75% of economists saying doing nothing will cost dramatically more than acting on global warming

[Crick]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

Right. And a cooling that took thousands of years afterward. However, NONE of those events was caused by the combustion of fossil fuels or even by vulcanism. They were all caused by Milankovitch cycles reducing solar irradiation to the planet; something that is NOT happening at the present.

But your claim was that abrupt warming has never occurred before.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

It is unprecedented in human history and the current warming trend has no parallels with past warming events. None.

 

[ding]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

 

[ding]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

Right. And a cooling that took thousands of years afterward. However, NONE of those events was caused by the combustion of fossil fuels or even by vulcanism. They were all caused by Milankovitch cycles reducing solar irradiation to the planet; something that is NOT happening at the present.

But your claim was that abrupt warming has never occurred before.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

It is unprecedented in human history and the current warming trend has no parallels with past warming events. None.

Again... each of the 25 observed D-O from the last glacial cycle say otherwise.

Increased climate fluctuation is an artifact of an icehouse planet.

 

[Crick]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

 

[Crick]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

You're chasing a red herring. It again indicates you are lacking real material with which to argue.

 

[Flash]

These stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know anymore about Climate Science than they know about Economics, History, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.

You might want to clarify which moon bats you're talking about.

I think we all know who these Moon Bats are.

They are the uneducated woke disturbed morons that would like to see the US turn into a Socialist shithole.

They voted for this Biden clown, ignored the fact he stole the election and believe all this horseshit about man made global warming.

 

[ding]

Increased climate fluctuation is an artifact of an icehouse planet and driven by the climate of the northern hemisphere.

 

[ding]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

You're chasing a red herring. It again indicates you are lacking real material with which to argue.

Actually I am discussing the climate. You are probably confused because you have confused computer simulations with climate.

 

[ding]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

You're chasing a red herring. It again indicates you are lacking real material with which to argue.

How much of an increase in temperature do the climate models predict over the next few decades?

 

[Crick]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

Right. And a cooling that took thousands of years afterward. However, NONE of those events was caused by the combustion of fossil fuels or even by vulcanism. They were all caused by Milankovitch cycles reducing solar irradiation to the planet; something that is NOT happening at the present.

But your claim was that abrupt warming has never occurred before.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

It is unprecedented in human history and the current warming trend has no parallels with past warming events. None.

Again... each of the 25 observed D-O from the last glacial cycle say otherwise.

Increased climate fluctuation is an artifact of an icehouse planet.

View attachment 477252

And you know this from the broad spectrum of icehouse planets with whose climates we are familiar? THIS warming is due to rising GHG levels in our atmosphere. That was NOT the case in any past event.

 

[ding]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

You're chasing a red herring. It again indicates you are lacking real material with which to argue.

Do you know why the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet and why that information is relevant to today?

 

[9thIDdoc]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

Oh please. Time has proven the alleged "scientists" wrong so now we are presented with alleged accountants. Idiots willing to say whatever they are paid to say. Present some honest hard facts and figures or STFU.

Time has proven the scientists correct. This survey of economists addressed the argument claiming that dealing with AGW itself vice dealing with its consequences is a waste of money. This was NOT an attempt to provide more evidence of the validity of AGW. Sorry you failed to understand that but I believe post #1 is clear.

If you have an interest in some hard facts and figures, here are a few:

View attachment 477193
View attachment 477194
View attachment 477195

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hard facts? Man made global warming remains as much of a non-issue as it did decades ago. The polar icecap is still there and polar bears are as happy as ever. "Global warming" is-and always has been- a massive con job designed to instill fear in the population and enrich the unscrupulous. Send Al Gore a hefty check and he will bless you and remove your carbon sins.

These data say you are completely incorrect:
View attachment 477245
View attachment 477246
View attachment 477247

And, hey, I could be wrong, but I don't think Al Gore had anything to do with the measurement of any of those data. Generally, people who attack Al Gore in a AGW discussion are exactly analogous to those who bring up Hitler in politics. It indicates they don't actually have anything of merit to say.

These data say you are completely incorrect:

No, the data simply indicates that you are unable to correctly interpret it's meaning and application.

I use for my interpretation of that data the interpretation of several thousand published, PhD-holding scientists who conclude it means AGW is valid and the consequences will be severe. What's your source?

In short you believe what you are told to believe by those willing to say anything they believe will benefit themselves. One of my sources is factual history. Many of the dire predictions made the global warming cult should have already taken place. They haven't. Fact. But you ignore fact in favor of theory. Delusional.

 

[ding]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

Right. And a cooling that took thousands of years afterward. However, NONE of those events was caused by the combustion of fossil fuels or even by vulcanism. They were all caused by Milankovitch cycles reducing solar irradiation to the planet; something that is NOT happening at the present.

But your claim was that abrupt warming has never occurred before.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

It is unprecedented in human history and the current warming trend has no parallels with past warming events. None.

Again... each of the 25 observed D-O from the last glacial cycle say otherwise.

Increased climate fluctuation is an artifact of an icehouse planet.

View attachment 477252

And you know this from the broad spectrum of icehouse planets with whose climates we are familiar? THIS warming is due to rising GHG levels in our atmosphere. That was NOT the case in any past event.

I know this from the oxygen isotope curve for the planet we live on today. The planet that transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet about 2.7 million years ago and the increased fluctuation of the oxygen isotope data.

See?

 

[danielpalos]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

A need for new Cities in more optimal locations.

 

[Crick]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

You're chasing a red herring. It again indicates you are lacking real material with which to argue.

How much of an increase in temperature do the climate models predict over the next few decades?

I thought you were familiar with this topic.

See How hot will Earth get by 2100?

 

[Crick]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

A need for new Cities in more optimal locations.

I see. By optimal, all you mean is at greater elevation. Please don't waste my time with such bullshit.

 

[ding]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

You're chasing a red herring. It again indicates you are lacking real material with which to argue.

How much of an increase in temperature do the climate models predict over the next few decades?

I thought you were familiar with this topic.

See How hot will Earth get by 2100?

I just need for you to type in a number, bro. I don't need your origin story. So? 8 C in 30 years?

 

[ding]

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

 

[ding]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

 

[jc456]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

Oh please. Time has proven the alleged "scientists" wrong so now we are presented with alleged accountants. Idiots willing to say whatever they are paid to say. Present some honest hard facts and figures or STFU.

Time has proven the scientists correct. This survey of economists addressed the argument claiming that dealing with AGW itself vice dealing with its consequences is a waste of money. This was NOT an attempt to provide more evidence of the validity of AGW. Sorry you failed to understand that but I believe post #1 is clear.

If you have an interest in some hard facts and figures, here are a few:

View attachment 477193
View attachment 477194
View attachment 477195

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hard facts? Man made global warming remains as much of a non-issue as it did decades ago. The polar icecap is still there and polar bears are as happy as ever. "Global warming" is-and always has been- a massive con job designed to instill fear in the population and enrich the unscrupulous. Send Al Gore a hefty check and he will bless you and remove your carbon sins.

These data say you are completely incorrect:
View attachment 477245
View attachment 477246
View attachment 477247

And, hey, I could be wrong, but I don't think Al Gore had anything to do with the measurement of any of those data. Generally, people who attack Al Gore in a AGW discussion are exactly analogous to those who bring up Hitler in politics. It indicates they don't actually have anything of merit to say.

These data say you are completely incorrect:

No, the data simply indicates that you are unable to correctly interpret it's meaning and application.

I use for my interpretation of that data the interpretation of several thousand published, PhD-holding scientists who conclude it means AGW is valid and the consequences will be severe. What's your source?

so you know nothing. thanks for admitting it.