I already discussed why this framing makes sense and certainly isn't bogus - if 'the hottest day since records began' were just some random outlier in a climate that wasn't changing much overall, then yes, it would be cherrypicking data and not very meaningful. But we both know that's not the case. It's true that we should be looking at years and decades, not at individual days, to say anything meaningful about climate change - but as it turns out, the data for years and decades is saying just the same thing.

No solution is perfect, but we don't have the luxury to sit around and do nothing for decades while scientists work on inventing superior alternatives. Will we have wasted some money in hindsight by investing into technologies that are later rendered obsolete, yes, no doubt - but not nearly as much money as we'd lose by just sitting back.

Good for you, but most people wouldn't agree.