[enchiridion]

What’s easier to prove?

A. The climate is getting hotter.

B. Weather events are more “spectacular”.

If the evidence supports the claim, A is clearly easier. If there’s a lack of evidence, B is clearly easier to prove because level is “spectacular ness” has no clear definitions.

Of course someone could probably come up with a spectacularness metric, but at that point there’s so many assumptions you have to make it’s almost a circular argument.

[yongjik]

> A. The climate is getting hotter.

This is, of course, easier to prove. In fact, mountains of evidences support this claim. It can be considered "proven" in the same way the heliocentric theory or the existence of Pangea is considered proven.

The problem is that people don't understand what "average" means, and keep saying things like "If the earth is warming how come my town got record snowfall last winter? This disproves global warming!"

In other words, the renaming of "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" has got nothing to do with the abundance (or lack) of evidences. It's a purely pedagogical issue.