Do Texans still largely live in denial of climate change?
1) Is it s/anthropomorphic/anthropogenic? (Caused by humans).
2) Is it really that bad for the Earth? (Does the heat help and/or can the ecosystem adapt).
Most of the debate has moved from "is it happening" to these other questions.
nit: anthropic. anthropomorphic would be giving it human traits, like the climate has opposable thumbs and road rage.
FWIW I did actually check before I commented, but just using my local dict install. Anthropogenic seems to be often used in the news WRT climate change, but the definitions left me with the impression anthropic seemed more correct (brevity bonus too):
> From WordNet (r) 3.1 (2011) [wn]:
>
> anthropic
> adj 1: relating to mankind or the period of mankind's existence
> [syn: {anthropic}, {anthropical}]
>
> anthropogenic
> adj 1: of or relating to the study of the origins and
> development of human beings [syn: {anthropogenetic},
> {anthropogenic}]
>You may need to look beyond definition 1 (though in many, but not all, current dictionaries, you wouldn't have to), “anthropogenic" is clearly correct and the most specific adjective for human-caused climate change, and is quite often the example shown with the relevant definition. See, e. g., https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/anthropogenic
“Anthropic” would not be a wrong adjective for climate change somehow associated temporally or causally with the existence of humanity, but would be less specific.
- What to do about the developing Global South, whose carbon emissions are only going to rise
- The lack of viable alternatives (with current technology) for many things that currently depend on the high energy density of hydrocarbons
- Strong skepticism against proclaimed emergencies that urgently require more centralized government authority and taxation (which is a playbook as old as history, after all...)
- The opportunity cost of implementing green/renewable energy sources, given that all resources are finite and have alternative uses
The existence of people who literally mean that "climate change isn't real" shouldn't take away from this important discourse.
Fundamentally, and zooming out of Texas, there is a divide between people who see the climate issue (or any other big issue) as a categorical imperative to deal with and the people who see it (or any other) as another factor in an ever-changing ocean of constraints and incentives that humanity faces. It's a fascinating divide.