[jbattle]

Did you read the article? That's not what it's about at all. The author is saying that we aren't going to "stop" climate change. So instead we should be strategizing how to proactively invest in systems (both natural and man-made) to make them more resilient in the face of changes to come.

[i_am_proteus]

Which all conveniently line up with one major political platform. "If you frightened by the coming climate cataclysm, then you should also agree with me on everything."

It's very well-written, but it's not rational. The content is more political than scientific.

[tw04]

It doesn't matter in the least if you agree with a candidate on everything. This one specific subject should be a deal breaker though, regardless of just about any other stance. Your opinion on free market is irrelevant in the face of Extinction.

[i_am_proteus]

To be clear: I'm referencing to the part of the article where the author irrationally asserts that [list of one party's policies unrelated to the climate] are related to the climate.

Hence "more political than scientific."

[leereeves]

Alarmism only discredits the effort to respond to climate change.

[AstralStorm]

Why? If people are not alarmed, they won't take the necessary extreme measures and extreme and global measures is what we all need.

People become desensitized to it, unfortunately.

Mostly policy is necessary though, and politicians love half-hearted efforts.

[leereeves]

People just don't believe it, largely thanks to past alarmist warnings (like An Inconvenient Truth) that have already proven false.

[jfalconer]

What can you really call alarmism at this point, though? We passed 400 PPM in 2016. Even the best-case scenario is incredibly alarming.

[jbattle]

Deciding on what choices to make in response to the climate changing is inherently political. Science can inform the process but can't tell us which selection of responses is "most valid".

[adrianN]

It would be really nice though if politicians would trust scientists to tell them which "solutions" don't actually solve the problem at all.

[hackeraccount]

Certainly true but decidedly not unusual. To the degree I'm a climate change skeptic it's largely because everyone seems to be using it as a stick to beat some political horse.

[abathur]

Is climate change more of a scientific problem, or a political one? Will the problem de-materialize as soon as some scientists finally figure it all out?

[ghobs91]

Most versions of the Green New Deal that I've seen heavily incorporate resilience into the plan, it's not solely focused on trying to reverse climate change.

[adrianN]

The best systems to proactively invest in are renewable energies and technologies that reduce our energy demand, like building insulation, heat pumps, and electric cars.

[Glench]

Yep, this is advisable by at least one actual scientist, too: https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-gnd-b8d...

Also eating less or no meat helps on an individual level.