A bit of signal in a world of noise and yet another appeal to reason. A year ago NPR ran a story, guaranteed to rattle anyone's jimmies bby it's inflammatory and extremist nature asserting climate change would mean a long deadly drought in Texas because of climate change. Now that 20 people are dead the call is omg we have to do something can't you see in the wake of 20 dead climate change is real?

No rain --> climate change.
Rain --> climate change.

when you blame climate change for everything even in self contradiction it's a pretty good sign you've given up all reason; what all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Part of this is people don't think and don't know shit. They see a headline and believe it and never mind the body of the article may actually contradict the headline (and examples abound most notably the plethora of "hottest year ever" articles that also point out it's tied with peak years going back to the last century and can't seem to grasp when these hottest years are all the same for nearly 20 years it means temperature is stable and not going up and never mind the point if you remove thee e or peak years what you're left with is a distinct cooling trend, the greatest seen in 100 years)

As Dyson is fond of pointing out carbon is good for the environment and is promoting a global greening which the press either ignores or doesn't know about and as I like to point out if you look at all the crap coming out of smokestacks the only part you want is CO2 the rest is dangerous and we know kills and by the million and in many ways some subtle others not so much ans this affects every square inch of earth even the deepest darkest parts of Africa to the point it was actually exacerbated the world's worst viruses that hail from the congo.

Then we have the partisanship: the general feeling is conservatives don't believe in warming all liberals do however and this is a misnomer, the actual numbers show a 4% difference between the two. This Is about numbers and numbers are distinctly non-partisan. A lot of times I'll make a point in contradiction of some absurd headline and in come the friend requests from gun toting jeebus fans which I ignore about in equal numbers to friends and even long time friends who say things like "you're right about so much and I agree with all of it but you're wrong about this so I'll block you because you're clearly insane". Sure.

Data matters and opinions don't and it's going to be true people you abhor have good point, the most telling is Lord Monckton's superb numerical analysis of the overall framework. The man is an utterly detestable pusillanimous cretin with some truly horrific ideas in the past but his math is as far as I can tell dead on; I was a math major and know a bit about numerical analysis, epsilon and how to lie with statistics. It's worth a read:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/14/in-the-climate-debate-hear-both-sides/

Id be happier if the emotional overtone went away, phrases, as pointed out in this article, like "denier", "libtard" and others are meaningless, stick to the numbers ad raise the quality of your argument, not your voice.