It was always explained that way to me though. the "Our house is burning, and we are looking away" speech was like 20 years ago and it was pretty clear then than average increase in temps mostly mean higher maximums and minimums.
Nowadays, people who never did anything to consume less (and made fun of people who stopped taking the plane) can't hide behind the "we didn't know" because everybody knew, so they hide behind the "it was not predicted to be as bad" and other "the scientists explained that poorly", but we know what's up, even when they lie to themselves.
What do you mean? Both Europe and America moved industrial production to China (which was an explicit choice/policy) which as a side effect radically increased the amount of coal used to power industrial production, BUT lets Europeans and Americans both pay less (ie. make workers poorer) AND lets them claim innocence for CO2 increases, while in fact increasing their CO2 use indirectly.
Do you think that if China had isolated itself and refused all trade, it would have tried to avoid industry and emissions?
Do you think that China is controlled by its customers, making it a passive bystander in its own emissions, the agency and blame for which thus belongs to the customers?
Do you think that individuals who deliberately choose to emit less exist in significant numbers in China, or in the world, or ever might do?
Nowadays, people who never did anything to consume less (and made fun of people who stopped taking the plane) can't hide behind the "we didn't know" because everybody knew, so they hide behind the "it was not predicted to be as bad" and other "the scientists explained that poorly", but we know what's up, even when they lie to themselves.