> > Defaulting to unusual event->climate change is statistically invalid in the same way as cold snap->no climate change.

> That's technically true, but irrelevant.

I think it's very relevant. If you keep blaming all catastrophies on climate change by default, then as other causes are found one by one, you are discrediting the good name of climate change. This may lead normal non scientist people to become more sceptical of the concept of climate change.

Furthermore, it causes scientists to be scared to point out those alternative reasons. In the worst case, this puts people who fight against climate change into the situation that they have to defend things they know are wrong in order to not tarnish their name.

Climate change is a major problem and the more we fight it at this early point, the lower the toll it takes. Just don't blame everything on it. Otherwise in the long term, you are playing into the hands of the deniers.

I totally agree. And I think this is already happening left and right. It sort of reminds of the boy who cried wolf.

I wish people put as much energy into shutting down eco-deniers as they do policing other eco-advocates.

> I wish people put as much energy into shutting down eco-deniers as they do policing other eco-advocates.

Everyone is an eco advocate today. If you check out the bp home page you find pictures of solar deployments on green meadows. If you check out shell's website you see a statement by the CEO how climate activists "give me hope". Should bp and shell be policed? Absolutely.

As for the "traditional" eco advocates, many of them are often the first to protest when you want to build a dam or a wind turbine, explaining how precious the nature is that you are destroying. This is actively harmful to the goal of stopping climate change. The more protests, the more requirements that the activists push through, the larger the cost of the project, and the longer it takes. Increased prices of the renewable energy you are providing ultimately slows down the expansion of renewable energy generation due to market effects as well as population.

The risk of climate change is far greater than the risks of fairly small ecosystem disruption to fight it. Many eco advocates don't want to realize this and believe that everyone should live like a monk and go vegan or something. They are completely removed from reality. In itself, it's good for the climate to have more vegan people, but when those advocates protest construction projects to provide green energy for the people who do not want to live like monks, they should step aside instead of standing in the way.

Everyone is NOT an eco advocate. Just look at nearly every politician in the current US administration linked to the environment (especially the EPA).

Of course I don't mean it in the sense that they actually support the fight against climate change. I rather mean it in the sense that everyone appears to protect the environment ("I'm Brian and so is my wife"). Even trump always talks about this "clean air" and "crystal clear water" in his speeches even though his actions are the opposite.