AGW / climate deniers want people to believe that the scientific community is dishonest and untrustworthy about anthropogenic global warming and its impact on the environment.

Very similar to way Holocaust deniers want people to believe that historians and sociologists are dishonest and untrustworthy about their research on the atrocities committed by Germany during WW2.

Holocaust deniers are absolutely disgusting and AGW / climate deniers are a cancer to humanity and life on our planet.

I wouldn't do either the honour of pissing on them if they were on fire.

Geological and palaeontological evidence suggests the optimum GMST for ecosystems is that which existed around the Early Eocene Climate Optimum and during the ‘Cambrian Explosion’, i.e. ~25–28°C (i.e. ~10–13°C warmer than present).

Mass extinction events:

1. Most major extinction events have been due to bolide impacts, volcanism and ice ages, not global warming

2. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was due to warming but it was less severe than most mass extinctions. “The most dramatic example of sustained warming is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions.”. The PETM occurred when GMST was above optimum for life on Earth.

3. The Permian-Triassic Boundary mass extinction event has recently been reported to have been caused by extensive volcanism that caused acidification and an ice age, not global warming (Baresel et al., 2017)]

4. There appear to have been no major extinction events that were due to global warming when GMST was below the optimum (approximately ~7–13°C above present)

Rapid warming:

5. Even very rapid warming is beneficial for ecosystems. Coxon and McCarron (2009) Figure 15:21 shows temperatures in Ireland, Greenland and Iceland warmed from near LGM temperatures to near current temperatures in 7 years 14,500 years BP and in 9 years 11,500 year BP. Life thrived during these events.

6. Biosphere productivity is increasing during the current warming – the planet has greened by about 14% during 35 years of satellite observations (Donohue et al., 2013), Zhu et al. (2016), Greening of the Earth and it drivers). GMST increased by about 0.4°C during the period analysed (1982–2010)

Biosphere productivity is higher in warmer climates:

7. Biosphere productivity is higher at low latitudes (warmer) than at high latitudes (colder). Gillman et al. (2015) ‘Latitude, productivity and species richness’ – “Contrary to the recent claims, we found strong support for a negative relationship between latitude and annual NPP of forests with all datasets, and NPP was significantly greater in tropical forests than in temperate forests. Vascular plant richness was positively correlated with NPP.”

8. Biomass density (tC/ha) ~10 times higher in tropical rainforests than extratropical: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.13.77

A rough calculation of biosphere and soil organic carbon density from charts A and B shows that carbon density decreases from tropics to high latitudes, as follows (tC/ha versus latitude):
Soil Organic Carbon: y = -0.125x + 105
Biomass: y = 110.31e-0.026x
Total: y = -1.975x + 241

9. The mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere has increased substantially during the warming from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. 2019, find that the mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere increased by about 40% (850 GtC) from LGM to preindustrial times. This compares with 10%-50% (300-1000 GtC) increase from LGM to the pre-industrial inventory of about 3,000 GtC stated in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6. This also indicates that warming is beneficial for ecosystems.

These points suggest that global warming is net beneficial for ecosystems when GMST is below the optimum (which may be around 7–13°C above present GMST).

Peter Lang,

Are you a scientist?

Sorry Peter, could not find definition of GMST. Found GMAT ok.

In the time scale we are arguing about, say 2000 BC to 2100 ad there
are a number of scientific groups with non-co2 AGW beliefs.
Some say the majority must be right.
If they say other than that they may well lose their jobs.
Ask Peter Ridd about that.
Certainly new academic would have to tread warily.
You may be aware that coaches are advising their clients to be careful
how they answer tests from their teachers.

On another matter, does anyone know how much subsidy each wind turbine
attracts to the owner ?
I have heard figures up to the $100K for each turbine annually ?