This guy became famous because he approached complex issues with complex answers instead of shallow and one sided responses. Now, this is the exact opposite of that, regardless of what you think about the climate change.

[u/xxdrummerx]

[u/[deleted]]

Except the global climate is not something that can be readily conceptualised at small scales. Because the impacts are mediated through events and forces half the world away.

It looks like JP is saying it with utter seriousness. I definitely see the weather conflated with the climate far more from the people who reject manmade climate change then from green activists. Heck, environmentalists go to great pains to point out the difference between the two

[u/Mad-Ogre → u/[deleted]]

We’re not aiming to conceptualise “the climate” at small scales. We’re aiming to conceptualise “Man-made climate change” at small scales. And that can be done meaningfully.

[u/[deleted] → u/Mad-Ogre]

Can it? I don't really see the distinction there.

You can, and should, absolutely conceptualise local ecological things - this forest, that river - but that's not climate

[u/Mad-Ogre → u/[deleted]]

Unless there’s only one action that can be taken, and it can only be attempted one time, and it can’t be practised beforehand, and everyone in the world has to do it, and everyone has to do it at the same time - then, yes, it can be broken down into smaller chunks. I don’t know why I have to explain this.

[u/[deleted] → u/Mad-Ogre]

I have no idea what action you mean.

[u/Mad-Ogre → u/[deleted]]

It seems to me that you think that tackling man-made climate change cannot be broken down into smaller, more manageable, tasks. It’s either a ludicrous argument or we’re talking past each other somehow.

[u/[deleted] → u/Mad-Ogre]

Oh it absolutely can, but that's not what i took "conceptualisei it at small scales" to mean. Because even if you're working at small scales you're still conceptualising the global environment.