The debate is over, even though it isn't!

The journal Nature recently published an article about a giant snake being discovered in the rain forest in Colombia. It was a very interesting article, all about giant snakes (this one was 12.8 meters or 43 feet long) and how it baffles scientists because snakes shouldn't be able to grow this large, etc. However, hidden in the story (not really hidden, it is clear for anyone to see, but you have to have a good head on your shoulders to catch it) is this statement: "researchers suggest that at the time the region would have had to be 30 to 34 degrees Celsius for the snake to have survived". Wow, that's warm isn't it? To average that in the region. Well, it is the equator so maybe it isn't so warm after all, eh? Well, actually no. The current average temperature around the equator is probably closer to 28 degrees Celsius, so it is quite warm. This flies in the face of what scientists believed about this region and this era. In fact, it calls into question assumptions about temperature in the past which therefore calls into question assumptions made by climate models to try to predict the future. In addition, it clearly shows that the world was a LOT hotter then than it is now. Wait, didn't they say this is the hottest we've ever been, or did I miss the update on that one? At any rate, if the world was 6-8 degrees warmer then than it is now and it didn't explode or destroy all life on Earth but in fact allowed life to thrive, hmm... maybe it's just me, but what then are we worried about?! So, the debate is over huh? There is consensus huh? Well, climate change is real I grant you, but global warming (man-made climate change) remains an unproven hypothesis where the "evidence" to support it is far from conclusive and certainly not something upon which we should base public policy. Nevertheless, the debate is settled and now is the time for action, isn't it?