2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

4 extra inches on top of the previous maximum record is shattering the record in my books. And the damage is caused at the margins. If the rainfall was within the previous maximum range, those people might still be alive. Infrastructure is not designed to cope with unprecedented extremes

I haven't read the full report yet but straight away we see your bias in your sentence above. They state it was anywhere from 1.2 - 9 times more likely, not just simply 9 times. Guardian-style headline there.

Research Findings are not opinions

Science is not opinion.

There is a scientific consensus that we are likely to see an ice free arctic in the summer at some point in the not too distant future. There was never a consensus on the exact timing of this occurring for the first time, and there certainly was never a consensus that it would have already happened on or before 24th August 2021

The 'settled science' refers to specific unequivocal facts, it does not mean that scientists a 100% understood everything about the topic. There are many many questions surrounding Climate change that are far from settled. But then you already know this, not least because I've said this many times before whenever someone brings up the 'Settled science' trope. The reason 'the science is settled' became a phrase was to stop us from having the same stupid 'is climate change happening' argument over and over and over again. The reason that argument was repeated so often, was because the PR agencies hired by the Fossil fuel industry know that seeding doubt and uncertainty are the best ways to prevent action that might harm their economic interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

I think I'm discovering why you and others on this thread give the same weight to bloggers as they do to peer reviewed scientific research. You fundamentally do not understand what science is

Oh look, Tennessee is well below average and the surrounding area bang on average. All that warm air holding more moisture...

Anyone else find it highly ironic that the guy called strong wind is a climate change denier?

Scientific consensus is of politics rather than science. Clearly they are useful for public discussion and even for setting policies. However, taking action based on scientific consensus has risks and can have unintended consequences.

An example of this is the carbon obsession which has given politicians a way of fundraising while pretending to be interested in the environment. The consequences of this is that these and other proposed policies will not have a significant impact on the carbon content of the air and industrial scale destruction of the environment will continue unimpeded.

The answer is to focus on solving the problems rather than trying to deal with the symptoms. Habitats, pollution (toxic rather than carbon)and human population are the only areas of focus that will solve the problem and actually reduce the carbon content of the air. Focusing on carbon is clearly counterproductive and cannot solve the problem in the timescales suggested from the consensus.

no in this case, the consensus is the agreement of the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of scientific peer reviewed research papers

https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp

“Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).

As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.”

In science, hypothesis become accepted when there is more than enough data and evidence and explanatory power to convince the vast majority of scientists practicing in their fields that the hypothesis is true.

Rejecting climate change by saying the scientific consensus is just opinion, is something young earth creationists do all the time. Along with all of the vacuous anomaly hunting whataboutary, shifting of goalposts and declarations like ‘there is no evidence of x y or z’ when the evidence is actually irrefutable and staring them in the face

You come across as a climate change denier because you do everything you can to downplay and undermine the need to act immediately to minimize climate change

you definitely do deny the climate emergency which calls for governments of the world to do everything they can to keep warming as far as possible below 2c

You even strongly implied that 4c of warming would be no big deal

as if we should just gamble with the consequences rather than take the necessary action.

You’ll get a BEV whenever you get around to it. But what we require is for government policy to make fossil fuel burning uneconomical as soon as possible to keep within the rapidly diminishing carbon budget

Most people agree that the planet is warming and that humans are at least partially responsible. There is no way that attributing every weather event to climate change is scientific or that future predictions are certain. Any questioning of these is aggressively shouted down. A scientist that questions any aspect of climate change would certainly be putting their career at risk. That is a problem.

We don’t need to attribute every extreme weather event to climate change, but it is important to point out that events like flash floods, drought, heatwaves etc are strongly predicted to become more extreme and more common as the climate warms. If we don’t want these extremes to become every day normal weather (with the new extremes being much more extreme) then we need to act yesterday to transition to carbon neutral energy as soon as possible)

seriously 3c of warming is not something we want to gamble on

Scientists are perfectly free to question any aspect of climate change. They just need to use sound methodology and present evidence to support their hypothesis

or they could just publish their ‘research on their own blog or fake journal or in someone else’s fake journal which is what almost all the contrarians end up doing

note, even the most contrarian scientists can still get their work published in good quality journals, they just have the annoying limitation of having to have their conclusions backed by the data, so those papers tend to be quite esoteric, although they usually use those papers as a launch pad to make wild claims in the non peer reviewed blogosphere way beyond what would have passed peer review

You didn't and I didn't have you in mind. Nor did GL as far as I can tell given that your name was not even mentioned.

No big deal? I was commenting on your claim that it could be the end of civilisation, which is a pretty ridiculous statement to make. I actually feel sorry for you if that's the way you're living your life. Scared to death about the big bogeyman in the air. Lay off reading the Guardian, it's not good for you. It has you jumping with the sight of every weather event to the extent that you don't even think now before blaming climate change for it, regardless of the facts.

Life's too short to be worrying about this to that extent. Exactly what good are you doing by posting these hyperbolic claims? You readily admit that you've not changed your lifestyle to reduce your carbon footprint as what can one man alone do, so exactly what's all this fear for? You're holding out for someone else to come up with the laws and taxes while in the meantime you post here literally in fits of hysteria. On the other hand we have Banana Man making up lies and posting bizarre spam (which you never ever pull him up on), but at least he seems happy doing it and doesn't share the same irrational fear as you.

Anyway, neither you nor I are going to solve anything by posting back and forth here. You will post as you see fit, as will I, and around and around we go. Meanwhile the others wait in the shadows, with no actual scientific contribution to make, just the odd jab at the "denier" who happens to see through some of the shite.

An example, there is a natural disaster and there is nobody coming to help rescue the survivors or rebuild the infrastructure.

Features of a collapsed civilization, food supplies become sporadic and unreliable, the state and banking system collapse, electricity and telecommunications systems fail, the police and military can no longer function effectively, sewage and water treatment plants stop operating reliably, nuclear waste facilities are left unattended. Schools and colleges stop providing universal access to education. Hospitals and care facilities cannot treat sick and elderly citizens

Essentially, when any combination of 3 or more of these become long term realities, civilization is collapsing in that region.

Essentially you can imagine New Orleans after Katrina or Haiti after hurricane Matthew except there is no state or international emergency aid or prospect of rebuilding in the medium term

Ak and his type probably lie awake at night worrying about a "Sharkanado" wiping out their neighbourhood at any moment😅!!