"On The Oregon Petition: I didn’t say Harris mentioned it."

No. You implied it!! (grin).

"which absolutely does raise flood risk."

Raising flood risk doesn't equal more floods. They specifically say there's little evidence that there are more floods. But if you don't want it to be true...

Consensus: Where you go wrong is to confuse consensus about the past with consensus about the future. There is consensus that CO2e played some part in the recent warming. And I support that. There's no consensus about the future or future policies. But you, and most alarmists, ignore that.

"Your “dozens of papers” claim sounds impressive - but curiously, never survives scrutiny."

The times when I showed all the evidence for prior warming all occurred prior to your joining the group....unless you are indeed SR. But just saying they didn't survive scrutiny is just another of your unresearched and unsupported assertions. Say it and hope its true.

"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). "

Well that's factually incorrect. Just plain wrong. Marcott 2013 specifically addressed that issue and plainly and openly said the paleolithic data for the Holocene wasn't sufficiently detailed to make any claims that the current warming rate is unprecedented.

"If you think Bezza's *localised* warm-period anecdotes"

You're way out of date JD. It used to be the claim of alarmists that things like the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period etc were all localised. So rolly-trolly scientists went out and showed that these same warming period were indeed global. You're ten years behind the times.

mhaze,

I take you it now understand the comparison I was making with the Oregon Petition. I was pointing to the irony.

Floods vs. flood risk:
Yes, the IPCC says there's low confidence in global flood frequency. That doesn’t contradict what I said - which was about flood risk increasing due to more intense rainfall events in many regions (medium confidence, IPCC AR6). Increased rainfall = higher risk = greater potential for damage. You can keep ignoring that if it helps, but it won’t make it go away.

On consensus:
There is consensus that CO₂ is the dominant driver of recent warming - not just “some part.” As for the future, you’re dodging. There’s widespread agreement on future risks if emissions continue, and every major scientific body supports mitigation based on that evidence. You're mistaking "not total certainty" for "no consensus."

On your “dozens of papers”:
You keep referencing things “before I joined” - convenient. If those papers were so compelling, feel free to re-post a few. You won’t, because they don’t say what you claim. They’re almost always regional reconstructions, out-of-date proxies, or long-addressed anomalies.

On Marcott et al.:
You're misrepresenting the study. Marcott et al. DID say their resolution prevents precise rate comparisons over short timescales - not that no comparison could be made. Their findings still show the current trajectory is well outside the Holocene norm. And Neukom et al. (2019) explicitly concludes that "the warmest multi-century period of the past two millennia occurred during the 20th century." We've been through all this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10434

On global warm periods:
The idea that past warm periods were globally synchronous is still debated, and the evidence is mixed. Even if some warming occurred across regions, the drivers were natural and much slower than what we’re seeing now. Today’s spike is tied directly to anthropogenic emissions - not orbital variation or solar cycles.

So no, I'm not ten years behind. You’re just recycling decade-old talking points that still don’t survive scrutiny.

Hhhmmm, as a non scientist I am sitting here reading all about your
worries on what is happening in the next 30 or 50 years with co2 when
we are sitting in the middle of a 1000 approx year cycle.
Ho Hum !

"I take you it now understand the comparison I was making with the Oregon Petition. I was pointing to the irony."

Oh. It was originally 'true', then it was 'implied'. Now its 'irony'. Any other euphemisms for wrong?.

_________________________________________________________--

"Yes, the IPCC says there's low confidence in global flood frequency. "

Good...we got there.

_________________________________________________________________

"There is consensus that CO2; is the dominant driver of recent warming - not just “some part.” ".

Dominant means less than 100%. ie some part. They all have differing ideas about the portion caused by CO2e and natural variability.

" and every major scientific body supports mitigation based on that evidence."

Nup.

"You're mistaking "not total certainty" for "no consensus.""
You're mistaking headlines with agreement.

_____________________________________________________________

Marcott 2013...after releasing the paper he held a Q&A...

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper."

If you understood that , its saying that you can't opine of whether the rate of recent warming is unprecedented.

Checkmate.

"your worries on what is happening in the next 30 or 50 years with co2"

Actually they're worried about what'll happen late this century ie what'll happen to the grandkids of our grandkids!!

Or more exactly they're worried about the politics of today and using faux concern about our grandkid's grandkids for politic advantage and/or financial gain.

Well, mhaze, someone's clearly rattled!. Let’s take it from the top, shall we?

Oregon Petition:
Your attempt to twist my Oregon Petition point into some shifting “euphemism for wrong” misses the mark entirely. It wasn’t “true” or “implied” - it was a deliberate comparison of logic. I never claimed Harris mentioned it - I pointed out the irony that he dismisses consensus for including the “wrong” experts while many sceptics hold up the Oregon Petition, which includes non-scientists. That’s not a misstep. It’s a mirror.

Floods:
You’re still dodging the distinction. The IPCC notes low confidence in global flood frequency - true - but also notes medium confidence in increased heavy rainfall in many regions. That raises flood risk, which is what I said. Cutting out context doesn’t make you right.

Consensus:
“Dominant” doesn’t mean 100% - it means main cause, which is what the consensus says. Quibbling over wording doesn’t change the fact that climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that human emissions are driving recent warming.

Scientific bodies:
You said “nup,” but NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, the Royal Society, and dozens of others say otherwise. Are they all in on the hoax?

Marcott et al.:
That Q&A doesn't say “we can’t know anything about past rates.” It says their study alone can’t resolve sub-century spikes. That’s why I mentioned Neukom et al. (2019) - which shows the current warming is unmatched in the last 2,000 years. You ignored that.

“Grandkids of our grandkids”:
So now it’s about motives? That’s not a scientific rebuttal - it’s a pivot to politics. When you run out of evidence, you question the scientists’ intentions. That’s not checkmate. That’s retreat.

You keep declaring victory while dodging context, evidence, and anything post-2010. If your best argument is still “nup,” a Q&A quote, and an eye-roll about the future, then we’re not debating climate science anymore - we’re debating your attention span.

Try again.