Existential threat, but

Two thirds of college students believe climate change is an “existential threat” to their generation, but fewer than one in five are willing to give up their smartphones to help, a recent poll found.



Ideology can be overwhelming to the gullible… and I may be flamed for expressing such an opinion.

And it’s sad to think that so many embrace something they view as SO important… yet lack the courage of their “convictions”.

He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.


I wonder if this is one of those “surveys” intentionally designed to yield a result that allows the surveyor to ridicule the surveyed?

I would answer such a survey that I do recognize climate change as a significant problem BUT I would also decline to stop using technology that improves my productivity. Especially a specific technology.

I have raised my AC temperature 3F as my contribution to “reducing”.
I choose less packaging where possible.
I drive a hybrid RAV4.
I refuse to stop using my phone or the internet.

Summary: this is another “troll, misinformation, disinformation” designed to divide us.


Just My Not So Humble Opinion

This is another article that seeks to denigrate, ridicule, deride “young people”.
Just like my parents and grandparents derided my generation. They were wrong about us, and this hit piece is wrong about today’s young people.

Today’s college students are SMART, intelligent, THINKING people. They recognize BS it when they see/read/hear BS it.
(Their recognition might be a bit subconscious?)


A better line of questioning would have given several options for things to give up that were about of equal impact on CO2, such as driving less, paying more to get an EV, using less heating/cooling, volunteering to plant trees, etc.


1 Like

Anthony Watts, senior fellow for environment and climate at the Heartland Institute, said the results did not surprise him.

“Those who think climate change is an ‘existential crisis’ have unfortunately been brainwashed, perhaps by media on the very cellphone they refuse to give up,” Watts told The College Fix via email.

Doesn’t surprise me either. The Heartland Institute is an anti-science organization that was created to disseminate misinformation about the health effects cigarette smoking, arguing that tobacco was not addictive, and lobbing to lower cigarette taxes and ban any restrictions on the public use of tobacco.

One of the tobacco lobby money dried up, the Heartland Institute simply pivoted to climate science denial and is funded by ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, etc. and continued using virtually the same tactics.

Here are a couple examples of arguments the Heartland Institute uses:

Misleading use of statistics:

1993" “Some people who never smoked get lung cancer, so you can’t prove that smoking causes lung cancer.”

2023: “The Earth’s climate has changed in the past, so you can’t prove that current climate change is man-caused.”

The use of false dilemmas followed by false accusations of hypocrisy:

1993: “More people die in car crashes than from lung cancer, so you shouldn’t be opposed to smoking in public unless you also wish to ban all cars.”

2023: “You shouldn’t be in favor of limit greenhouse gas emissions unless you are also willing to give up your cell phone.”

Of course, you can be in favor of measures that reduce both car accidents and smoking deaths at the time. And since most educated people (these are college students after all) know that cell phones’ contribution to global warming is round error of a rounding error. So giving up your cell phone does nothing in that regard. Why would you give up your cell phone if it wouldn’t help?

Another part of the false dilemma is your can be in favor of reducing car use without giving up car use. There’s no climate pathway I’ve seen that calls for eliminating car use. That option is created by the anti-science lobby.

And of course, science deniers always include an ad hominem. If you disagree with their logical fallacy, you are “brainwashed” and a hypocrite.