No, they don't. (They used to, but the media feed changed when the reality diverged too much)
They make claims identical to yours - same vocabulary and everything.
Fine. Means, they are not as stupid as you try to present them.
Why should we think about local stuff, when you are supposedly making claims about global "averages"?
Your whole argumentation (as far as there is argumentation) relies on some exceptions, which may give some, usually local, effects opposite to what one would expect in the average. To meet such exceptions, one possibility is to introduce exceptions in the other direction too.
btw: That is quite similar to the long time normal situation in the Sahara, and many deserts - it does get rain, but only in scattered torrents.
And usually after such a heavy rain one sees the desert becoming green some short time.
Btw2: some high desert in South America recently had that exact experience - average rain increase but only in torrents - the net result was the death of most of the native plants and animals over wide areas, and a return to its former inhospitable normality - only deader.
Of course, with one torrent every five years a desert remains a desert. But a climate change means that the torrents become more regular. And then plants which can live with such a situation will appear.
The same problem all the time: Some accidental extremal events cause harm. Too hot, too cold, too rainy, too much rain, not enough rain, it doesn't matter - extremal events will be harmful to what is there, because what is there is adapted to the actual climate, which is something different.
But if they become regular events, as they will if the climate changes, then there will be an adaptation to the new conditions. What will appear after the adaptation is not what you see if you look at the extremal event, but what you see if you look at regions where these extremal events are the usual climate.
Your claims are false, is the problem. They conflict with discovered and established physical reality, and they conflict with the findings of the AGW researchers for fifty years now.
No, the problem is that you make only empty claims, without providing any evidence for them. So, your claims change nothing. All they show is that you don't like the claims I make, for some political reasons, and therefore think that one has to claim that they are all false.
Of course, maybe there are enough sheeple who believe that you somehow know what scientists have found, and are unable to ask themselves why you don't post the evidence for your claims if you have it.
Nobody is assuming any such thing, except a body of AGW deniers who have introduced the bullshit concept of an "ideal" temperature etc to deflect public discussion from the likely disaster that is AGW.
And very little is more dangerous than continuing to do what we are doing - the idea of "doing nothing" is of course more propaganda bs: the discussion is about doing differently.
Iceaura obviously hates the very idea of an ideal temperature. Because it quite obviously does not help alarmism. The answer to the question where would be the optimal temperature and optimal precipitation is quite obvious, it is higher than the actual one. So, until these optimal levels have been reached, the only problem with changing climate is the adaptation. But this is hardly enough for alarmists, given that they are weak in this field too: Even if climate change may be fast in comparison with climate changes in the past, this is not what we have to compare with. We have to compare it with the time scales we rebuild our infrastructure anyway. If all we have to do is to rebuild in another way what anyway requires rebuilding, the additional costs would be minimal.
So, the only chance of the alarmists is to distort the discussion. The very idea of ideal temperature, precipitation, and CO2 content is already dangerous enough for them and has to be avoided completely. And the temp of climate change should be compared only with climate changes in the past.
There are, of course, things one can do. Like investing in nuclear fusion - if this would work in some, say, 50 years or so, there would be no longer any need for burning something to gain energy. Up to this time, one could improve usual nuclear power. This would lead to an economy of oil, gas and so on, which would be useful even if AGW appears completely harmless - simply because there are many other useful applications for these commodities. For the same reasons, some amount of investment into "green energy" would be not unreasonable too.
