>>5936412
>and then you pull your "nothing's changed" stats out of your own ass
because nothing has changed in a localized sense
that's why they're always talking about GLOBAL average temperatures, you can't even realistically make climate models based on global averages since climate is localized, it's just a flawed way of looking at climate change
>The official statistics show a clear rise in storm incidence rate
I wouldn't pull the "source?" but it sounds like you did actually look something up so can you post the link?
the only statistic I've seen is that "storms have become more intense" meaning more destruction (because more + more expensive property has been damaged) but that there's no difference in the overall trend (which btw has to be local, not global, since we're talking about climate).
>They're not like you, who just knows these things
I don't "just know these things", neither do you, neither do scientists. They make inferences and build theories. Some scientists disagree with prevailing theories about climate change, I've read and listened to those scientists and then I'm posting my opinion about it here, as a layman.
I've heard about global warming and its looming disasters ever since I was a child, more than 20 years, but nothing they ever predicted came true but the rhetoric, fear mongering and "climate taxation" has only increased.
