One of my pet peeves is failure to reject false arguments for a conclusion one believes to be true.
And climate change is very much a case in point.
While it may seem reasonable to “follow the evidence”, I have to say that I don’t find the evidence for catastrophic consequences of human CO2 emissions to be at all convincing. What I do find convincing is the basic physics which predicted (long before there was any actual evidence) that, in the absence of unconfirmed negative feedbacks, each doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will increase average surface temperature by a couple of degrees. And the possible effects of this are sufficiently likely to be sufficiently severe that the only prudent course of action is to curtail CO2 emissions as quickly as possible. Exaggerated claims that we have already seen evidence of such effects are counterproductive though, as they provide an opening for those deniers who claim the whole thing is a scam. (But despite my own irritation at the exaggerations, I find it difficult to support those such as Roger Pielke Jr who devote themselves so strongly to the task of exposing them that they are effectively agents of the “other side”)
-Alan
PS A much more trivial example is the use curved horizons in photos taken from airplanes as “proof” that the Earth is not flat (see https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-there-any-curvature-at-the-horizon-when-we-look-out-if-we-live-on-a-ball/answer/Alan-Cooper-5)