[SV_BubbleTime]

That’s exactly what I was getting at. It’s the same as people pointing to new record temp as ”definitely climate and you are stupid if you disagree” but seeing the previous record was 1920 as “well that was just a fluke”.

I don’t know what it is about climate change that seems to encourage a tribalistic ”if you aren’t entirely with me you are entirely against me”. Because I’m super skeptical that China will abide by import tax schemes without war, but that must mean I’m a denier now!

It hurts the debate to say there is no debate. There are tons of things to debate and discover. This is poor messaging above anything else.

I think the “true believers” that exaggerate to make their point are more hurtful than any single “denier”.

[Omnitaus]

Care to explain why China is the villain here? They're the workbench of the western world that has outsourced those emissions. Per capita they use less and historically have not contributed much to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

We live longer than weather patterns and it's not difficult to see how things have changed within living memory. Especially in regions like Alaska

[yongjik]

> I don’t know what it is about climate change that seems to encourage a tribalistic ”if you aren’t entirely with me you are entirely against me”.

Maybe scientists getting their email server hacked and used for doxxing should quality?

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climateg...

> The email that appeared on Phil Jones’s computer screen in November 2009 was succinct. “Just a quick note to encourage you to shoot yourself in the head,” it said. “Don’t waste any more time. Do it today. It is truly the greatest contribution to mankind that you will ever make.”

To be honest, your argument rather sounds like victim blaming.

> It hurts the debate to say there is no debate.

There's no moratorium on debate over the details of climate change or related policies. Scientists argue whether some specific weather event is linked to global warming all the time.

What we don't need is another "debate" on whether AGW is real. 99% of people who still want to argue on that point don't want a debate, they just want to derail discussion because otherwise they'll have to talk about "OK so we're in deep trouble, what should we do now?"

[dwaltrip]

Have you seen the graphs of world temperatures over the past 150 years?