Get used to it.

Fail-boat.

CO2 makes no difference. If anything, you have suggested that higher CO2 levels cool the Earth.

Every previous Inter-Glacial Period was warmer and with higher sea levels than this one, even though CO2 levels were lower.

So, we do the Pol Pot-Stalin-NAZI thing to "save" the Earth and temperatures still rise, ice sheets and glaciers still melt, and the sea level still rises another 4 meters to 13 meters.

Everyone horrendously suffers and what did we accomplish? Nothing, because the Earth warmed and melted the glaciers/ice sheets and caused sea levels to rise anyway.

In the end, Mother Earth wins and this Inter-Glacial Periods ends up being exactly like all the previous Inter-Glacial Periods.

 

"Worst in living memory." Whose memory? Living how long? The claim has no weight.

 

The rainfall has not been so unprecedented. Government incompetence, on the other hand . . .
New Study On Heavy Rainfall: “General Long-Term Trend For Whole Germany Consistently Not Evident”
By P Gosselin on 25. July 2021

Share this...
Leibnitz scientists find no significant trends for the whole of Germany in terms of heavy rainfall
We hear the message all the time from the German mainstream media and climate alarmists: Weather extremes are becoming more and more frequent, as the recent flood shows.

But a recent paper titled “Frequency Trend Analysis of Heavy Rainfall Days for Germany” by Deumer et al (2020) tells a very different story.

Hat-tip: Axel Bojanowski.

The two scientists from the renowned Leibnitz research network analyzed data and found no significant trends for the whole of Germany in terms of heavy rainfall. . . .

 

Thank goodness you are around to point out what thousands of climate scientists forgot to take in to account. (wink)

But Milankovitch cycles can’t explain all climate change that’s occurred over the past 2.5 million years or so. And more importantly, they cannot account for the current period of rapid warming Earth has experienced since the pre-Industrial period (the period between 1850 and 1900), and particularly since the mid-20th Century. Scientists are confident Earth’s recent warming is primarily due to human activities — specifically, the direct input of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/...l-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

 

https://climate.copernicus.eu/warme...eat-arctic-copernicus-releases-european-state

 

The only time I thought seriously about climate was when oklahoma had a "tornado drought" a few years back. Totally out of the norm. But the media didn't think it had anything to do with climate change. It didn't serve as a propaganda tool I guess. We went back to our normal tornados the next year and climate change was all over the news...interesting to watch the media as they grab on to opportunities to hype up normal weather.

 

Wrong. Try again?
https://www.nationalacademies.org/b...ing-is-contributing-to-extreme-weather-events

 

Handy article to make any event a reason to believe in man made climate change lol. But the media missed the message. Could have been a good opportunity for them. We are back to normal now so they use "normal" as ammunition.

 

Just the facts, man.

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather

 

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

https://news.yahoo.com/mega-drought-depletes-system-provides-132518959.html

 

In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...se-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science

Hansen is the Grand Imperial Kleagle Wizard of man-made global-warming.

Like you, he ignores the fact that for the 2.5 Billion years prior to the Great Oxygenation Event, the CO2 level was 26% or 26,000 ppm.

Yet nothing happened, other than (embarrassingly) two Snowball Earths.

But, we're supposed to believe that a few centuries of "high" CO2 levels will destroy Earth in an incredibly short period of geologic time.

If you truly want to impress us, then explain why this Inter-Glacial Period should be different, which is a question you have been dodging.

The IPCC refuses to take reality and science into account because they are pushing political, social and economic agendas.

You also ignore the disingenuous position of the IPCC, whose charter is to investigate man-made global warming.

That would be like a cancer research center investigating only tobacco-related causes of cancer to the exclusion of all other possible causes. There are other causes, including DNA, radiation, organic toxins and virus.

You also demonstrate no understanding of Academia.

Once a position is established, right or wrong, there is no backing down because their professional reputations are staked on that position.

Take the hilarious Land-Bridge Theory which has been debunked but supporters tenaciously cling to it.

I never said it did and as a point of fact, I have repeatedly debunked the claim that Milankovitch Cycles are the cause of climate change.

There isn't one Glacial or Inter-Glacial Period that corresponds to any of the three cycles.

The claim that the Cycles do have an effect is based on faulty interpretation of the data by non-starters.

Yes, for a time, Glacial Periods lasted ~40,000 years which appears to the not-too-bright to correspond to the 41,000-year axial tilt cycle, but not one of those cycles lines up even remotely close.

Yes, after the Mid-Pleistocene Event, Glacial Periods started lasting 80,000 to 120,000 years and the average, but not the median, is 100,000 years and appears to correspond to the 100,000-year orbital cycle, but again, not one lines up even remotely close.

 

An EU organization supporting EU policy.

Europe’s Frosty Spring: Germany Sees Coldest April in 40 Years… Frost Frequency Of “Unusual Dimension”

By P Gosselin on 2. May 2021

Germany’s April, 2021, was the coldest in 40 years, and the frostiest in over 90 years, according to the country’s DWD national weather service. Solar panels covered by snow in northern Germany in early April. Photo by P. Gosselin When warmer than normal temperatures get recorded, the German DWD national weather service is usually quick […]

 

I'm sure, Jack, you are eagerly awaiting the report from actual climate scientists due August 6 that will refute everything you've come to believe by listening to those on the fringe, many paid by legacy energy companies.

https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382

 

That's an easy dodge for climate alarmists to explain away their lack of actual evidence. The two scientific skeptics whose arguments I find most persuasive have nothing to do with any energy companies.

 

Some people trust government to a fault.

 

"Tribalism" is an apt word in this debate. Koonin's book may one day be viewed as a landmark.
The Corrosive Tribalism of Climate Science

Tom Chivers, UnHerd

". . . They attack Koonin’s credibility and credentials, his temperament. They say he was only hired by the Obama Energy Department because of his contrarian views; they call him a “climate denier”, which seems de trop since he accepts most of the central claims of the climate consensus. The response felt more like a circling of the wagons than a serious effort to counter a serious argument. After all, it is unpleasant to hear reasons why you might be wrong about something: cognitive dissonance is painful.

I started this book confident that climate change is a serious concern, and I finished it only slightly less confident; Koonin has not persuaded me. But I’m glad Unsettled, flawed though it is, has been written. As I said at the beginning, science in a politically charged environment is very hard to assess. Scientists are as prone to groupthink and motivated reasoning as anyone else, and I know very well that there are some who feel they need to keep heterodox views quiet. The reviews, which make so little effort to engage with the substance of the arguments, do not reassure me that climate science is a uniquely groupthink-free discipline. . . . "

 

They don't need a dodge since they have actual evidence.

One wonders why legacy energy companies have invested so much in disinformation. The answer is easy..........$$$$$$$$$$.

https://theleaflet.org/home-1/corporations-climate-denial

 

That the true believers don’t realize is that all the alarmism is based on the worst case least likely computer model RCP 8.5.

 

Just more Trump-style conspiracy theorizing.

 

Are there particular facts you dispute or do you dismiss all of them for good measure?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-companies-climate-crisis-pr-spending

 

Oil industry spending to influence the climate debate approaches zero. This is just activist whining.
Let’s do follow the climate money!
2018 › 12 › 30 › lets-do-follow-the-climate-money
The climate crisis industry incessantly claims that fossil fuel emissions are causing ... planet. The only solution, Climate Crisis, Inc. insists, is to eliminate the oil, coal and natural gas that

 

A case that will, like ALL their other fearmongering cases, overestimate warming and ignore the impact of solar cycles on the Earth's climate.

Per usual.

I'll be concerned with Muh Glowbull Warmin' when Obama sells his beach house at a loss.

 

Less and less to worry about.
Empirical evidence of declining global vulnerability to climate-related hazards
Charles Rotter
Results show a clear decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability, with global average mortality and economic loss rates that have dropped by 6.5 and nearly 5 times, respectively,…

Giuseppe Formettaa Luc Feyenb

Fincons Group, Vimercate, Via Torri Bianche 10, Pal. Betulla, 20871, Vimercate (MB), Italy
European Commission, Joint European Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
Received 9 January 2019, Revised 7 May 2019, Accepted 14 May 2019, Available online 25 May 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.004 Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license open access

Highlights

• We quantified the dynamics of socio-economic vulnerability to climate-related hazards.•
• A decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability is evident.•
• Global average mortality and loss rates have dropped by 6.5 and nearly 5 times, respectively, from 1980 to 1989 to 2007–2016.•
• Results also show a clear negative relation between vulnerability and wealth. . . .

 

Alarmists cherry pick data to alarm people with a false narrative.
Phony Climate Trends: Alarmists Caught Hiding Large Quantities Of Historical Data
By P Gosselin on 28. July 2021

Share this...
Climate alarmism is looking increasingly like organized fraud and deception.

A German YouTube video reveals a number of charts prepared by Tony Heller illustrating how climate alarmists hide data in order to produce an alarming impression of the globe’s climate.

Today we present 4 pairs of charts to show how climate alarmists carefully cherrypick their start points and ignore all the available data in order to create totally phony climate scenarios. . . .

 

Only the hype is increasing.
Mainstream Media Silent on New Study Showing Deaths Associated with Temperature Extremes Declining