Their take is correct that a climate crisis does exist and it's caused by people being manipulated. Where I differ is that the "overshoot" they mention is the over reaction to an unproven geophysical danger and this mindless hysteria is what's feeding the elites.
The good news is that this appears to be mostly noise from a few. Most folks live their lives and ignore the climate silliness.
This effect appears to be what happens after an airliner crash. The media and some politicians will fixate, on that one crash, for so long, that many people will start to believe there is a trend of crashes, ahead for all airliners. This has ,on many occasions, caused the panicked herd to contact their Representatives, to make new laws and spend more money to address the issue, to appease the panic of the herd, that they helped to create.
It is never sold as an isolated event, since you cannot sell soap that way. Who will stayed tuned if you don't to extrapolate today to tomorrow and the day after. Climate change is similar, since natural climate is about change regardless of source. It has changed for a billion years. This is not new to today, like any new airliner crashes being exploited.
What makes the claim of manmade climate change, unscientific, is that, even if true for the sake of argument, this is the very first occurance of manmade climate change, on the earth. The caveman never did it. Rome did not do it. Newton and early science did not do it. This airliner crash of man made climate change is traced back to 1880, when weather and climate science records began in earnest. However, it was not spotted until later 20th century and stress after Gore needed a new way to make money; carbon credits.
Nowhere in science is one experiment, that is not even done, allowed to define, prove and dogmatize a theory. This is politically possible, but it violates the spirit of the philosophy of science. All theories need to have more than one occurrence or experiment for confirmation. If the 1/2 an experiment, was enough, that would make it too easy to fudge theory. These more than one confirmation criteria do not apply to political science, where any single accusation is enough, even if unfounded.
On the other hand, if we claim this change in climate is due to the natural changes of the earth, that theory has many data cycles. We are still in the warm up from the last ice age, where, without man, all the glaciers as far south as NYC, melted back to the Arctic Circle before civilization. That is one of dozens of full cycle earth experiments, we can offer for the natural climate theory, that the 1/2 experiment cannot offer for man made. The 1/2 experiment stopped predicting no Arctic ice, since no theory is good with a 1/2 experimental cycle and no completion. We would need to do this at least before people would have the confidence to make the melted Arctic Claim, with their own money on the barrel. They will not bet their own since the theory is not sure thing.
Say a pharmaceutical manufacturer runs one test, for a new drug, in half the normal time. To them it looks fine, should we run with it and get it to market? Or should they be expected to complete the first test, of their new drug theory, and run even more tests before we sign off? Should all of science and industry now be able to now use the water down standard of climate change; 1/2 test is plenty. Or is this water down standard only allowed for some based, on political science and the best airliner crash scare tactics?
Again I cannot judge man made or natural climate change, either way. However, but I can point to philosophy of sconce and how theory is more reliable, if two or more sets of full experiments are run, instead of a 1/2 test of a new concept, or less.
