[stuckagain]

The interesting thing here is the disconnect between local and national politics. Butte and Plumas counties went to court because the dam's operations did not properly account for climate change. But the two counties are represented in Congress by Doug LaMalfa, a stereotypical climate change denier. LaMalfa has vociferously complained about all climate change policies at the state and federal level and constantly publishes press releases questioning the facts of climate science. He has a lifetime 0% score from the League of Conservation Voters. He is, in short, the kind of dangerous know-nothing who is bringing about the end of civilization as we know it.

One does begin to wonder if his constituents perceive the disconnect. One major problem is that Butte and Plumas counties taken together do not constitute a majority of the district (Butte is about a quarter million people and Plumas is ten times smaller). Relatively well-educated and affluent Chico is completely buried under a huge, rural, and very poor 1st district, most of whom are not threatened by these particular waterways.

[problems]

> the kind of dangerous know-nothing who is bringing about the end of civilization as we know it

I'm totally on board with you with regards to climate change, but do you really need to simplify and insult opponents like this?

[WillyOnWheels]

"Climate change is a natural cycle that occurs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvkFXsQcV0s

"Environmentalists want a California without people" https://twitter.com/douglamalfa/status/791147060632424449

"“I believe in human-caused climate change inside this room with the air conditioner, or inside a packing plant where they’re keeping your vegetables cool, or when you pray for rain" http://www.newsreview.com/chico/lamalfa-awarded-booby-prize/...

[WalterSear]

Which part of the phrase isn't accurate?

[kbenson]

> bringing about the end of civilization as we know it

That's at best hyperbolic. It's inflammatory and unhelpful in a rational discussion.

And to be clear, it's also inaccurate. Climate change will not cause the end of civilization as we know it, unless as we know it means "exactly as it exists right now", in which case twenty or thirty years from now would be the end of civilization as we know it even with absolutely no climate change, just due to how technology and culture progresses.

[stuckagain]

If we just lean into climate change face-first, as Republicans demand, there will be widespread famine and displacement. Nobody alive today has seen famine on a large scale. Relatively food-rich countries are going to be mowing down hungry hordes at their borders with machine guns. When I say "end of civilization as we know it" I'm not kidding.

[kbutler]

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate." - Paul Ehrlich, 1968

"perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future" - Paul Ehrlich, 2009

"I do not think my language was too apocalyptic in The Population Bomb. My language would be even more apocalyptic today." - Paul Ehrlich, 2015

The message remains constant, in spite of contrary evidence, but the mechanism of apocalypse changes over time.

When you're faced with contrary evidence, do you change your mind or double down?

Yes, climate change can cause significant problems. Yes, human civilization affects climate. However, adaptation with our ever-increasing scientific and technological capability appears most likely to maximize well-being.