[dennis_jeeves]

Unless I see resonantly well documented rising temperatures, I'm not inclined to believe that there are climate extremes any different from what are normal variations. ( and no this does not mean we get a free pass to mess up the environment, which IMO need to be cleaned up big time).

People have very short memories, and often it is the _current_ summer/winter that appears to be the harshest to them, not the one that happened 20 years ago. Memories are even more shorter when it is generational.

[kazoomonger]

There are well-documented rising temperatures. TBH, it sounds like you've made up your mind and are unwilling to examine the mounds of evidence that exist to support that. This visualization from NASA directly contradicts any notion of a generational memory explanation:

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine/

As a bonus, it also demonstrates that climate != weather. Even as the whole map is turning red, there's still a few cooler spots in any given year. There's just less and less.

[dennis_jeeves]

What I'm also skeptical is about the "mounds of evidence". And no, I didn't start out as skeptic decades back.

Check back my comment (the one that you responded to) some years from now and reach out to me if needed. I skimmed through your other comments on other subjects, you'll probably get there where I currently am. A weird response to your response I know...

[prawnsalad]

Out of curiosity, what makes you skeptical about the evidence?

[dennis_jeeves]

- It seems the debate is about 0.8°C temperature rise since 1880. The figure of 0.8°C in my opinion is not statistically significant for various reasons including thermometer inaccuracies, and normal variations of temperature. There seems to be a general agreement of increase in CO2. It appears that the most significant greenhouse ‘gas’ is water vapor, about 98%. I got these figures from a talk by a noble prize winner, who got around to checking the published figures.

- Statistics can be variously interpreted unless there is a huge significant differences. The 'significant' part is completely subjective.

- Media and govt need to keep the masses engaged on distractions with the news. If govt/people were truly serious about climate (or what ever is the correct terminology) change. They would be making radical changes not tiny changes. Example of a big change work places can be moved to places where people can walk to work. example of tiny feel good change that does nothing: separate recycle form other trash.

- Changing narrative from govt, in the 60s it was global cooling, which changed to global warming, and is now labeled as climate change. Notice that most people who take up these 'causes' are young. They have no any knowledge of what the narrative was in the 60s.

- In addition to manipulating numbers, all numbers can be cooked up with impunity, this is true for corporates, scientific establishments, govts. Barring exceptions there are enough incentives to lie, and generally disincentives if one were to tell the truth.

Note I'm not claiming that there is no climate change, there is not way for me or you to know that. I do know for a fact that the environment is indeed messed up big time. The smell/taste of air/food/water/products is telling. I don't think this is debatable. The environment should be first priority and perhaps the climate change will take of itself.