I also submit that Global warming / Climate Change has been ruined by the alarmists overstating there case rather than presenting clear and accurate statistics and claims.
There is enough blame to go around all sides of the political debate. But the science was always clear. The NAS showed that there was scientific consensus in 1979, and the public was on board, until Luntz, and some ex-tobacco propagandists got at it in the mid 1990s. Their actions are a matter of public record, but for some reason most people aren't interested in the actual history, except for some historians. And the political manipulation continues. Part of that is to always accuse the other guy of exactly what you are doing.
Why don't you read the original research, examine the
The article in question is really just a sly way of arguing that climate change deniers' brains are deficient, compared to readers whose superior brains have recognized the evidence for climate change.
The first rule of crankery is to generate thoughts to defend said crankery.
If you think something is all one way or the other, then that should raise a red flag that you are deluding yourself.
There is such a thing as nuance, and understanding. Just because some people like beating the drums of doom doesn't mean that there is no problem that needs to be fixed.