True. It’s also like arguing about whether the water molecules in our last drink were made by recent chemical reactions, or whether it is “old” water that’s been around a while.
I’m in the middle of a statistics unit for my Pre-calc students, and trying to impress on them the significance of standard deviation on normal distributions. If somebody in a study is recording the results of one hundred 50% chance events (100 coin flips), but I secretly interfered with their study by reaching in and choosing one tails to change to a heads result, would this slight favoring of heads be detectable? Not within that single study of 100 results, of course, since that is still well within 1 standard deviation. But if they continue accumulating these 100-toss studies so they have thousands of results to tally, and I continue interfering at the same “modest” 1% rate, pretty soon my interference is detectable, and eventually even extreme! It strikes me that global warming is like that “modest” interference, though how modest or immodest it is may be in question, especially given our recent hurricane experiences over in this part of the world.
[some rewording added…]