ice, the seeming breakdown of typical jetstream patterns(probably linked to the arctic ice) and the sky-high CO2(resulting in ocean acidification as well as warming) all particularly concerning.

[1] http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/up_and_down_california

If you want to read about particularly the smoke, the books are broken up by year and chapters chronologically, his writings during September particularly tend to describe the smoke.

Fires specifically is an annoying one. Politicians have huge incentive to point the blame at anything except poor management.

See:

> Approximately 1.8 million ha burned annually in California prehistorically (pre 1800). Our estimate of prehistoric annual area burned in California is 88% of the total annual wildfire area in the entire US during a decade (1994–2004) characterized as ‘‘extreme’’ regarding wildfires. The idea that US wildfire area of approximately two million ha annually is extreme is certainly a 20th or 21st century perspective. Skies were likely smoky much of the summer and fall in California during the prehistoric period.

from: Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California’s forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands (2007)

https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi...

And:

> Many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem [...] however, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends.

from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.201...

The book 'Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters' by Steven Koonin is worth a read if you get interested in learning more from a knowledgeable source that tries to cut through the hype. Of course, given the publicity of the issue it is often sensationalized, misconstrued, etc.

I suppose those sensational stories/papers get more attention so that’s the short answer? I’m with you though. My personal life has not been affected at all (yet) so I am fortunate. But it’s not worth the stress, I mean the top comment is someone saying they are losing a lot of sleep over climate change. Like buddy get a grip.

The difference between these is that stopping smoking and losing weight make your life overall better. Reducing carbon emissions will make life worse for everyone who's already on the lower rungs of humanity. No realistic amount of resource redistribution is going to work here.

It's also not enough. We will have to start sucking up that carbon from the atmosphere whether we cut emissions or not.

you can't easily force 7B people to act individually. you have to regulate at the source (the mfgs). we are far beyond individual action as a viable solution.

It’s already happening, a lot of countries are cutting down carbon emissions.

Interesting analogy but I don't think it holds up. Both of these are stereotypical examples of failure of willpower. Climate change does not require personal willpower when we have laws available to create carrots and sticks.

As much as I dislike smoking or obesity, those aren't the main causes of climate change. If we eliminated both of those entirely, today, we'd still have a crisis.

That being said, I'll absolutely agree with the sentiment that "humans will always be human". We're not going to collectively try to fix this until it's too late. That's the saddest part.

Coal hasn't been economical for at least two years, in the sense that the capital cost of new PV is less than the operating cost of existing coal.

The problem is that developing countries like China and India are so desperately short of electricity (growth in demand is so high) that any new builds just add to existing production rather than replacing it. - Governments will prop up uneconomic generators to maintain total supply.

I don't know how to scale up PV and wind quickly enough to just replace coal in this situation.

Edit: the Chinese experiments with thorium molten salt and pebble-bed high temperature fission reactors are interesting here.

If they can easily swap out coal furnaces with nuclear reactors and retain the other 80% of the power stations, they'll get great benefits in air quality and and emissions while making use of of their investment in thermal generation.

Turns out it’s easy to make cheap solar cells if you have access to unlimited free labor from Chinese prison camps.

You're reading the reporting wrong.

It is meant as: afraid and/or sad and/or anxious and/or angry and/or powerless and/or helpless and/or guilty

ie the last "and/or" is defining what the commas mean. Just like "a, b, c, and d" or "a, b, c, or d" don't mean "a, b, (c and d)" or "a, b, (c or d)"

And that was also a smaller summary list of options than the actual study had.

Tax carbon. Use cross border tariffs to prevent offshoring emissions. People will then make the economically rational decision to use public transportation, buy EVs, put solar on the roof, insulate their homes, buy heat pumps, and eat less meat.

Government might not be the solution here. I look at electric cars and soon they will require less maintenance, less money for fuel and be cheaper than their ICE counterparts. If you build something that emits less CO2 and it is BETTER and CHEAPER than the competition it's game over. No one but hobbyists will look at ICE again.

This to me aligns with economic theory in practice more accurately than a carbon tax.

> I'm sure people are frustrated, but I wonder what the consensus, if you could fine one, would be.

Probably despair that they've been failed by my generation, my parent's generation and (since they're to a large extent the ones still in power, at least in the US), my grandparent's generation. Since, as you point out, change takes time in democracies, and even longer internationally, it was our collective jobs to avoid even being in this situation, and we sort of screwed the pooch.

another issue is that changing something, greenhouse gas let's say, is harder on the margin. The first improvements are cheap, the later ones aren't. Looking at an EPA webpage, I see that current per capita US CO2 emissions are about 65% of the 1970 levels.

I can certainly see some of the problems. The real increases are in India/China. Union of Concerned Scientists shows that US share of worldwide CO2 is 15%, even a solid change is only a fraction of 15%. A lot of solutions (nuclear, fracking of natgas to replace coal, cutting immigration from the Third World to the First, etc.) are politically unpopular with climate activists. World population is supposed to peak at 50% higher than current level. GDP improvements (and energy use) could easily outstrip improvements in efficiency. etc. etc.

oh well, no one is asking me to run their lives so I'll just sit back and watch.

Carbon taxation. The idea being that otherwise it’s an unpriced externality.

Build more CANDUs

What hell do you see? The world is unequivocally getting better in terms of health, food supplies, education, economics, etc.

I’d recommend reading Factfulness if you want data based evidence for what I’m saying.

I wasn't overly impressed by Apocalypse Never. It has some interesting tidbits, sure. But ultimately a lot of the argument was about reframing harm as deaths instead of dollars: we have better technology so we can avoid deaths from natural disasters. That's good but if we are causing natural disasters to be worse and the sea level to rise that's still something we should seek to avoid.

I found Unsettled, [1] by former Caltech provost Steven Koonin to be much more compelling. The approach is rigorous and scientific. The author is not partisan. He did work for BP but also served in the Obama administration. He brings to the climate debate a rational skepticism that is typically discouraged in polite/liberal company. IMO it was at least 2x as compelling as Apocalypse Never.

1: https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matt...

Really, don't bother https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-sh...

What’s the summary?

Maybe it'd be better to read the opinions of relevant faculty instead. I know at least one climate science faculty who has publicly referred to Shellenberger as a "professional asshole" after being treated so poorly by Shellenberger.

Shellenberger is just next in the long list of industry shills who peddle the same misinformation and then complain when researchers get mad at him, claiming endless victimhood.

While "no" social mobility is a bit extreme, social mobility has drastically reduced in america. Here is a pretty famous paper showing so:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w19843

Personal responsibility can only take you so far if getting hold or keeping hold of such opportunities are hard in the first place

> I feel bad for anyone under 20.

I feel bad for people under 20 due to people pushing this sentiment that they're doomed and they have no future to look forward to. That is currently doing more harm than climate change is. And it does nothing to solve the problem of climate change.

Some news is impossible to avoid.

I’ll point out that it was frequently the boomer generation that thought of themselves as the ones who would make it right. That they understood what was wrong unlike their idiot and narrow minded elders. This idyllic view of themselves and their values has saturated pop music from the 60s and since. Not sure the current youth will escape the derision of their own youth when their eventual turn as elder arrives.

NPR isn’t the source of our anxiety, it’s people that don’t listen or take this seriously that do, like you actually. If you’re not actively trying to fix this, then you are part of the problem.

What propagates anxiety in young people is that they can't vote untill they are 18, their voting block is tiny and no-one represents their concerns in the system.

Meanwhile folks in charge are dense as lead and vote for one party their whole life, but deride 'millennials'.

The plugging your ears approach really is preferable, all things considered.

Or young people can just think for themselves regardless of media outlets?

What's your point?

The change in climate is what drives the propagation from outlets like NPR.

Eh, they're failing on more issues than just climate change. I think many people realize the rampant hypocrisy and political games that both sides play. It seems the ruling class grant themselves more and more power and privilege while imposing ever increasing restrictions on the population at large.

Defining "the one single right climate" is hard.

Defining "this change is bad" is substantially easier.

Wet bulb temperatures of 35 degrees C in areas with billions of people and poor power infrastructure to run AC is bad, for example.

The fact that climate change is a problem doesn't imply that there's a "right" climate. The rapid rate of change itself is the problem - and particularly the fact that that rate of change is faster than organisms and systems can adequately adapt to.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have previously, naturally, been higher than they are today. The most recent time that they were that high, the land on which most of our population's biggest cities were built was underwater. We could have just as easily built cities in an environment in which CO2 levels and temperatures were higher than they were in 1800, just by building farther back from today's coasts - but we didn't, so some cities will face massive costs to adapt, and others will simply go away.

All of that is literally true for cities, but it's also true by analogy for organisms and natural ecosystems. We can't quantify the full magnitude of climate change's impacts on those ecosystems, but there's wisdom in risk aversion when dealing with highly uncertain situations.

The one that does not result in ecological disaster.

Probably somewhere in the middle range of this graph:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

A population of 1b would be devastating setback. There’s a reason why some of us view environmentalists as misanthropes.

Why is it okay to have less people? We have serious long term problems to solve aside form climate change, like how to become an interplanetary species and how to cure cancer. More people means (can mean) more brainpower working on things that benefit us all.

The idea that personal choices about straws or motorsports are an important or effective response to climate change is a fallacy encouraged by organizations who benefit from climate change. If it’s all about consumer choice, then real reform will never happen.

Everyone is driven by propaganda and social trends, it's naive to believe otherwise. If you can't see the crisis then either you're not looking or you don't understand the threat posed by anthropogenic climate change. The fact that China, India and the rest of the developing world are unlikely to fully adress their contributions to the problem only make the crisis more acute increasing the likelihood for authoritarian regimes to take power and act in whatever way they feel is in their best interest, regardless the consequences.

What makes young people more exposed to echo chambers (and why more immense?) than older adults? Younger people seem to me to be more likely to be exposed to more new people, more new ideas, and more diversity of opinions than adults.

Indeed why are young people nervous? it's only skyrocketing property prices, gig economy, obliteration of property rights by software, financialization of the economy and ecological collapse. Nothing to be worried about

What makes you think any of those beliefs are detached from reality?

Those perspectives can be said to be extreme, but I’m not seeing you make a case that they are “detached from reality.”

What are you talking about? Those two things have nothing to do with each other (and this is actually the second time I’ve noticed you dogwhistling).