Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

Okay, and who hasn't heard of climate change by now? Who has been living under a rock that doesn't know that Big Oil is bad?

"Create a higher mass," ffs... You sound like a Christian justifying buying those "He Gets Us" Superbowl ads, as if nobody in the US has heard of Jesus before.

And no real harm? I guess we can just destroy history and artifacts, because who needs to learn from that shit amirite?

Even a single nullification is incredibly rare, but it's happening enough that the government is making efforts to stamp out discussion of jury nullification.

We all know what the Streisand Effect is, so the logical result here is that more and more people will hear about the practice, more people will do it, and the public and those in power will get the message - you can't weaponise the legal system against us anymore.

It might even get to the point that they're afraid to prosecute because they don't want more nullifications to happen.

Then what? What do the people in power do when they discover that they can no do that? They start to be afraid of what else people might nullify. What about actual violent actions, would people get a free pass then? How willing would they be to throw the cops against people when those people are starting to wake up to the fact that we outnumber them, and we don't have to convict people if we don't want to?

When they're afraid of that, you might start to see action. Or you might see more violent repression, at which point who knows what the next step will be, but it's better than sitting around waiting for committees to decide that action must be taken which will then be ignored by those in power.

And we get ignorant people and despots because people in power use propaganda to miseducate the public, not because art galleries close.

I've given some pretty compelling evidence that public support for these activists is extremely high, and in response you have... some flatulence.

Here, I'll respond in the way you did:

But it is moving the needle, it totally is!

See? I can say things too.

Is there any data in here to suggest what the actual effect is on level of support, rather than people self-reporting their change in level of support?

Because here's one reading of the data, which I think is entirely reasonable:

1. The people who report "no effect" on their support, which at 40% is the largest single group, already support efforts to address climate change, and this makes no difference to them.

2. The people who report a decrease, great or otherwise, of their support, are just conservatives who know that the talking point is "this action decreases support" and so they're answering in a way that supports that narrative. In reality, these people were already opposed to any meaningful action in the first place, and this didn't change their actual level of support.

Without further analysis, this survey doesn't say much. Even the questions dishonestly imply that actual damage is being done to art, when that generally isn't the case.

Again, that survey comes up against a tide of jury nullifications, which would indicate a very strong material support for these activists and the cause they represent. The courts are trying to penalise people for mentioning climate change in their defense, which has got to blow back in their faces eventually. In fact these court cases may be an important part of swinging public sentiment against the government and towards radical action to change things.

They don't do it to become popular. They want to throw a wrench in the works to wake people up.