[dexen]

Cheer up, outside of SV & academia, it's not all that much contentious anymore. People moved on, we are dealing with issues that we consider timely and well sourced.

In my estimation, the 2017 was the high watermark of climate change worries. Recall how AOC's recent Green New Deal went down with little support beyond lip service, and note how the current Extenction Rebellion protests in London gets only moderate media coverage.

[Cyph0n]

> well sourced

What kind of sourcing are we talking about here? Articles published in renowned journals and based on sound research or...?

[dexen]

>Articles published in renowned journals and based on sound research or...

You are asking objective trustworthiness here. People's perceptions are more complex. On one hand we can't reliably know the objective trustworthiness (or objective truth for that matter) in a timely manner. OTOH we are evolved to use heuristics to deal with insufficient information and information overload.

Cliche as it may be, "the optics" aren't currently on the side of over-arching, globe-spanning climate action.

Contrast that with examples: ozone layer hole, smog in cities, polluted rivers, whale hunting, and many other similar issues - specific items that got popularized and solved more or less permanently in our lifetimes. There are several other specific issues considered pressing (like drug resistant pathogens, garbage in the oceans, overfishing, honey bee population collapse) that people support major efforts towards solving. There are other issues that recently came to attention as potentially pressing and requiring rapid research and again major efforts towards solving (like microplastics, insect population collapse).

We will solve the specific issues.