Actually it does, it prepares the public for the notion that more drastic measures are needed than chin-stroking over the problem another few decades. People going like "oh it will be fine", are losing credibility year by year. Specifically, anything involving burning coal and fuel is rapidly becoming unpopular and is likely to become heavily taxed. This has already happened to the point where it is happening even in places where that would have been considered the least likely to happen not so long ago.

7 billion people won't individually be able to fix this but they can be nudged the right way collectively. Articles like this may be thin on facts but they do help. Admittedly, the Guardian is preaching to choir here of course. Their readership doesn't need a lot of convincing.

Anyway, whether you are a believer or not, buying real estate on the coast requires a bit of risk assessment these days. Places like Florida are mostly within the risk zone. So Republican state or not, they are going to have some issues there and the necessary infrastructure (e.g. dykes) won't build itself.

"a believer"? Dude this is not a matter of believe it or not. Facts and figures are there and don't really care if you or anyone else "believe" them or not. Woah...

You are dealing with people who don't believe in that sort of stuff and will happily misrepresent, distort, and paraphrase whatever numbers and facts you throw at them from whatever source fits their belief system best. People aren't rational. That's 99% of the problem right there. Look no further than the Whitehouse for that in action. Even environmentalists are spending disproportionate amounts of effort on things that fundamentally don't really help a lot. Yes it would be awefully nice if 7 billion people stopped eating meat but you shipping over avocados and quinoa to fuel your vegan lifestyle is probably not helping.

It actually matters very much if someone is a believer or not. I don’t know where you live, but in the U.S., we have so many people in denial that our efforts to curb the effects of climate change over the last 20 years are now being reversed. There’s not enough support anymore. If more people don’t start accepting this information as “facts”, this planet is in a world of hurt in the next 100 years.

Going both by surveys [1] and by informal chats with friends of all ages, the Millenials were the peak AGW / Global Climate Change generation, with the subsequent generation (Gen Z) being both less convinced and less likely to demand expensive, global action. The picture is muddied a bit as Gen Z does does demand good care of environment, for general reasons (unspecific to AGW), thus sharing certain talking and policy points with AGW believers.

Talking with a Gen-Z'r, expect AGW to be sooner taken as a meme, and given ironic support only, rather than taken straight. The general feel is that Millenials went off the rails with certain topics and thus significantly lowered the credibility of the related talking points. It's not helped by the impression that the centralized media (like cable and big online platforms, basically "boomer" media) paint one picture with simplistic, sharp divisions, while the decentralized media (social media, new style online media) paints more complex, and more convincing picture.

I expect the shift away form belief in AGW to continue in subsequent generations.

--

[1] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks...

Patriarchy?! Please. In the west at least, women make the purchasing decisions in many households so unless their decisions are subconciously driven by patriarchy I think you are out on a limb with that one: 'Women drive 70-80% of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence. Influence means that even when a woman isn’t paying for something herself, she is often the influence or veto vote behind someone else’s purchase.'

https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inclusion/blog/top-10-th...