Please... everyone... Stop arguing over climate change, and start talking about the omnicide.
This whole argument over CO2 and temperatures is a *distraction.* It's meant to divert everyone's attention from the much greater issue, of which climate change is an *aspect*, but doesn't even come close to being the core.
It was chosen, by the established power network of corporations and billionaires, and their media propaganda outlets, as the main topic of debate when it comes to ecological issues. It was chosen to be a "corral for debate." It's designed to "corral" everyone who wants to talk about the ecological crisis, and funnel them into this one, narrow range of discussion.
And it was chosen for this purpose - yes, climate change was chosen - because it is a topic that the average person (who isn't a climate scientist) can never really verify with their own direct experience. The average person has to rely on *belief*, and *trust*. They have to *believe* a scientist - or a government official or organization - someone or something of *authority.* The only choice you really have is *whom* you consider to be an "authority." Do you believe the scientists aligned with elected governments in Europe and international scientific NGO's - or do you believe people from outside those circles - perhaps from the oil industry? Do you believe the UN or do you believe Exxon Mobile? Do you believe the Huffington Post, or do you believe Fox News? Do you believe Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, or do you believe the Koch brothers? Do you believe Greta Thunberg or Donald Trump?
One side is clearly correct, and the other isn't - but, no matter which you choose, you're still choosing to *believe* someone.
And as long as both options exist, there will inevitably be people who believe the other side. And the argument will go on and on and on and on and on.
The billionaires and the corporations and their public official lackeys, they all know something: They know they don't need to WIN the argument - they just have to keep it going. And that, alone, will delay the actions that society desperately needs to take in order to curb these ghouls' power, and save the planet from them.
And THAT'S EXACTLY WHY CLIMATE CHANGE WAS CHOSEN TO BE THE TOPIC OF PUBLIC ARGUMENT.
Despite there being a much, much bigger omnicide going on, this *one aspect* of it was singled out, to be the sole arena of public debate, specifically BECAUSE it's UNRESOLVABLE. And it's unresolvable because it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to verify directly for a non-sciencey layperson.
In other words, the climate-change debate will never be settled (or at least not for many years to come, until it becomes undeniable - at which point, it may be too late), and as long as you're continuing to center your arguments around it, the planet-devouring capitalist power network HAS YOU EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANT YOU.
So stop arguing about climate change.
Instead, focus on the greater omnicide.
The good news is, the omnicide IS verifiable, for a layperson, through their direct personal experience, without relying on any scientists, organizations, institutions, governments, or authority figures of any kind whatsoever.
You can actually prove the omnicide, without citing any scientific papers or authorities. As long as the person you're talking to is willing to continue talking, and attempt to follow your logic, you can actually prove it to them, without citing any peer-reviewed sciencey stuff.
"But they don't listen! I've tried to reason with them, but it doesn't work!"
You didn't convince them in your prior attempts, precisely because you were relying on scientific authority figures and institutions. The very first thing you said to them was probably, "The XYZ institute says..."
You were making the whole debate about trust, and belief. "Believe in MY set of authority figures." ... "No, YOU believe in MINE!" And back and forth and back and forth.
If that was your debate strategy, then OF COURSE it didn't work. It's a terrible strategy. It's NOT proof that people are unwilling to follow logic, because the strategy you were using WASN'T LOGIC. "Believe my set of authorities" is NOT LOGIC.
Great news: There IS a logical way to go about it. Simply explain the omnicide.
Drop the argument about CO2 and temperatures and Arctic ice cores, and talk about the omnicide.
The omnicide is provable, with nothing but two things:
1. A person willing to give you their time
But you have to actually USE THE CORRECT LOGIC.
How do you explain the omnicide?
We've done it right here:
This page consists of a series of 3 conversations, the first one being a template for explaining the omnicide. It explains the topic from start to finish.
And it does so assuming that the audience to whom it's speaking is beginning their journey from a place of zero knowledge, AND/OR a completely thorough job of brainwashing by oil companies and the Kochs. It takes you on a complete tour of the logic needed to help a person with no ecological awareness understand what ecology is, and why it's paramount for their own survival.
Stop playing "My Scientist vs. Your Scientist" (also called "My Set Of Institutions vs. Your Set Of Institutions" or "My Media Sphere vs. Your Media Sphere")...
...and start teaching ecological consciousness.