lolwot, the point is that climate scaremongering is today’s bogeyman and you can tell because stuff wholly unrelated to climate mentions it. For all we know, what whacked the clovis culture is a common genetic malady for that group looking for a spot marked X and north amercia provided X. e.g. syphillis was given to europe by the natives on the first voyage of columbus; it was geographically restricted to north america at one time.
That all other possible (and far more probable) mechanisms of clovis culture disappearance are completely ignored and yet climate change — of all possible improbable things — is mentioned tells us that the funding and journal acceptance processes are compromised with today’s “correctness.”
(I’m quite certain that if you were to look you’d find that climate change caused mental problems for the guy who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. If not, just wait a few months. It will appear.)
Species extinction claims are nothing more than useless additions to the rest of the massive pile of climate claims, many (most?) of which are based solely on statistics and models. This I think is much of the heart of the matter where it concerns skepticism in general. When climate is claimed to be the underlying driver for everything possible (i.e. pick a subject, any subject, and climate is the bogeyman) this is the point where sane people will say “whoa.”
Climate change advocacy *creates* skeptics. If someone tells you something that sounds too good to be true, it probably is. In terms if climate, people are making so many claims that the answer to life the universe and everything is no longer 42, it’s “climate change.” Same mechanism kicks in as “too good to be true.”
