Vox offers a wonderfully simple explanation
of why efforts to debunk climate change
are likely to fail. Its illustration is simple, too.
There is a convergence of many lines of evidence that the planet is warmer and that humans play a role.
For the other side? Nothing much. Attacking a single anomaly isn't good enough. They have to attack all the lines of evidence.
I'm not sure the disengaged public understands this: Climate skepticism is not an alternative theory. The climate skeptic community is a hodgepodge, a farrago of theories and conspiracies that range all over the map, from sunspots to adjustments in particular temperature data sets to hoaxes by scientists greedy for grant money. There's no shared alternative framework, just a fixed certainty that the consensus must be wrong.
This "fixed certainty" — call it faith-based opposition — has many parallels in the political world. Facts? Who needs 'em?
So, no, I won't say today's unseasonable warmth proves anything. But you can expect to hear that sort of thing on a cold day in July from the average faith-based Arkansas legislator.