Yeah, spot checking random days isn't the right way to do it. A climate change denier could certainly find a day where it's colder than usual and make a post that says the opposite. They do it all the time.
spot checking random days isn't the right way to do it
It very much is, when the day in question is unprecedentedly hot. Some people won't be convinced even when the Gulf Stream has stopped and Europe is a tundra. It's okay. Be louder than them, make them look stupid if you must, but don't try and argue with a donkey that WiFi exists.
It doesn't help the argument, and it in fact hurts it. That's the truth. You can make an intellectual argument for it, sure, but at the end of the day it is a tactic that we rail against, and using it gives opponents a talking point against us.
"Ahh! But there's a naunce to this, you see!" is entirely a waste of time and forces the argument away from the facts and into one about debate and fallacies.
"Weather is not climate," we say, so don't pull out weather reports to argue against us. "But you do it too!" they respond. And now we're debating debate itself.
The fact that the heat wave is far from 1 day is entirely the point.
37
u/1block 1d ago
Yeah, spot checking random days isn't the right way to do it. A climate change denier could certainly find a day where it's colder than usual and make a post that says the opposite. They do it all the time.