You're right. However, it is annoying when there's a cold snap that "weather isn't climate", but, when there's a hot-snap suddenly the weather is climate. Yes, this is generally not coming from climate scientists, but, it still makes advocates for a reasonable global warming response seem like a bunch of hypocrites and enhances the idea that global warming is purely political to the people who aren't informed, aren't totally closed minded either, but, who are turned off by apparent hypocrisy.
Except any given heat wave has just as much probability of being a spike up as the cold snap has of being a spike down. You're right to say that the pattern is the climate, but the reaction I'm talking about is the reaction to the spike not the pattern. That is the apparent hypocrisy.
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”.
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?"
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
It's like someone walking in saying "Oh my god, the rain is really pouring down, I'm soaked!" Everybody nods and silently accepts the sentence.
And then someone tries to say that doesn't prove it's raining, after all, yesterday I was also soaking wet after that incident with the sprinkler. And of course everybody's like, dude what's the matter with you, we can look at the window right now and see it's raining.
Proof, or as close as science ever comes to that, isn't the issue. It's science communication that's the issue. New people are being born all the time and no one is born knowing climate science proofs, some people don't care until it hurts them, some people are naturally contrarian, there are opposing special interest groups etc. Because of this it's vital that the science is proven again and again, and any appearance of hypocrisy, being politically driven, and outright alarmism (i.e. crying wolf) is eliminated as much as possible. If scientifically settled proofs aren't demonstrated again and again then pretty soon regardless of how true they are we'll end up with an expanding contrarian movement. The global warming issue is a master class on how to grow a contrarian movement despite excellent evidence in support of it!
The typical news media coverage of weather is simply science denial. The news makes claims about weather events that aren't supported by the science, scientists don't challenge the claims (I guess because they want the public to take climate change more seriously?), and both the news media and scientists lose some people's trust. Certainly mine.