David Turver (Eigen Values) has a very good post summarising the current state of the ‘global boiling’ agenda:
He concludes:
It is clear that all of the pillars that support the Net Zero agenda are crumbling. Yes, we have seen some warming of global temperatures, but these are likely exaggerated. Yes, CO2 emissions do have an impact on global temperatures, but the actual impact is probably lower than estimated by the IPCC.
These conclusions are supported by the fact that the predictions of climate catastrophe simply have not materialised and there’s precious little evidence that any of the key measures of extreme weather are getting worse. In reality, we have seen benefits from mild warming such as increased crop yields and a greener planet. What we should really fear is a colder climate. That is when harvests fail and people starve.
Even if the doomsayers are right that we are about to see some sort of climate breakdown, it is clear that the preferred strategy of mitigation is the wrong one. Adaptation is much the better strategy because it will produce benefits even if we pursue that strategy unilaterally and even if the climate change we are seeing is largely natural. Mitigation will probably never work and certainly will not work while developing countries continue to expand coal and gas-fired power plants and increase their CO2 emissions.
This perhaps explains why the climate catastrophists and subsidy harvesters are stepping up the propaganda to try and generate popular hysteria and demand for action. But when even someone like Tony Blair acknowledges the futility of unilateral efforts, the Net Zero edifice must be close to collapse.
The post inspired me to summarise the global warming agenda as follows:
The Seven Pillars of Global Warming (aka 'Boiling'):
1. It is warming
2. We are the principal cause of the warming
3. The warming is 'dangerous, unnatural and unprecedented'
4.. Warming is dangerously accelerating all types of extreme weather - a 'climate crisis'
5. We can significantly mitigate the warming by severely reducing global greenhouse gas emissions
6. The social and economic costs of unmitigated warming greatly exceed the modest costs of mitigation (expansion of renewable energy + energy rationing)
7. The estimated environmental harms of unmitigated warming greatly exceed the modest environmental harms of mitigation (expansion of renewables)
ALL of those Seven Pillars are being demolished by the emerging evidence - except 1.
The the article you link to to support your seven assertions itself asserted that arctic sea ice Loss has been flat since 2007 and linked to an article with the following conclusions:
The September 2022 ice extent was 4.87 million square kilometers (1.88 million square miles), tied with 2010 for eleventh lowest in the satellite record. That's 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) smaller than the 1981-2010 average—an area larger than Alaska.
The smallest daily extent occurred on September 18, when the total ice extent bottomed out for the summer at 4.67 million square kilometers (1.8 million square miles).
Between 1979 and 2021, sea ice cover at the end of summer shrank by 13.0 percent per decade relative to the 1981–2010 average.
That's a loss of 31,100 square miles—an area the size of South Carolina—per year.
The ice that survives year-round is thinner and more fragile than it used to be. Old, thick ice made up a third of the Arctic Ocean ice pack at the winter maximum in March 1985. In March 2020, it accounted for less than 5%.
But I guess that counts as no loss of sea ice.
By the way, if global warming caused by carbon combustion is not the cause of arctic sea ice loss then please present evidence that some unrelated dynamic is causing arctic sea ice loss as dramatically and catastrophically as the above summary, that your favorite article links to.
Those folks in the Artichoke Cafe don't seem to be too concerned.