Everything there correct. Climate was always changing. Mix of natural and manmade.
The extent of which is manmade is certainly debated, but it's pretty clear that (scientifically) we're not talking a debate between a little bit and a lot. It's a lot. i.e. is man 80% responsible or 99.999% for observed warming? The low numbers are politically motivated, as all things political end up as people taking extreme sides on both ends.
I do agree though, that the same people that are preaching "do something!!!" aren't ready for what would need to happen. Can we still have heated homes, air conditioning, cars, abundant food? With zero emissions. No. With reduced emissions, yes, but it will cost considerably more with questionable actual impact since we are only a small portion of the globe. And those costs will hit the poor the hardest. And a market leads not by company's or government, but by people's choices. So to make change you have to have people willing to voluntarily pay more for what they already have. That's tough. It happens some with the rich and middle class, as you see the rise of electric vehicles and solar panels and people putting geothermal wells in and the like. But getting it more widespread through early adoption and getting costs down to the masses will be a slow process. As is most things political, it doesn't boil down to a "do something" or "do nothing" question. It boils down to a "how much, how fast" question. We need to address it with both prevention and adaptation. We should limit global warming to the degree that's realistic, as well as be prepared to adapt to a changing climate. In the end, it's about what hurts more? Adapting to climate change or massive economic impact of solving it? Frankly, that's not as cut and dry a question as either liberals or conservatives like to portray it. And the real path forward is a little bit of both. Which, we're doing here in the U.S. Emissions per person are down considerably over the last 10-20 years and overall we've done better than most countries. Leading the world in electric vehicle innovation to make them realistic. Fastest change in energy infrastructure.
But, this is all a hijack of this thread. A wet spring in PA should not be chalked up to climate change. That's weather, not climate. In this case a persistent trough in the southern jet out west kept cold air in place, with an equally persistent ridge over the gulf streaming warm humid air north. Cold air meets hot and humid = thunderstorms and severe weather in the Midwest and great lakes region. Same with hurricanes and everything else. Sure, over a period of multiple decades you may be able to say there were a few more or a few less hurricanes on average, that our climate got a little wetter or drier, or whatever else. But a storm or short term weather pattern (lasting weeks, months or even a few years) should not be blamed on climate change. They happen. Always have. Always will.
int:
