[wk_end]

The vast, vast majority of people who are better equipped than myself - and likely you - disagree.

But let's put that aside. Let's put aside the fact that the mechanisms involved are demonstrable and simple enough for children to understand.

Even as laypeople, we can observe that in the past ten years there's been year after year after year of once-in-a-century catastrophic weather events. The odds of these being unrelated anomalies decrease every time. Unprecedented heat waves and forest fires across the North America, all the way up into the arctic, with entire towns burning to the ground. Deadly ice storms in Texas. God-sized hurricanes. In isolation these could be hand-waved away - in aggregate, they clearly point towards catastrophe.

[throwaway2990]

lol. When data is not cherry picked then those better equipped people’s opinion might be worth listening to.

[oops]

Can you cite an example of such cherry picking? I’m only aware of counter examples e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking#:~:text=Cherr....

[throwaway2990]

Literally every study. They will remove a particular earth moment because “it’s not relevant” but adding it in makes their data look like global warming isn’t happening. Or they exclude periods claiming that the data from that period is not good when it goes against their claims.