" And it is loaded,"
Yes. I am unclear on the meaning of "ideological degree", so I can't say if an concept's ideological degree is proportional to something else.

"Are we the cause (or a significant causal factor)? That is still not decided."
Right, but the evidence is overwhelming. Findings that human activities are not a significant cause of global warming would be shocking. Weirder things have happened in science, but I can't bank on a surprise discovery finding exactly what we wish were true.

"the resistance here and among other conservatives - is what to do about it "
My resistance to taking any radical action to it is I have not seen an estimate of costs of reducing it vs the costs to deal with the effects in the future. If we can come up with even a rough estimate of the net cost of actions to other people's property, there should be some way to account for those costs. Otherwise you have activities that seem profitable but are really just stealing from people somewhere else at some other time.

Unlike the bogus question of whether human activities cause global warming, I think we truly have not quantified these costs.

The main thing I hear from climate change deniers is the straw man argument that some people want to exploit the problem politically. Naomi Klein describes in her book how she used to see signs of climate change, e.g. weather events that are probably a part of climate change, and feel horror. But then she realized that one solution to the problem involves taking money from people who are producing value and CO2 and giving it to people who are not. Well great, she wanted to do that anyway. So then she learned to stop worrying and love climate change. People like that exploiting the issue to sell socialism are doing as much damage as deniers.

"Other people, of course, want the government to make sure that we all do the same thing at the same time."
Let's reject the idea of the gov't making sure people all do the same thing out of hand without comment.

"Within that adaptation is the individualist response that I will take of me and thou carest for thee."
Shouldn't the individualist be responsible if his activities on his own property are travelling and trashing someone else's property?

" you can have a lot of impact on your community"
I completely agree with this. Some climate change denier somewhere has a bogus argument allowing him to profit from damaging others' property. Someone somewhere is milking gov't programs to get a free-ride paid for by my quarterly estimated deposits. I should vote for people who try to stop that, but I can influence my life way more by taking care of myself--- reducing my own emissions, not lying to milk gov't programs, and if I so desire helping others do the same.

Yes. The former head of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, stated explicitly that their goal is to replace free market capitalism with "some other system" -- whatever that may be. No other system provides the efficiencies we have now. Anything different would have to be implemented by government force.

Climate change is a powerful political tool. What other merits it may have are secondary to this fact.

Yes. If climate change is at all real, and if, as the foremost alarmists say, "the thing speaks for itself" and global temperatures are under exclusive human control, then Marxian control is the only possible remedy. I have never met an AGW alarmist who wasn't a Marxist--at least, not when you questioned him closely as to his possible remedies of the situation. And I would never expect to meet a "capitalist AGW alarmist." The concept I just put in quotes, is oxymoronic.

Everyone's comments are valid and I agree. I would, however, absolutely disagree with there being any relationship between the two. As y'all have said, climate change has to do with the earth warming and is caused by the sun, the earth itself, etc., etc. Now people tend to immediately mix climate change with "we did it." Since even Marxism can't control the sun the earth, the planets, etc., there is no actual statistical or mathematical relationship. People will always use natural phenomenon to justify the practice of witchcraft. That is why religion started in the first place and why it still persists, i.e., the worship of "mystical sky beings."

There are mysteries on earth perpetrated by the universe that often change over time. Some people attribute theses mysteries to a ghost. As science reveals more, these people hang on to their ghost belief, altering meanings in order to keep the religion meaningful, or in some cases, merely leaving things contrary and reverting to "faith." So it is with man-made climate change, or global warming or global cooling. Anything negative for humans must be because of humans and we've got to stop it. Thank you Dr. Frankenstein's assistant, Algore.

As related to non-conscious parasitical humanoids?...yes.
However, the long and dumb of it is...the climate changes in cycles; proving that stupidity or complicity is at work within those that would blame you, the gods or some vital natural element necessary for life to exist.

The earth has been warming for 22,000 years to get us out of the last glaciation. How clever of the left to develop the Marxist concept of alienation to alienate man and nature. Their goal is to make people guilty for being productive and to transfer power to the government to own the means of production to operate it for the benefit of ocean acidity while telling the people it is for unknown future generations. Don't be fooled it is the concept of alienation which drives the tactics of the left which still relies on Marxist intellectuals in universities to give direction. Their ultimate motive is a profound hatred of the freedom of the human mind in general and producers minds in particular. Climate control is human mind control. It can only be fought by reason and science. Rand was right. Make you afraid of climate changing and since it is going to change whether or not man is here you will happily transfer the control of your life to save it from climate change to the state: that's the Marxist goal.

Climate change is happening. I believe one of the problem has been people like Al Gore has attempted to use it as an income stream. He created an alarm with his 'Inconvenient Truth' movies, then set up a carbon credits firm to act like the Federal Reserve of global warming. He (and the ilk like him) is a major reason I find it difficult to believe anthropogenic global change is a real phenomena, because I now see every paper through that lens. Another problem is you have is a media espousing a knowledge to science, but don't have the expertise to even adequately understand the nuance of the climate sciences. So you get garbage articles that are based on emotion, not on any real grounding in the science.

In the Zen Master tradition, our in-house logician MM uses contrarianism to enlighten.
But surely this time, majorly tongue-in-cheek?

Warning- long maybe boring response follows, if I had more time I would have written less, anyway, as follows.

The context of the subject line is clearly that of anthropomorphic climate change.
But for the strict constructionist- natural events are a great rallying cry whereby the political class gain more power by claiming to act for the common good. The actions are backed by governments and forced.

The theory- depends on putting aside the laws of science and especially of thermodynamics, phony equations assuming flat surfaces ignore the directions of radiation dispersion after interactions with molecules. Faulty solutions to differential equations quantify this supposed energy flow.

The evidence- there is global manipulation of temperature data, actual data has been 'lost', what is called data is largely fake, the word used is homogenization.
Changes in ocean levels are best described by tectonic movements. There are claims of 100 meters per hundred years, some statistical methods could give a figure of 1 meter per hundred years. Many claims of sea level rise are really land subsidence.
Ocean acidification claims are fantasy, oceans are and will remain alkaline.
CO2 is released by oceans, see Henry's Law. No need for concern, in fact CO2 is beneficial for vegetation and therefore animal life.
Governments and universities with substantial government grant income actively suppress criticism, censor dissenters and remove them from employment.

The notorious hockey stick contradicted all current knowledge of global temperatures over the past millennium, no surprise when you find out how it was derived.
Predictions/forecasts based on the scam never eventuate -
profits before subsidies from renewable energy generators, numbers of polar bears, the energy output from wind generators, extent of Arctic and Antarctic ice, amount of snow. Even the 'backcasts' are ridiculous, 'there have been more' hurricanes, more floods, more droughts, no, there have been fewer.
Then there is the preposterous precautionary principle- if there is any claim that something bad can happen then unlimited resources must be spent to stop it.

still not decided This scare has no basis in logic or science and belongs in political activism and psychology. Reducing the power of government would cut the scare. Let us choose what campaigns and delusions we spend our money on.

MM's last two paras are correct- " It is not "Marxist" to participate intelligently in the affairs of your community ",
but it is when stupid participation is compulsory, every aspect was used by Stalin's regime and the recipe is strict Alinsky and Gramsci.

The supporters are in on the scam, or are liars, or dupes, or soft in the head and are furthering state control by destroying individual freedoms and economic wealth.

Yes!

Like Marxism, it's just stupid.
George Carlin said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aF...

RE: 2, Do-Goodism:

A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. ERIC HOFFER

(Minus 1). It is not a question, it is a statement. And it is loaded, independent of the facts about so-called "climate change." You say "Marxist" and you create a bandwagon for people to jump on.

First, no one denies that the climate changes. We can track it. We do not know all of the driving mechanisms. But climates come and go. Just give it time.

Second, the debate that matters is over anthropogenic climate change. Are we the cause (or a significant causal factor)? That is still not decided.

Third - and the resistance here and among other conservatives - is what to do about it, even if anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real. Basically, we do not need to "do" anything: we could just accept it and adapt to the new environment(s).

Within that adaptation is the individualist response that I will take of me and thou carest for thee. I might move to the mountains. You might buy a boat. I might grow oranges in Michigan. You might set up a solar energy farm in Ohio. Other people, of course, want the government to make sure that we all do the same thing at the same time. That has never worked out well, and I recommend against it.

Locally, you can have a lot of impact on your community. People flock to the polls every four years, but it is the "dog catcher" jobs that really affect your daily life. It is an absolute fact that trees are important to mitigating the effects of urban heat. You do not need to save all of your neighbors, but you can make sure that your home enjoys the benefits of free trees for Arbor Day, If you want. (Or your kids' school, or your church, or whatever is important to you.) It is not "Marxist" to participate intelligently in the affairs of your community.

AR identified the archetypes of the brute and the witch doctor. The brute survives his mental stultification through violence, justified by his fanatical ideological identification with the witch doctor. The witch doctor survives his cowardice though ideological stolen concepts, justified by his fanatical vengeful romanticism around the brute. "Do-goodism" as you describe it is simply the coalescing of the witch doctors of the world. Today, they are called leaders. "Personal financial self interest" as you describe it is just the summation of all the crony capitalist brutes of the world. Today, they are called visionaries.

Is. +1 anyhoo.

Yes.
There are two other themes apart from Marxism.

1. Personal financial self interest.
What I call 'organizational dynamics' is when people in some group take on the interests
of that group regardless of evidence or any independent thinking. In particular those who
may claim expertize will always claim that a particular issue in which they have knowledge
and employment requires more study and more money (what is called 'funding').
Scientists in government agencies are particularly prone to this. Names- well known.
Then there is the parasitic moocher class whose skill is in extracting government money.
Names- not so well known, the real recipients of government money in so-called
green/clean/renewable this or that.

2. Do-goodism.
There are those who claim to be motivated by altruism.
There are altruists who spend, usually waste, their own money. Nearly all of these people
act on emotion and once their opinion is set it is impervious to logic and fact.
Who- the followers, aka sheeple.
The louder group practise what I call false-altruism, aka virtue-signalling / moral-posturing.
Thinking and facts have no relevance to them.
Their actions are to show how caring they are but involve little actual effort or cost.
Who- politicians, celebrities.

The phenomenal growth in the carbon change scare is from how the above themes come together.

There does seem to be a very high correlation between a belief in climate change and a belief in government control of the economy and the assets of productive people.