mhaze,

Read the first paragraph of the article again, while bearing in mind that the Oregon Petition has thousands of signatures from people who aren't even scientists.

Moving on: listing four examples in a single sentence to support one point isn’t a Gish Gallop - it’s called explanation. If that feels overwhelming, the problem isn’t the structure of the sentence.

As for your selective quote from the IPCC: yes, they express low confidence in detecting global-scale flood trends - largely because flood data is inconsistent across regions and influenced by land use. But that same report states there's medium confidence that climate change has increased heavy rainfall in many parts of the world. And more intense rainfall + poor planning = more destructive floods - regardless of what the global frequency graph says.

You’ve seriously understated it the extent of the consensus. There’s strong consensus that human activity is the dominant driver of warming since the mid-20th century. Not “a role” - the main driver. That’s in every major assessment from the IPCC, NASA, CSIRO, BOM, NOAA, and even the U.S. military. Not one of them says the human contribution is “indeterminate.”

No one is claiming warming is “solely” caused by humans - that’s a strawman. But you don’t need sole causation for responsibility. Smoking isn’t the only cause of cancer either - but it’s the one you act on.

The Holocene we've already been through in quite some detail. Yes, parts of it were warmer regionally, but those were caused by different orbital conditions, not rapid CO2 spikes. What matters now is the rate of change and the fact that our infrastructure, agriculture, and coastal cities are built around the relatively stable climate of the past few thousand years - not the early Holocene.

And comparing Brisbane to Melbourne isn’t the mic drop you think it is. It’s the rate and global scale of disruption - not whether retirees like sunshine.

Global Warming
Just What Is It ?
I am one of those who thinks the current argument is too narrowly aimed.
The articled to which we have been referred is the common belief.
It is believed by I believe a vast majority of people. That is not a good recommendation.
I cannot myself scientifically show the common belief to be incorrect but the alternative scientific opinion has substantial scientific opinion. As we have seen recently in the Ridd case opinions contrary to accepted scientific opinion can be very dangerous professionally
.

So what has been going on ? The earth’s temperature has been rising certainly from just about the start of the Industrial Revolution when the burning of coal commenced for the smelting of iron. There does not seem to be much argument on that point. That however is not proof.

There is a point of view, summed up by a take off of US President Clinton;

“IT IS THE SUN STUPID !”

Well that will put the cat among the pigeons.
Just what is that about ? History has shown a sequence of historical climate events which look very similar to what we have seen at present. The following list gives some time points to that statement.
1. Some timber artifacts found in the (forgotten) Glacier dated to BC 1000 very roughly indicate a temperature rise during their growth time.
2. The Roman warming period was documented around AD 0 +- some hundreds of years.
In that period Roman agriculture was active with many slaves employed.
At this time Roman troops were stationed on the Scottish Borders. They were settled there for many years and formed small towns. One of their major crops were grapes as the Romans were very fond of their wine. Not a cold country product.

Bezza continued
3. There is some belief that the collapse of the Roman era was made very much worse as the cold period of the dark ages caused a reduction of agricultural output that made the attacks of the Arab Pirates and Arab slave traders on sea trade forced trade onto more expensive land routes.

4. By the year 900 AD the earth had warmed considerably and this period is known as the Medieval Warm period. It was on this year that the Vikings decided to settle in Greenland. Some suggest that name was an estate agents suggestion.
However the Vikings lived there very successfully and it was an exploration base for Nth America, until the cold period set in around 1400, and the livings became too hard. So they left.
The remains of their villages and churches are there to be seen.

5. The coldest point is believed to be around 1800 and is known as the Maunder Minimum.
This name was given to this period because the scientist Maunder who had been counting sun spots noted a major decrease in the yearly count probably as low as zero.
For a very long time an Ice Festival had been held on the Thames in London.
The Thames was no longer freezing over so the Festival was abandoned in 1814.

6. It was noted in the middle of the 20th century that earth seemed to be getting warmer, as indeed it was, a search for the cause was undertaken. It was noted that the temperature had been rising since the onset of the Industrial Revolution and a major increase in coal burning around 1800
When it was realised that an increase in CO2 might cause warming of the atmosphere;
Eureka ! was the traditional scientific exclamation signalling the discovery of an explanation.
It was just too easy for some scientists.

Continued, more or less;
It seems that these cycles may have been going for many thousands of years.
The first known was the Minowan, the second the Egyption, the next Roman, the Medieval and then the current one.
They seem to vary between about 600 and 1000 years.

So as the last minimum was close to 1800 the next maximum may come
about 2100 or as late as 2300.
There is or was a group of scientists in Finland and Japan who have
made a thorough study of these cycles.
I will dig up their further information.

"Read the first paragraph of the article again, while bearing in mind that the Oregon Petition has thousands of signatures from people who aren't even scientists."

So when you said the author was confused about the Oregon Petition you just made it up. Not even trying to use the 'implied it' defence this time. Well that's some improvement I guess.

"As for your selective quote from the IPCC"

Yes we've noticed that every piece of evidence you don't like and can't refute is 'selective' or cherry-picked'. The IPCC said it. They wrote a whole section on it. The fact it there is no evidence that floods are worse now that any time in the past (well except for that time with Gilgamesh). You just asserting otherwise doesn't obviate the facts.

"You’ve seriously understated it the extent of the consensus."

I already said there was a consensus. Just not a consensus about the things you claim are in consensus. There is absolutely no consensus about the future course of the climate or the policies concerning the future.

"The Holocene we've already been through in quite some detail. Yes, parts of it were warmer regionally, but those were caused by different orbital conditions, not rapid CO2 spikes."

Rubbish. I've shown in the past, several dozen papers showing that there was world-wide warming higher than current temperatures and higher than temperatures forecast for the next century. You're now just making this up.

" What matters now is the rate of change".

There is no evidence that the rate of change in temperatures over the past 170 years is any different to previous periods of change. This rate of change assertion, and that's all it is, is just something the alarmists say when presented with the facts that these high temperatures aren't unprecedented.

"relatively stable climate of the past few thousand years - not the early Holocene."

Bezza has done a good job of debunking that bit of waffle.

mhaze,

You're working hard to avoid the actual argument, and it shows.

On The Oregon Petition:
I didn’t say Harris mentioned it. I said he used the same reasoning that undermines the Petition - dismissing a consensus because it includes people outside the core specialty. You can nitpick phrasing if you like, but the logic stands.

On floods and the IPCC:
No one denies the IPCC notes low confidence in global flood trends - I acknowledged that. But you keep ignoring the rest: the same reports show medium confidence that heavy rainfall events have increased in many regions, which absolutely does raise flood risk. That’s not “evidence I don’t like” - it’s context you keep cutting out.

On the consensus:
You claim to accept consensus on warming and human contribution - then try to downplay both. The scientific consensus is that humans are the dominant driver of recent warming. That’s not disputed by NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, BOM, the IPCC, or any major scientific body. Pretending it’s limited to “some CO2 might be involved” is just wrong.

On the Holocene and past warmth:
Your “dozens of papers” claim sounds impressive - but curiously, never survives scrutiny. Most of those papers (when checked) refer to regional temperature reconstructions, not global averages, and none show warming as rapid as we’re seeing now. That’s the part you never engage with - the rate.

On the rate of change:
There IS evidence. We’ve reconstructed past climate using proxies like ice cores, tree rings, and sediment records. The current rate of warming - particularly since the 1970s - is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years, according to recent peer-reviewed reconstructions (e.g. Marcott et al., 2013; Neukom et al., 2019). But go ahead - call it “alarmism” when you’ve got nothing to counter it.

On Bezza's “debunking”:
If you think Bezza's *localised* warm-period anecdotes outweigh multi-decadal, multi-proxy global temperature reconstructions, I can’t help you. But don’t mistake a long post for a strong argument.