I get that local climate is experienced locally. No problem there. That's not the question.
If you are agreeing that global climate cannot be experienced locally that's a great relief. That means the global climate situations, like temperature rise, isn't anything to be concerned about, because it cannot be experienced locally. At first I was worried that global climate could be experienced locally, like global sea level rise affecting the Oregon coast. But now I feel much better because there is a consensus that those global climate situations will not have any local effect.
You are right, it's NOT a difficult point. As you said, "only local climate can be experienced locally". Got it.
That's right, you can't experience all the weather that's going on everywhere in the world right now from your home in Oregon. Currently it is 17 degrees F in San Martin, Antarctica, and 106 F in Death Valley, and 65 F with heavy rain in Denver but you won't feel any of that in Multnomah County.
Let us imagine that you lived in King's County CA instead. You would not see those weather conditions there either. You also would not feel the steady heavy winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean from South America to Indonesia for a prolonged period. Yet those winds can affect the ocean temperatures and currents, leading to less rain (and Sierra snow) in California. As a result the amount of water flowing down the California Aqueduct to irrigate your orchards will be severely reduced and you would have to choose between a disastrous harvest or getting a reasonable harvest from part of your orchards and risking severe damage or die-off for the rest of your trees.
In short, climate and weather that you cannot personally experience can still come back and bite you.
But those are local climates, not global ones. Nobody is suggesting that the local climate in Antarctica can be experienced in the locality of Multnomah County. The claim was that GLOBAL climate (not local climate) cannot be experienced locally.
So if global climate cannot be experienced locally, there is nothing to worry about.
Minimizing affects of massive pandemics is very low. Why does everything have to come down to life and death? People don't have a right to say they don't want to suffer being sick? I got both covid shots and still ended up in the hospital for 2 days, probably because it had been a full year and needed a booster (still haven't gotten one but am thinking of it). Getting the Flu shot every year now too. And am totally not surprised I picked it up from South Carolina, totally inbred hicky state.
All good points. I think when people feel they aren't being heard they tend to sensationalize. Everything must be life or death. Or worse.
To me it makes a lot more sense to allow those who want to take their own action on a certain issue. And allow those who don't, to not take action. Otherwise, we end up with crazy policies like what we see in CA. At first masks were required, now they are considering legislation to BAN masks for certain people. I stopped getting flu shots about the time I turned 25 and have gotten the flu once since then. Probably co-incidence but it is interesting.
Just like climate change it's pretty hard to say this result MUST be caused by that. It's likely a confluence of factors that determines if something ends up with a bad result. So for climate change it makes no sense to "change" something that's either neutral or beneficial. For things like covid it makes no sense to force vaccinations on someone who is never going to get covid anyway.