This is today's argument, because nobody believes yesterday's argument that nothing was changing. This line of attack is simply the pivot. I clearly remember Ted Cruz running around the 2016 primary saying the globe was not warming [1].
The President exposed it today when he claimed that climate change isn't "a hoax" or "a big scam" like he claimed in the past. Today he said he is a "big believer" in climate change [2].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
[2] https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-admits-climate-change-is...
The scientific mind is always and should always be skeptical to absolute claims like the glaciers are melting and NY is underwater soon. The "hoax" is not with regards to the climate but with regards to those who claim the glacier is melting in 2020.
The media is the biggest perpetrator of all, fueling to this frenzy that not only makes people panic unnecessarily but also creates a situation where really really really dangerous decisions potentially will be taken.
Yes the climate is changing as it always have, no it's not something we don't know how to deal with over the next 80 years.
So lets all just chill and stop letting the media control the narrative.
This is the same type of false authority you claim the media to be pushing. You do not know this to be true, why would you say it?
==So lets all just chill and stop letting the media control the narrative.==
Agreed. Let's let scientists control the narrative. What do they have to say?
That's why I say it. By all means. Let me know what we can't handle, but as far as I am aware we know how to handle the climate. In fact we've become so good at it that people who dies from climate related disaster have plummeted the last 100 years.
Scientist say that the climate is changing but it's not catastrophic and it's not something we don't know how to handle. Even the latest IPCC report has toned down their fear of the future.
God, no wonder why some people believe strange things.
Do you know why that is?
That's the difference between temperature averaged over thousands of years and then suddenly measuring year over year.
If you think that's a reasonable way of showing temperature changes, then I guess we have very different standards for what we consider evidence.
> [After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before.
If you car is on fire, and inside temperature exceeded 70°C when all evidence points it never happened in the past 12 years you had the car, you can insist on measuring the past 24 hour average of interior temperature, because that's the granularity of past data, and claim that there is not enough evidence that anything is amiss.
Or you could just...
...hell, who am I kidding, feel free to say heat is part of nature, it's what mammals crave, and increasing temperature only means your car is more comfortable.
If you averaged that last part of the graph like the previous measurements it wouldn't show this spike.
That's the point here. It's misleading.
That doesn't mean there isn't a change in temperature.
You manage to victimize yourself while calling others "crazy lunatics." Do you see how you are engaging in the exact activity you accuse others of?
No one is denying that the climate is changing. It always have and it always will.
The discussion is about how much, how big a problem it is, how much of it is because of us and to what extent we can/should do anything about it.
That's the actual debate. Calling someone a climate change denier is a cheap and sloppy shot at trying to lump a much more complex discussion into a simple pro/con.