Again another silly claim that is unsupported by actual NOAA data, which show no increase in hurricanes. Last year was the first time on record that ZERO Category 3+ Tornadoes were recorded, while there have been a real decline in total number of Tornadoes in the last few decades. Heck until two years ago, we had the longest landfalling hurricane drought on record, that was finally ended by Harvey in Texas.
It is amusing how little warmists remember recent past weather events.
Read my post again a little more slowly. No one said an increase in hurricanes.
Read my post again, made a correction that effectively does away with your unsupported claim.
That's your problem.
Actually it is YOUR utter failure to follow the science and data that continually show natural variation (Cycles) in climate trends. There is no AGW signal that stands out in the weather and climate records over long stretches of time.
It was a lot warmer than now early in the Interglacial period, while CO2 was below the 300 ppm level.
Sea Levels were a much higher than now during the middle of the Interglacial period, while CO2 was below the 300 ppm level.
There were much colder periods of time during the interglacial period than now, while the CO2 levels STAYED around the 280 ppm level.
There were large swings in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere during the Interglacial time while CO2 stayed around the 260-280 level, which is around 10,000 years of time:
SOURCE
I am barely scratching the surface, do I have to post HUNDREDS of published science papers showing that CO2 doesn't have the ability to change the energy balance enough for it to show up?
Heck most scientists know long ago that the INCREASING outflow of energy from the planet greatly exceed the postulated warm forcing effect of CO2 in a given slice of time. CO2 doesn't promote warming at all.
Please don't continue to be stupidly ignorant of the topic, relying on propaganda sites for their made up bullcrap.
I don't go to propaganda sites. I am also not a scientist and I don't know enough about what you are saying to argue it. So you (think) you win.
I trust the 97% of scientists who agree that our planet is warming much faster than it did in the past and that most of the glaciers are receeding, not growing, and that the additional C02 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the only thing that would cause such a rapid warming trend.
This isn't about high temps or low temps millions of years ago. It is about the rapidity of the change and the effects--sea level rise (we can at least plan for it) and changes in weather patterns that could cause displacement of millions of people. We've seen what the immigration situation has caused in Europe and now in the US. Multiply that by 10.
It isn't propaganda to ask that people pay attention to what is happening to our planet.
Skeptical science is not only a propaganda site,
they were caught red handed in editing peoples comments without indicating it.
The 97% consensus fallacy you clearly embrace, is a non starter because it doesn't advance any science understanding or shed any light on research.
As usual warmists like you make bald statements that are false, since the IPCC, Predicted/Projected a much higher per decade rate of warming that has NEVER been close to reaching. Not only that several previous warming rates have been similar back to the mid 1800's as brought up
by Dr. Jones, BBC interview:
"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. "
That was up to year 2009, here is the update from 1975 to 2019, which show NO increase in the per decade warming rate of about .161C
There is
NO evidence that the warming rate is accelerating, you fell for the obvious lie.
SOURCE
To this date, all per decade warming trends back to the 1800's are
still nearly the same.
The IPCC from 1990 onwards have been projecting a MINIMUM of .2C per decade warming, which it has NEVER been close to reaching. The Satellite data show LOWER per decade warming rate of .13C per decade and no increasing.
The rest of your post is pure babble:
"This isn't about high temps or low temps millions of years ago. It is about the rapidity of the change and the effects--sea level rise (we can at least plan for it) and changes in weather patterns that could cause displacement of millions of people. We've seen what the immigration situation has caused in Europe and now in the US. Multiply that by 10.
It isn't propaganda to ask that people pay attention to what is happening to our planet.."
It is clear you have been programmed well to be willfully ignorant. I have posted everything that was based on
original sources, which you claim without evidence are from "propaganda" sites.
That "propaganda" chart you ignorantly shot down, because it was from C3 Headlines blog,
but the link in the post make clear the chart is all based on the Greenland GIST2 ice core data and HERE too
You are an embarrassment here.
. Top story on 
