Anecdotal. Some species survived, obviously, but the truly rapid events in earth's history did cause mass extinctions. We're talking most of the planets species.
Hmm.....let's see....99.999% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct.
They didn't all die in the Permian End Event, the Chixalub Impact, and the election of Jimmy Carter.
What YOU are failing to prove is that anythin particularly "rapid" is happening now, and that the human race has anything to do with it even if it is. As someone just said, anecdotal evidence isn't good enough. But you don't have anything but.
If you really think there's "no evidence," then you really aren't worth talking to because you have your head in the sand.
Translation: You have no real evidence and you don't want to talk to people who know the topic well enough to reject the fear mongering of the socialists and expect to see real evidence that answers the real questions.
1) The warming trend began in the middle of the 17th century. What natural events triggered this?
2) The Holocene is not as warm as the Eemian interstadial. Why?
3) Temperatures have been declining for nearly a decade. AGW theory cannot account for this. Hence AGW is a false theory. What other theories exist to account for this cooling?
4) The Medieval Warm Period, removed from IPCC later reports to promote the hoax of AGW, was warmer than today. Why?
5) The iconic Hockey Stickey Graph, worshipped by dumb pucks everywhere, was based on tree ring data. An analysis of modern tree rings reveals that temperatures cannot divined from tree rings. What explains the natural phenomenon of a people insisting on pursuing a lie even after the lie has been well documented?
Just a few of the many questions surrounding the AGW hoax.
I could just as easily claim there's no evidence that the moon is made out of rock.
I'm sure you could.
I can point to the moon rock in the Smithsonian.
You can't point to irrefutable evidence of AGW.
So, I suppose you have some evidence to support the idea that those glaciers have reversed their trends?
You mean two weeks after the rains fell?
Of course I do. I have ice cubes in my freezer.
Do you have any evidence to support this "different thermometer" theory? The second sentence here is just worthless.
You mean besides four and half billion years of earth history?
I don't need more than that.
The industrial revolution started around 1850. Right about when the temperature trend reversed. Your history is off.
Right.
The Little Ice Age's minimum temperatures happened ca. 1650, which means the warming trend was 200 years in progress by the date you cited (which is some 50 years late, BTW).
Straw man. Where did anyone claim 1950 was optimal or desirable?
You pick a date from the past then. Since the AGW theory is false and a deliberate hoax, you can make any year you want to be your ideal. Don't pick 1812, that was a bad year for Napoleon and global warming theorists in general.
The issue isn't "warmer is worse," it's "fast warming is bad."
Actually, it is a matter of "warmer is worse", or why else would that idiot Gore be continually harping on melting glaciers and imaginary sea level increases? Those events aren't rendered less serious if they happen slowly.
The same can be said of cooling. Plants are sensitive to temperature.
Plants are even more senstive to carbon dioxide.
Funny thing, that. What we animals exhale as waste, the plants think of as food. Kinda like when a pig follows a dog around.
The more food, the better the plant grows. Depending on the plant, the more the plant grows, the more food we get.
Fancy that.
Warmer IS better.
Especially for starving Somali pirates.
Warmer average temperature doesn't mean you just add an extra degree or two to each particular day, that's not how weather works.
We're discussing global climate and global mean temperatures, not weather.
Warmer average temperatures will cause more extreme heat events, more extreme droughts, and more extreme severe weather events.
Actually, the reverse is true.
Dissipating the heat sinks in the polar regions leads to more uniformity in temperatures, broader isobaric bands, and calmer winds.
Heat engines are driven by temperature differences and they weaken as the delta-t's decline.
All of these have a powerful negative impact on crop yields. Just ask the Russians what they think of their "longer growing season" this year.
Just demonstrate that today's sporadic weather events are not climate.