CFACT co-sponsors climate and energy conference with EIKE

I have no idea how that website is meant to demonstrate to me the left has taken over the media but, whatever.
If you want to understand why people with left of center political views would more readily accept that action is required on climate change then you need to consider how they think vs people with right wing political views.
First though, get out of your head that politicians invented climate change theory. It was first hypothesised in the 19th century and pretty much all science ever since has reinforced it, increasiyso since the 1970s as all other explanations for warming temperatures, aside from CO2, dropped out of the picture (largely as solar activity has not increased over the solar cycle since then, but temperatures have).
Right wing political theory says that the market is the best way to allocate resources, set prices etc.
Left wing politics says that collective action can solve problems that raw unfettered markets create.
Both are partly true.
When it comes to a problem on a global scale, which of these two camps is going to recognise this as a problem that their thinking is built to fix? It’s not going to be the right wing because in their view collective action breaks markets and misallocates resources. So right wingers reject the solutions to climate change, action to reduce emmissions, agree targets, agree standards, agree funding for adaptation, etc because these are collective measures.
And if they are really committed to prove they are doing the right thing, they actually go on to assert that there is actually no problem to be solved at all, happily disregarding overwhelming science in the process.

So that is why the left accepts climate change and the hard right doesn’t. It’s because the right refuses to accept the only solution to a huge global problem, global collective action, so it denies the problem exists at all.

So first, it’s great that you give to charity. Good on you.

The problem with our conversation here stems from what you just said though in terms of weather and climate.

Second I am absolutely NOT calling you stupid. You have not said anything “stupid” at all. It’s just that I think you are still missing the differences that have been measured that have scientists, and most other people outside of the US, very worried.

Like you kindly quoted climate is
“The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation,, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region”
So that means that when you are measuring things to do with the climate you aren’t interested with difference one day to the next or even one season to the next. That is Weather.
When you are studying climate you are looking at changes of prevailing conditions years and decades at a time.
So first we are interested in average temperatures over a period of time, like the whole year. Temperatures on any given day are not interesting to a climate scientists.

Also we are interested in not just one location but every location on the planet. So the scientists have been measuring temperature everyday in hundreds of places across the world, on land and sea for decades so that they can get these yearly average temperatures. So again, seasons don’t matter. They are averaged out by using annual average data.

So then if you take a period of day 10 years, and averaged the temperature across the whole world you would expect it to go up and down a bit but you would expect the average for that decade to be roughly the same as the next decade. There are some big things that happen in the oceans that pull heat out of the atmosphere and into the oceans and then that flips back every 5-7 years. These are La Niña and El Niño events but scientists can measure those and factor them into there readings for average temperatures etc.

So the problem that we see is that since about 100 years ago, the average global temperature has risen by about 1 degree C. That might not sound like much but it has big consequences that we can see.
Firstly, that average temperature is not the same everywhere. The polar regions have warned by much more, 2-3 degrees and the equatorial regions have warned by less. But that is kinda worse than it being an evenly distributed warming. Warming at the poles means that ice sheets melt. A lot. The Greenland ice sheet is dumping 279 BILLION TONNES of melted ice into the ocean each year and that rate of melt is increasing. That has two big problems. The melt itself directly caused sea level rise. More water in the oceans, higher sea levels. To put that in perspective, if the whole Greenland ice sheet melted (which would take over a century as things are going now, but if), then the sea level would rise by 20 feet. So that puts all coastal cities underwater or so prone to flooding that they would be abandoned.
The second problem is that ice reflects incoming sunlight really well, reflecting it back into space. When ice melts, it reveals sea or land. Both are darker than ice and the absorb more heat from the sun than the ice did. That means that even with not more sunlight, the Earth and it’s atmosphere gets warmer. Warmer atmosphere means – more melting ice -> less ice to reflect sunlight -> more warming.
This is caused positive feedback. It’s bad. Another bad positive feedback cycle, potentially even worse is methane locked up in arctic Siberian Tundra. Tundra is frozen peat and soil that has been permanently frozen for thousands of years. It contains a lot of methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than CO2. The tundra is starting to thaw due to warmer temperatures near the North Pole. As it does it releases the frozen methane as gas into the atmosphere. Methane causes warning -> more tundra melts and more methane is released -> more warming etc. And there are billions of tonnes of methane in the tundra. Russians can find holes in the ground where it’s leaking out and spontaneously set light to it. Search YouTube for videos.
So you see when we see that annual average global temperature are up 1 degree in a century, and rising faster than any time we can see in any historical records we see in every temperature record we have (from geology, ice cores, tree rings, etc) over hundreds of thousands of years, then it is a big deal. It’s not the same as the fact that today was warmer than yesterday, or even that this day last year was colder than today, it’s that on average THE WHOLE ATMOSPHERE is getting significantly warmer in a way that has not happened while modern humans have been around. We are due another ice age in about 16000 years based on the normal cycles we can see. Until then, things should just have carried on as they were 100 years ago for millennia. But thanks to us humans and the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 we have caused, that plan is now off. They question is how bad will things get… if we act now and act seriously it won’t be too bad. If we do nothing, it will be very bad indeed. The current central projection based on business as usual is 1.5m sea level rise and global average temperatures up 3 degrees C. That makes much of the Midwest and California unfarmable due to drought. Much of the gulf coast will be subject to catastrophic flooding due to seas level rise and powerful superstorms. Cities like New York, New Orleans, etc will be gone.

Please look at the case FOR this being real before you make your mind up that all the scientists and all the other countries on the world are wrong. I recommend that you start with this video that explains why it is all so controversial even when the science is so one-sided. Your kids and grand kids might really thank you one day
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP