I found this post super compelling concerning climate change:

I've not seen a compelling post on wattupwiththat. They specialise in misinformation.

If you support science, why not link to some science from scientists. Blogs that aren't peer reviewed that have results that are the opposite of what the science is showing are better characterised as "pseudoscience". Aren't they the anti-scientific that we would like to see with less influence on policy?

If you think deaths from climate-related catastrophes are an emergency, please point in the graph below to the start of the “emergency”.

That graph doesn't look right.

The scholarly literature tells a different story:

Here we use empirical data from 732 locations in 43 countries to estimate the mortality 5 burdens associated with the additional heat exposure that has resulted from recent humaninduced warming, during the period 1991-2018. Across all study countries, we find that 37.0% (range 20.5-76.3%) of heat-related deaths can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change, and that increased mortality is evident on every continent. Burdens varied geographically, but were on the order of dozens to hundreds of deaths per year in many locations.

I can't access the data at public.emdat.be/data to check where our non-expert friend Willis Eschenbach made his mistakes. (Unless I'm a media organisation, a international public organization, an academic institution or want it for commerical use.

And it’s not just deaths. Global total infrastructure damages have been decreasing as well

Using a reinsurance firm to measure global damage is biased towards first world, where people and institutions have insurance.

Globally weather related damage is increasing:Weather-related disasters increase over past 50 years, causing more damage but fewer deaths

as well as US damages from floods.

Again the value of damage is distorted by infrastructure and standards, as well as materials and technology that ameliorate damage. Even if you trust the author not to distort the data. But the climate signal is clearly visible if you look at the count of disasters that cost over a billion dollars.

Hurricanes are predicted to decrease in number, but increase in severity, and the numbers are low enough that in a single year random variation dominates. As a consequence, a denialist can easily cut the data in such a way as to show no trend or a negative trend. If you're genuinely looking for the climate signal, you can find it too. You just have to look in the energy band that is increasing.

Droughts are also mixed. Climate change increases the energy in Hadley Cells, which increases their range, as well as duration of their effect. So, in the US, you will find the desert regions in the south pushing northwards, and the land on the edge of that experiencing increased drought. But overall the increased air temperature means increased humidity per absolute humidity, and greater rainfall. By slicing the data to the entire USA, you can hide both signals. As our friend with the undergraduate psychology degree, and no expertise in climate has done.

It basically doesn't look like a very good source, and it's counter to the science that's out there.

This is a response to the points starting at the top, and I haven't got very far down. Is there a section that you find particularly "super compelling"?