Microsoft and Google have given up on their net zero promises as their emissions increased by 29% and 50% respectively over the last 4 years. 96% of all companies who made wild statements about emissions are packing it in.

You see JD, if you're going to make the ASSERTION that I'm cherry-picking you need to show that there is overwhelming contrary data. But you don't. Instead you simply ASSERT that my information is cherry-picked and treat that as an established fact as you do with all your ASSERTIONS.

"The minor fluctuations over the past 2,000 years were within a stable range. "

And, according to the data I posted, current levels remain within that range.

"Yes, the rise began in the 19th century, "

Oh good. Glad you caught up after telling us it started in the mid 20th century.
BTW, the mid 20th century was a time of DECLINING temperatures. I wonder why, in your fantasy world, sea level rises suddenly started just as temperatures were falling.

Oh I suppose picking the mid 20th century was just cherry-picking, eh, JD?

Indyvidual,

Your claim regarding science and funding demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of both the peer-review process and funding.

Peer-review is a rigorous process and data must stand up to scrutiny regardless of where the money comes from. The vast majority of climate scientists agree on the causes and risks of climate change because the evidence is overwhelming, not because they are chasing funding. Furthermore, if it just came down to funding, there’d be plenty of papers arguing in the other direction given the trillions of dollars the fossil fuel industries have to play with.

So, again, if you think you know better than the thousands of scientists who understand all of this, then write a paper citing your research and earn yourself a Nobel prize.

The numbers like 0.1-0.2 mm per year over long periods are significant because they represent baseline natural variability. The reason shipping displacement is considered insignificant is because, compared to the vast volume of the world's oceans, even the total displacement by all shipping is a drop in the bucket. Sea level rise due to thermal expansion and melting ice is measured in centimetres and metres over time, far outstripping any contribution from ships.

Solutions are being worked on: from renewable energy development to carbon capture and reforestation. Scientists aren’t just running around like headless chooks sounding alarms, they’re also working on ways to mitigate and adapt to the changes.

mhaze,

I have shown that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary by explaining the broader picture; some of which is discussed in the many links I’ve provided to scholarly papers. The overwhelming contrary data comes from a wide array of studies and global observations, not just isolated pieces of information like your cherry-picked facts.

There have been no assertions.

//And, according to the data I posted, current levels remain within that [stable] range.//

No, they don’t.

The current levels are not just within that range - they’re on an upward trajectory that’s accelerating beyond what we’ve seen in the past. The key issue isn’t whether current levels fall within historical extremes; it’s the unprecedented rate at which they’re rising, which strongly correlates with human activities.

//Glad you caught up after telling us it started in the mid 20th century.//

I didn’t say it started in the mid-20th century. Go back and read what I actually said.

//BTW, the mid 20th century was a time of DECLINING temperatures.//

The fact that temperatures temporarily declined mid-century (due to factors like aerosols) doesn’t contradict the overall warming trend or the continued rise in sea levels. The mid-20th century cooling is well-documented, but it was short-lived and doesn’t undermine the longer-term trend of rising global temperatures and sea levels.

That being said…

//Oh I suppose picking the mid 20th century was just cherry-picking, eh, JD?//

Correct! You’re getting better at this.

Delicious!

"//Oh I suppose picking the mid 20th century was just cherry-picking, eh, JD?//

Correct! You’re getting better at this."

I have to stop doing sarcasm.... it often goes over their head.

mhaze,

No, I got the sarcasm. I was responding to your sarcasm to with even more sarcasm to highlight the irony of the fact that you were indeed cherry-picking. Which meant the embarrassment that I was supposed to feel only left with yet more egg on your face.

Time for a little humility, perhaps?