[electrondood]

The media isn't making the case. Scientists who have been studying this for decades are. It's a failing of the media perhaps (not the science) that you perceive a shifting of the goal posts.

The "case" is settled, by the way. It's only special interest groups with a financial incentive in the status quo that try to muddy the water with disinfo and make it seem otherwise. Those, and people who don't want to believe it's happening because it's uncomfortable.

[enchiridion]

What’s easier to prove?

A. The climate is getting hotter.

B. Weather events are more “spectacular”.

If the evidence supports the claim, A is clearly easier. If there’s a lack of evidence, B is clearly easier to prove because level is “spectacular ness” has no clear definitions.

Of course someone could probably come up with a spectacularness metric, but at that point there’s so many assumptions you have to make it’s almost a circular argument.

[yongjik]

> A. The climate is getting hotter.

This is, of course, easier to prove. In fact, mountains of evidences support this claim. It can be considered "proven" in the same way the heliocentric theory or the existence of Pangea is considered proven.

The problem is that people don't understand what "average" means, and keep saying things like "If the earth is warming how come my town got record snowfall last winter? This disproves global warming!"

In other words, the renaming of "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" has got nothing to do with the abundance (or lack) of evidences. It's a purely pedagogical issue.

[vinyl7]

Scientists will say whatever they need to say in order to get funding. "Science" should be looked at with as much skepticism as the media

[Tagbert]

Vested interests that depend on oil, gas, and coal are even more motivated by funding and have definitely seeded a lot of doubt into the public discourse. This is sometimes called astro-turfing. It looks like grass but it was manufactured. People then pickup those false “facts” and misleading questions and feed it back into conversations about climate change. One of their favorite tactics is to claim that scientists only talk about climate change to get rich on funding.

Scientists go into science not to make a lot of money (they don’t) they tend to go into it because they have a passion for investigating things, answering questions, and because they see big problems that they want to help solve.

[enchiridion]

You’re claiming an entire extremely diverse set of people is not motivated by money?

What do you think scientists are doing when writing grant proposals?

[leaflets2]

No there was no such claim.

They aren't primarily motivated by money. But the oil companies are.

[enchiridion]

I agree. Scientific claims should be looked at with the MOST skepticism. That’s literally the point of science.

Good scientific claims hold up to skepticism.

[bequanna]

Exactly.

Good scientific claims don’t need to form a pseudo-religion around their “findings” and push to censor anyone who disagrees.