It's funny how this thread is making fun of people for not taking climate change seriously when the thing that "can't be unseen" is a chart with no title and no error bars that cuts off ~9 years before the video was published.

> regardless of how hard deniers keep denying.

sorry, but lol. We've had very good evidence for some time. This is "just" something additional. The deniers aren't operating on evidence.

You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place

Wow, knowingly releasing data that could negatively affect National Security.... -

"We didn't tell the Navy that if you published the signal, which we did, then you could figure out where the receivers were,"

Negative points and no discussion of why? The quote was in the first of the linked articles.

That chart claims there’s 0 ZJ in 1970… which seems unlikely, since the planet wasn’t at absolute zero then.

I think you’d come across as more credible if the chart showed the contextualized change — rather than clearly being edited for dramatic effect.

It's assumed the viewer will be able to understand that it is the starting frame of reference, not absolute zero.

Duh — but a reference/baseline you don’t share and showing only de-contextualized change scaled to “look scary” is classic lying with statistics.

How much change does 200 ZJ represent?

We’re purposefully not told that information because that chart is propaganda meant to make an emotional argument and not informational argument — and I think it speaks to the person I was replying to that they’re using emotive arguments rather than fact based arguments.

Particularly when lobbing ad hominems at others.

There's this saying about assumptions, I forgot what it was... Anyway, it's better to be clear than make assumptions about the audience, and you know that bad charts are a big contributor to the spread of misinformation and confusion.