Hi Misla

I thought before reading your article that you were taking the mickey.
But alas no. You are one of those persons who attributes mental illness or cognitive impairment to those who dont share your views.

What do you say to the proposition that most punters have short memories? For example who recalls the drought of '65-68 in NSW or further back the drought from 1937-46? Or in UK, who remembers the droughts or 'record' hot summers of 1954, 1976 etc?

I grant you that the world is in a warming phase, but it is hubris to use your expertise in psychology to explain climate.
There is a huge samizdat literature by scientists who dont buy the meme about catastrophic man-made climate change. You could read Roy Spencer's Inconvenient Deception for starters.

Those who believe global warming is a threat are gullible. Any global warming we can get will be beneficial, overall. Most people do not have the necessary background to challenge the beliefs of the alarmists and activists, so are incapable of doing objective, credibility checks.

Most people are not aware of the paleo evidence. Earth is currently in about the severest icehouse condition it has experienced in the past 540 million years (Ma)
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/9mhexie60w4ho2f2/images/1-9fa3d55a6c.jpg
(Source: Figure 15 here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions ).
It is in a rare state of having polar ice caps. For only 75% of the past 540 Ma there has been no ice at either pole.

Global mean surface temperature (GMST) is currently 15C, i.e. 2.6C above the last glacial maximum (LGM), 13C below extreme hothouse, and 11C below hothouse. Average over the Phanerozoic Eon is about 7C warmer than now – which fossil evidence suggests is the optimum temperature for life on Earth. So, there is no threat of catastrophic warming. Any warming that does occur this century will be beneficial.

The temperature range from LGM to the Triassic maximum is 15.5C. GMST is currently 2.6C above the LGM. That is, at present GMST is just 17% above the bottom of the temperature range between extreme icehouse and extreme hothouse.

The last time Earth’s climate transitioned from icehouse to hothouse conditions was 300 Ma ago, and that transition took 40 million years.

There is no threat. Global warming is beneficial. Climate change alarmists need to do these sorts of reality checks.

More links:
Paleomap Project: http://www.scotese.com/Default.htm

Plate tectonic animations over the past 750 Ma. https://youtu.be/tObhGzHH2aw

Cretaceous Greenhouse: http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~jean/paleo/Lectures/Lecture_4.pdf

The main reason people fail to prioritise climate change is that its an ongoing part of nature driven primarily by solar activity and the earth's distance and orientation to the sun. Those with cognitive ability realise there's nothing we can do about it.

I think the best use of climate scientists it to throw them into an active volcano to appease the climate gods.

The idea of man-made climate change has always been rubbish and it will always be rubbish, no matter how many people think they have something new or different to say about a subject which sane people are sick and tired of having shoved down their throats.

What people are concerned about are skyrocketing power prices and Australian politicians' dumb refusal to do something about it - starting with getting out of the Paris Accord fraud.

The author writes: "Yet the Turnbull Government has done little to prioritise any initiatives to combat the effects of global warming and Australians allow greenhouse gas emissions to continue to rise." Can she advise what difference to global atmospheric CO2 levels will there be if Australia was to decarbonise its economy overnight? Our reduction of 1.3% of global emissions would be swamped within a few weeks by new coal-fired power plants being built and operated in many of the world's developing countries, so our efforts and trillion dollar plus expenditure would be totally futile.

Yet Australia is a rich country and anthropogenic climate change is real, so what should we do? Answer: spend money not on subsidising inefficient and ineffective renewables but on R&D and commercialisation of the new technologies the world (especially the developing countries) needs to reduce our carbon footprint while providing despatchable, industrial-scale energy. Alternatively, we could spend our money on developing geoengineering methods that will cheaply, effectively and safely remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

More interesting than another article on climate change jiggery poky is one I have just read advising that, in Texas, electricity costs 14 cents per kwh: about a third of what I pay in the failed state of South Australia. All down to the much-maligned Donald Trump, who has also been responsible for the second quarter growth rate of 4% in the U.S. We really need to do something about our hopeless politicians, who definitely fit into the 'not suitable for purpose’ category.

Just how stupid are these people?

In her second sentence she refutes her whole piece in stating "Australia experiences the driest autumn since 1902", then blames this dry period on today's higher levels of CO2. You have to wonder if this woman could make change foe a $5 bus ticket from a $10 note, without a calculator.

It always shows that these things are written by fools, who don't even understand what they are saying. She then waffles on about record temperatures, perhaps not even knowing far hotter events occurred in the late 1800s, now expunged from the referred to history.

Academia must be getting desperate to enlist dills like this one to push their scam. This sort of rubbish will bring a few more useful idiots to their senses each time they appear.

It really is frightening to realise that courts have depended on the advice of dills like this one in assessing criminals.

Dr Burger used rock samples in his research into the end Permian mass extinction, he analysed chemical particles from his rock samples which supported the view already reached by other researchers that greenhouse gases had been instrumental in the mass extinction that had occurred. Dr Burger had found particles that were contingent with molten larva igniting coal seams.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/323402270_What_caused_Earth%27s_largest_mass_extinction_event_New_evidence_from_the_Permian-Triassic_boundary_in_northeastern_Utah

Michael Benton, in film also says that it had been greenhouse gases that had created the mass dying at the end of the Permian Epoch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=envK-qWyDU0

The PETM was also a Epoch when mass dying took place, greenhouse gases were involved, though it is not clear which greenhouse gas was the main contributor.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180809125546.htm

Nathaniel Rich wrote a 30,000 word article for the New York Times magazine where he traced the history of a general acceptance that climate changes a major matter to conservative politicians and their retinue halting any action. The conservative politicians and their staff were able to set up a social climate enabling denier Agencies such as Heartlands to receive funding from fossil fuel companies to discredit climate science. It is necessary to register to see the article in full, Rich has interviewed scores of people for his article.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html

Professor Mann has stated recently that currently we are in a crisis in relation to climate, do nothing and it will become catastrophic. Already huge numbers of people are being killed through climate change. It has been stated over 4,000 have died as result of Hurricane Maria on Puerto Rico.

It is a difficult proposition to argue against recent mega research as provided by:

http://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/

Misia Temier may be skilled in memory related areas, but she displays her ignorance of the underlying science when it comes to ‘climate change’ by accepting without question the unsubstantiated claims and scaremongering made by the IPCC and its followers.

If you believe the IPCC, only ~3.8% of total emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere arise from burning fossil fuels (IPCC AR5) with another .5% from land use change.

The major source of emissions, some 95.7% they admit, are all from a multitude of natural sources. Carbon dioxide emissions increase as a consequence of temperature increase (good supportive science) therefore to claim that they have become the principle cause of the warming is mendacious.

Historically the world has predominately been considerably warmer than it is now, without the runaway catastrophic scenario she enthusiastically but fancifully embraces.

Carbon dioxide is only a minor greenhouse gas, swamped by water vapour in both the radiation spectrum it operates in and in its atmospheric concentration.

Carbon dioxide is a vital plant food and the well recorded current ‘greening of the Earth’ (NASA) as a result of increasing levels, bears testimony to its many benefits for all biota, including mankind.

We are now living at the low end of historic levels of this trace gas, (at just over 400 parts per million) and increasing these levels will continue to be beneficial (thousands of trials).

Climate has always changed. When we eventually, inevitably return to full glacial conditions again, we will really have something genuine to worry about.

More on the most devastating effect of the carbon dioxide con - massive increases in the cost of electricity: Tony Abbott has told Ray Hadley that the NEG is seriously bad policy. It does not concentrate on reducing price, which is the only thing that really counts for consumers, but it is all about reducing (harmless) emissions. The NEG model is “fanciful”.

Inconvenient or not! There can be no longer any doubt that climate change is real and we have caused some of it.

Or that only the most recalcitrant dunderheads will continue to vote for troglodytes who think it's all CRAP and even want to use taxpayer's money to build new coal-fired power station?

or equally gormless somehow believe we can all go vegan even as the drought bites ever deeper into food production and turns former salad bowls into dust bowls.

Why!?

So that some foreigners and their local spit lickle lackeys can avoid sovereign risk!? And or, continue to earn, coal-fired dividends?

And that the only solution in real prospect! That serves us all rather than a privileged few or inner city latte sipping green dunderheads is nuclear power.

Not just any nuclear power but rather thorium and walk away safe MSR!

And with it obtain CHEAPER THAN COAL, SAFER THAN COAL AND MUCH, MUCH CHEAPER THAN COAL, dispatchable reliable, AFFORDABLE power!

And use just some of it to DROUGHT PROOF this wide brown land and now before one more farmer is driven to prematurely ending his or her own life!

And it's not because can't is or ever was part of the equation!

Just bloody-minded politicking WON'T! Won't have a royal commision into power pricing, because what that might actually reveal!?

LIKE A LABOR PARTY WHOSE POLICY PARADIGMS NEVER INCLUDE WALK AWAY SAFE, THORIUM BASED, MSR! CHEAP, SAFE, CHEAP, CLEAN CHEAP, RELIABLE, CHEAP, AFFORDABLE, CHEAP, DISPATCHABLE POWER.

WHY?

BECAUSE STUPID, IT'S NOT LABOR PARTY POLICY! AND ENDLESSLY REPEATED HOWEVER THE QUESTION IS PHRASED OR PUT!

AND POSSIBLY BECAUSE OF ESTIMATED POWER PRICES AS LOW AS A VERY CHEAP 2 CENTS PER KWH!? THINK WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO ENERGY DEPENDANT GOVERNMENT REVENUE!?

And or, from the same boneheads who think climate change is CRAP and GW is just a scam of a hitherto impossible scale, JUST TO MAKE MONEY!?

UNBELIEVABLE AND MASSIVELY IRRESPONSIBLE! OR EVEN TO EVEN CONSIDER VOTING FOR THESE CLOWNS EVER AGAIN!
Alan B.

I am not attributing differences in opinion to mental illness or cognitive impairment. Nor am I using my expertise in psychology to explain climate. I am using my expertise in memory and psychology to illustrate that differences among people's approaches to climate change are related to imagination, goal orientation and identity consistency.

I think all of us fail to imagine our environment permanently changing, otherwise we would not gamble with climate change. The natural disasters experienced in the past have been transient. We can't imagine our environment not bouncing back. Although experiencing devastation through traumatic or near death experiences does impact one's approach to the future. A survey conducted by the Institute for Future found that individuals who have had a brush with mortality are more likely to imagine and plan for distant future events. http://www.iftf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/IFTF_TheAmericanFutureGap_Survey_SR-1948.pdf

Contrary to what people are saying on this post, there is a very small percentage of climate scientists who believe that climate change is NOT related to human activity. A review of peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is likely due to human activity. Sadly, polarisation of politics and the media have divided people over accepting or denying climate science and scientific methods in general.

The sun can and does affect the climate. And like now, when in a traditional waning (since the mid-seventies, NASA) phase we can expect cooling or even an ice age! The real inconvenient and adroitly avoided or ignored truth!

So genius why is it as hot as it is and why are we deep in a huge nationwide unprecedented drought!?

Not record upon record heat wave and even in 2017 the second hottest year on record during a La Nina event! What, no El Nino to somehow blame? AS USUAL, GENIUS.

Even so, the usual coal-fired dunderheads keep on inventing reasons to continue with coal-fired power, and for numerous reasons i.e., it's not party policy, or even if we did stop burning coal we would affect very little!?

[ Except maybe my possibly undeclared or covertly hidden, in some family trust or disreputable tax haven? Dividend stream?]

Not so, given the minute we reindustrialise this nation and turn the economic ship around with seriously cheaper MSR thorium based energy!?

The rest of the world will know they have to follow suit, with the possible 2 cents per KwH, to remain in the game we call the global economy.

A good businessman knows when it's time to cut the losses and get out. We here may not be able to affect climate change much at first, but we can turbocharge our economy reinstate our manufacturing sector and drought-proof this wide brown land! VERY DOABLE!

Now, even the most hardened sceptic can hardly argue against that but the less intelligent will, even as every bit of reality is ignored in the air-conditioned armchair comfort that separates the coal-fired devotees from the literal reality!
Alan B.

"Contrary to what people are saying on this post, there is a very small percentage of climate scientists who believe that climate change is NOT related to human activity. A review of peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is likely due to human activity."

The problem is that 'climate scientists' are not real scientists because their beliefs stifle observation, thinking and testing. Scientific consensus is an oxymoron. Science advances only by debate. Peer review doesn't work because the supposed majority agree with each other and block the real scientists who disagree. As usual 97% of published scientists are wrong, and it's up to the very few to achieve progress.

Yes, we can and have adapted if the change was very gradual and over possibly thousands of years but not when it's as explosive as current granny killing climate change where record heat waves tumble like nine pins in a bowling alley.

And in temporal terms, that's what is currently upon us with little or no time to adapt.

Perhaps given a few million years we could develop gills and return to the oceans from whence we allegedly came or in the case of bovine whales and or their cousins, dolphins, returned?

There is some evidence of similar rapid temperature around 90 million years ago, due to unprecedented volcanic activity and a quite massive yet comparative rise in ambient global temperature!?

And where just 2C was enough to melt the permafrost, releasing millions of tons of formerly frozen methane which then combined with the record levels of CO2 to raise average ambient temperatures by a total of 5C.

5C being enough to turn the UK into a windswept salt laden desert where nothing grew. Similar or worse conditions prevailed elsewhere and just prevented pant life from re-establishing, meaning the herbivores died out starved and when no more, the opportunistic omnivores and carnivores followed suit.

And all the in the paleogeological record (an open book) as all life very nearly destroyed? For those with eyes to read!

And remember, nothing of any worth is achieved or accomplished by shooting the messenger!
Alan B.

Dumbed down academia. No wonder Donald wants to drain the swamp. Really and they call this the enlightened age.

97% of scientists DO NOT agree that global warming is man-made. That percentage of people is made up of all sorts off odds and sods who are making money out of the scam; and most of them are not scientists; and, there is merely a CONSENSUS, which is not scientific proof. They all agree with with the ruse. There are no 'peer-reviewed’ findings. That's just another one of the lies put about by the rent-seekers. The only science involved is junk science, which has tarnished the good name of honest scientists for ever.

The biggest threat to gw is truth and facts. No wonder some professors don't even know a human with a penis is a boy.

Thank you Misia for your article.
As a 20+ year old I used to go skiing every weekend possible, I gave up when the slopes had less reliable snow and took up wind surfing instead. That's almost 40 years ago.
I have read about climate change for a number of years and the predictions made are now coming about. There had been talk of storm surges for example which we now experience.
As a youngster flash flooding on a weekly or more basis, was not experienced somewhere on the planet, as it is now.

Palaeo-climatology has come a long way since the 1970s, we now understand that greenhouse gases have had a huge impact on climate in the past.

Many science disciplines dovetail into the science of climate change.

Dear Dr Mesisa Temler,

Please don't be overly concerned about our resident deniers, theirs is not disbelief brought on by analysing the science rather they are so invested in the politics that any idea of shifting their stance gives the poor dears the vapours.

They can be likened to a typical bunch of barflies, always far down the end of the bar, a little too old, a little too thick and a little too ornery to be moved.

I have just returned from a meeting on water flows and the farmers there, some fourth generation, were acutely aware of the impact of climate change. Their aren't many sceptics down our way among those who live on the land.

It is important also to remember that we shouldn't be measuring just how hot or dry one year is compared to the past especially if it is happening far more frequently than in the past.

'Climate has always changed. When we eventually, inevitably return to full glacial conditions again, we will really have something genuine to worry about."

....not if we don't burn all the fossil fuel. Reserving it now and going nuclear leaves it ready to burn when we need to heat the planet by raising CO2 concentration later.

Beneficial warming? Asian monsoon crops failing so Siberians can grow grapes will not be beneficial. The human dislocation and warring alone will put the "C" into CAGW.

Misia said:

“I think all of us fail to imagine our environment permanently changing, otherwise we would not gamble with climate change.”

This statement is founded on the hypothesis that carbon dioxide emissions resulting from man’s activities, chiefly from burning fossil fuels, has a significant warming influence on climate. In fact the IPCC claim it has become the principle cause. They provide no empirical evidence however to support this extraordinarily claim, only circumstantial evidence and deficient, tweaked and unverified computer models.

The facts are, if there is any warming at all from this insignificant addition of 4.3% to the overwhelmingly predominant natural emissions, it is too small to measure.

If you bothered to check the science and observations for yourself, you would find that this is the case and that the naive acceptance by many of the general public and the media is a result of the deliberate selective use of the facts, manipulation of temperature and other data, denigration and denial of anyone with an alternative viewpoint, etc., all designed to support their pre-determined agenda. That is not science.

Nor is science about consensus, as other contributors to this site have correctly pointed out. It is about continually observing and checking the veracity of the current state of knowledge and changing your opinion when the evidence and facts change.

The facts about ‘climate change’ are clear, the current hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming are demonstrably incorrect, on numerous readily demonstrated counts. The vested interests pushing it however are very powerful and simply deny anything that conflicts with their assumptions. That is not science.

Until an independent public inquiry, looking at all the facts, science and evidence is established, much time, energy and scarce financial and other resources and opportunity will continue to be lost.

Gambling with the truth about ‘climate change’ is done at inordinate cost.

Dr Misia,

You say: "I think all of us fail to imagine our environment permanently changing, otherwise we would not gamble with climate change. "

This shows you start with a believe and a bias. You accept those who align with your ideological beliefs. You do not challenge your beliefs as a good scientist would. You just accept the world of some authorities, and ignore the others. That is like pre-enlightenment times when the priest were believed over observational evidence.

There is so much wrong with what you believe, it's impossible to know where to start educating you. But clearly, your mind is closed anyway.

Why don't you at least consider the points I made in my first comment (second comment on this thread).

Yesterday it was fake news, today it is fake memories.

Dear Ian McClintock,

You wrote;

“This statement is founded on the hypothesis that carbon dioxide emissions resulting from man’s activities, chiefly from burning fossil fuels, has a significant warming influence on climate”

You will need to let us know what your issue is. Is it accepting that man made emissions are responsible for the increase in atmospheric carbon or that the increase is responsible for the rise in temperatures?

Gawd ! When will some people get to a stage where they can accept that the planet is ever-changing ?
So what humans are adding to global warming/cooling etc. When the plant's had enough it'll let us know in no uncertain terms. Eventually, our stupidity will get its just reward.
Whatever we do now will not ever get us back to a climate that was when we first emerged & stood on two feet. Besides, there aren't enough caves to house us all for a life style the Greens want us to go back to. Stop stressing about, it'll hit sooner than even the mad greens expect.

Peter Lang ... did you read the reference provided by Christopher Robert Scotese. The Abstract and the 3rd paragraph of Part 1 discuss the impact of CO2.

A quote from Peter Lang's reference:

"But Nature may not have its way. Things have changed. We have changed things. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere during the last 200 years of human industry has amplified this natural warming trend and the average global temperature has risen rapidly. The average global temperature was 12 ̊ C during the Last Glacial Maximum (21,000 years ago). During the following Interglacial period, the average global temperature slowly rose to 13.8 ̊C. Since 1880, it has increased another .6 ̊ degrees to 14.4 ̊C ( as of 2015). This rate of warming is ~50 times faster1 than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years."

Investigations a bit further did not provide confidence.

Climate Change is a one way ticket to eternal victimhood just like all the other leftist causes.

- Stick that in your 'psychology' pipe and smoke it.

They think they can steal from me if they can make me feel guilty and frightened.

Is it the feeling that one is the victim of climate change, that gives them the justification to act the way they do?
- Acting like Nazi's against anyone who doesn't agree with them?

(Do progressive's act more Nazi than the Nazi's themselves I wonder... But I digress)

Are progressive's not running around screaming they are the victims of everything?

Are any of their gripes reasonable or are they all over-exaggerated?

It's the idea they're victims which makes them do what they do.

Victimhood pays its dividends in blame and guilt, did anyone see South Park S21E10?

If not you should, its Psychology for dummies, in cartoon form.

Armchair Critic .. so you do not believe in the scientific method. Physics and Chemistry underpin climate science.

Here is a quote from a Abstract of a reference from an article provided by Peter Lang:

"The Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum, approximately 55 million years ago, was a brief period of widespread, extreme climatic warming, that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input."

Sluijs, A., Schouten, S., Pagani, M., Woltering, M., and Brinkhuis, W., et al., 2006. Subtropical Arctic Ocean temperatures during the Palaeocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum, Nature, v. 441, pp. 610-613.

My speculation is that Peter Lang derived his reference from a denier site with the initials NT run by a fellow with the initial R for family name. The same site has tried to pass off numerous references in relation to the sun fully influencing climate, where authors of the research have acknowledged anthropogenic climate change. The NT site has an ironic name as it uses trickery, it misconstrues the sciencific papers it quotes to make points consistent with denier viewpoints.

Ant,

You haven't a clue what other people's background, training and experience are, nor what they've read. By making guesses and pejorative comments you show you are not capable of rational discussion.

You have clearly not understood the magnitude of the changes and time frames involved. Nor how far the planet is below optimum temperature for life on Earth. You also incapable of seeing obvious errors in what you read -s such as Scotese's comparisons of rates over different base periods - it's invalid to compare a rate of change over 140 years with a rate over 21,000 years. You continually make a fool of yourself.

First a little fact-checking:

* "A review of peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is likely due to human activity." Nup. Said review was of a certain subset of articles and, when examined by chosen alarmists, found that 97% of the articles (not scientists) could be read to say that the article supported the view that some portion of GW was caused by man. (Some of the authors of those articles have disputed the claims about their own articles). There was nothing about what scientists think about the future temperature trend or how dangerous (or beneficial) warming might get.But the 97% figure is used as a substitute for thinking.

* " Scientists predict that if temperatures rise more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, we will suffer harm to.." etc etc. Nup, the 2°C figure is a politic number not a scientific one. There is no science to show that it is any more or less dangerous (or beneficial) than say 1.8 or 2.5. We do know that temperatures exceeded the 2°C level many times in the past 12000 years and those periods have corresponded to advances in human welfare.

* "Australians allow greenhouse gas emissions to continue to rise." Nup. Emissions per capita to December 2017 have fallen 36.3 per cent since 1990. Total emissions have fallen 11.7% since 2005. According to the Department of Environment, emissions did increase in 2017 primarily due to: "The expansion in LNG exports, with an estimated production increase of 41.4 per cent over the previous year, was the major contributor to this increase in emissions."

/cont

/cont

* "Stephan Lewandowsky and his colleagues found..." Any thesis that relies even tangentially on Lowandowsky is by definition false....(Lowandowsky scam)

http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/08/lewandowsky-scam/

_________________________________________________________________

I'll believe climate change is a serious problem when those who say its a problem start acting like its a problem. For example, if we truly believed our future relied on us reducing emissions by 30% over the next two decades we could do so through two measures. But those who whine about emissions would, in the main, oppose those measures thereby showing how much they really believe the scare. The measures?....

1. Stop population grow. Our per capita emissions are falling while our population is increasing by about 1% pa. Stop all immigration and emissions would fall by over 1% pa (or 15% by 2030) through that measure alone.
2. The US is the most successful nation in the world at reducing emissions. How? Fracking. Moving power production from coal to gas. If we allowed unfettered fracking we'd do the same and significantly further reduce our emissions .

But neither measure is supported by the powers that be. Why? if they truly believe their claims then they'd do whatever necessary to save the world. The don't because they don't.

______________________________________________________________

Does anyone remember the recovered memories scare of the late 1990s? False memories were 'recovered' by patients and many a life ruined based on the implanting of 'memories' of things that never happened....

http://www.jimhopper.com/child-abuse/recovered-memories/

The author wants society to implant false memories into the populace so as to 'encourage' us to do what the author considers to be the right thing.

There's many a scary notion coming out of the authoritarian left. This is right up there in scariness.

Peter Lang ... your criticism cuts the other way as well.
There are Geologists who do not share your opinion; for example, Dr Burger, reference provided.

" This is the first study to examine barium content across the Permian-Triassic boundary, and it provides evidence that upwelling of methane hydrate in the oceans followed the initial acidification event. Ocean anoxia (absence of oxygen) is suggested by the unusual deposition of pyrite within the shallow marine waters of the once coastal sediments of northeastern Utah. Precession orbital geochemical variation is observed in the stratigraphic section allowing a finer temporal resolution beyond any previously published section. Together, this dataset gives a unique picture of an ancient cataclysm that altered life on Earth. This study is a cautionary tell of what can happen if we do not heed the warnings of the geological past."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323402270_What_caused_Earth%27s_largest_mass_extinction_event_New_evidence_from_the_Permian-Triassic_boundary_in_northeastern_Utah

Records go back further than 140 years, through proxy data obtained from sediments, ice cores, tree rings, pollen, historic written data, and corals.

I have provided a reference to Professor Michael Benton, Palaeontologist, previously who would dispute your comments.
Professor Will Steffen et al have recently had a research article published about heading towards a man made "hothouse climate".

As Hasbeen
pointed out , according to this author their was a drought and heat like now,
back in Autumn 1902.

Hardly a one off occurrence then, is it.

Someone said “we’ve never had so many flash floods.”
As if rivers haven’t always flooded.

The only difference now is the satellite news, beaming it from around the world into your lounge room.
And with ever expanding human populations there are more villages and towns built on old river flood plains, then there were 50 years ago.

I remain unconvinced until they show me where this global warming is.
I see no weather events I haven’t seen before in my lifetime. Nigel Farage said the Artic pole had 60% more ice mass last winter.

The left wing is the politics of victimhood. Global warming allows them to be victims of
bad people making money off coal.
There’s plenty of corrupt science professors being paid 100,000$ salaries by politicians
trying to win the green votes and delusional globalist(communist),leftie votes.

A few inconvenient facts, Misia.

1. The first Global Warming conference held in Europe, rather embarrassingly ccurred during one of the worst recorded snow storms in European history.
2. The Himalayan glaciers did not melt.
3. Climategate, where the "scientists" were caught admitting that the worldwide temperatures were showing no change, and saying that this crucial fact should be kept from the public.
4. The same thing happening in Australia where "scientists" from the weather bureau were found to have "adjusted" 100 year old nationwide historical temperature statistics to conform to the new religious orthodoxy.
5. The "ship of fools", who were Australian climate scientists, who went to Antarctica by ship to prove that Antarctic ice was disappearing, and got stuck in a new ice sheet that had not been there before.
6. Although "scientists" claim that sea levels would rise between 3 meters to 30 meters by 2100 (which would drown half the world), coastal real estate prices are not plummeting anywhere. This seems to indicate that banks and investment organizations (the really smart guys) know it is complete B.S.
7. Most of the USA, including southern states, blanketed in snow in 2014.
8. The original idea of Human Induced Global Warming is on so much shaky scientific ground, that even the UN has exorcised the "Human Induced" bit and now just calls it "Global Warming."
9. The persecution of academics and even their sacking for not towing the Global Warming party line. (Blomberg)
10. The general shift in the tone of the media from self righteous advocacy of global warming to a more impartial position, as the penny drops, that just like with the Millenium Bug and Peak Oil, they have once again been conned.
11. The dams filled again.