> It's amazing how just pointing that out garners the sort of personal attacks that you leveled at me. Slowing down sounds like good advice!

Please show me the personal attack.

Here is what I wrote:

> No, "all of those metrics" on the many pages linked from the EPA page do not start at 1960. / Stop making false statements. Doing so hurts your credibility and wastes our time. / Try slowing down and reminding yourself of your preconceived biases. Double check what you are seeing. Look for things that don't confirm what you already believe.

I said you made a false statement. You did. I did not call you names; e.g. I did not call you a liar.

Claiming there is a personal attack when there is none is not acceptable. I can criticize your ideas -- that is fair game.

It is understandable to feel hurt when ideas you hold are criticized. You may consider these ideas to be part of your identity. But these are not personal attacks.

I respect that you have researched the climate change data. I likely would agree with some of your conclusions.

> My overall point, which for some strange reason gathers a ton of open hostility ...

I asked many questions about your overall point. I would not use the word "hostile" to characterize tough questions.

Yes, you are getting pushback. I can't speak to others, but I've found your core arguments to be too vague to be useful. I don't think it is "strange" when some people to question what you write.

> It's amazing how just pointing that out

Well, you "aren't just pointing that out". There is context. My many comments around this thread show that I've engaged and tried to make sense of what you mean, in terms of concrete examples.

Also, I hope you can recognize that some of your language resembles climate-denial language. With this in mind, you would do well to be mindful of how you are coming across.

Also, another observation. The language you are using matches the language of "I'm the victim here". I don't know if you intended this. That kind of language is regularly used to deflect.

Please reply to my other comments. I am willing to consider your arguments -- probably more so than many people here on HN who read your comment and probably thought it wasn't worth their time to respond. But I'd prefer to read them coming from a published source. Why? I'd like to read not only the content, but also about the authors, the funding, and the counter-responses.

> My overall point ... is that we're much better off focusing on concrete ecological issues that can be solved today (not draining aquifers, better agriculture practices, elimination of weird farm bill subsidies to harmful crops, etc...).

Thank you for giving some concrete examples of what you mean.

However, I'm still not convinced by the "that can be solved today" criteria. One key problem with such criteria is that someone can say "that can't be solved today" in order to avoid taking action. What is your response?

In my other comment, I offered a very high level summary of how science, technology, governance, economics, and finance relate w.r.t. climate change. I was hoping to see your response. Your response these very much connects to the "that can be solved today" criteria.

Sustained investment in research and development is important because science and technology can expand the solution space. In parallel, more public awareness can increase the political will for increasing the budget for action. (Of course, there are many other components necessary for humanity to address the situation.)

A meta-comment. You are getting a lot of pushback because it seems to me that you are moving the goal posts. Here is what I mean.

You wrote "alarmist" but did not explain what you meant. I asked detailed questions so that we could get on the same page. No response, right? Or did I miss it?

You give specific examples that fall into the category of, e.g. (paraphrased) "if look at X data over a sufficiently long time frame, it does not show a clear trend." Yes, this is correct for some cases. And these are pointed out in the EPA descriptions. So this does not support your alarmist claim.

You complain of being personally attacked.

In summary, this trajectory looks a lot like moving the goal posts away from explaining what is alarmist about climate change models.

If you've changed your mind about what claims you want to make, please do so. But I have not seen good argumentation or explanation for what seemed to be your core argument.

Will you acknowledge your error?

I'll point it out again. This:

> It's pretty strange how all of those metrics start at 1960, no?

Is quite different from this:

> A bunch of them do. Heat waves, river floods, etc...

You can't have it both ways.

> Making false statements?

Yes. I've demonstrated clearly that you wrote a false statement by saying "all". Then you shifted your position to say "a bunch of them".

Why not acknowledge your mistake?

> Slowing down and reminding myself?

Yes. When was the last time you actually said to yourself, e.g. "I have a tendency to get annoyed by how reporters cover climate change. I should not let my annoyance spill over into other trains of thought, such as the claim 'climate change models are alarmist'".

Adjust as needed to suit your situation and thought patterns. If you try it, I think you'll find benefit.

This is the kernel of your thinking I've been waiting for. You've seen what you call a "very clear distortion of data in reporting". Emphasis mine. (A suggestion: if you would lead with this sentence this up-front, these kinds of online conversations can be much more productive.)

Now, if one makes a claim that there is a "very clear distortion", it is incumbent upon you to show the analysis -- or to cite it. You are the one making the claim; don't ask someone else to do it. A credible analysis must be statistical, not anecdotal.