So, your interpretation of what it's intent was for.
In reality, I've seen no one on this board outright deny change is occurring. What I have seen is one side, yours, brow beat and denigrate by obfuscating and conflating arguments to anyone that doesn't subscribe to the chicken-little stance. Further, what I've seen are people question the country embracing the chicken-little approach at the expense of major industries and massive impacts to jobs and dollars. I've yet to see someone "accurately" quantify man's impact in causation, I've yet to see someone "accurately predict the future impacts. And I've yet to see someone quantify man's ability to limit the impacts of warming through action. I have seen a lot of propaganda from both sides on what they "think" but can't prove.
I disparage arguments based on manipulation and misinformation, and my emotional element in this thread comes from my personal disgust of the practice of manipulating data and scientific opinion to serve the purpose of confusion. No debate that truly seeks to determine what role we should play in reversing the trend is aided by misinformation. The study cited in this thread did not confirm a 20 year hiatus. The 28 authors opinions were not omitted from the study's summary, and the authors of the study do not advocate that all models are wrong.
I felt that climate change (global warming) as outlined by Gore in an inconvient truth was "alarmist" and inaccurate. I was not on board for all out change, and I felt it was Gore's political avenue to "legacy". I have tried to understand climate change over the last 10 years. My knowledge of the effects has increased lock in step with my fear of the impacts. This is something my children will be impacted by, something my grandchildren might be devastated by. Animals, the oceans, farming, weather patterns will be effected in our lifetime.
My biggest issue however, is not with the feet dragging that the US is doing internationally on this subject (I believe enough companies are on board in order to create a change in our lifetime that can begin to reverse the trend), but it's with the incessant attacks from people trying to make climate science some left wing apparatus of a global agenda of control and power. Data is distorted. It is delaying the legitimate debates on the issues.
If the debate is about how we should pull out of the Paris Accord, I do not approach it with the same aggressiveness. I do believe Paris was a good thing and the US should be in it. People on this board argued that Paris didn't do anything to stop warming, and cost us too much----legitimate. People claim we (and other nations) will do more to reverse the trend if not committed----legitimate. People claim that the accord being non binding makes it toothless-----legitimate.
It's when people claim the science isn't settled, that's when I become "brow beat". All that someone seeks in that statement, is a destruction of a common acceptance that something bad is happening, and something needs to be done.
It's not chicken little. It's understanding the environment.
