If you want to call yourself a "religious fool" stevo, go right...

If you want to call yourself a "religious fool" stevo, go right ahead. The blindly ideological way you deny AGW certainly adds credence to your claim.

If you were to check how insurance premiums have been adjusted over recent years you would discover adverse impacts of climate change for yourself. I doubt you would do this because it goes against your religious views on AGW. Even the weasel clause you sneak into your post shows just how insincere your challenge really is.

Why should your "has never happened before" rule out climate change events that are increasing in frequency?

For example a rising frequency of intense rainfall events is both predicted by AGW theory and observed in the real world. Why would you deny this increasing frequency is evidence for AGW.

Another example. We are experiencing an increasing frequency of catastrophic fire weather events over decadal time periods. What justification can you give to exclude these events from AGW evidence you are prepared to accept?

I'll tell you why stevo. You are not interested in evidence, you have your "religious fool" fixation on AGW denial. "Religious fool" is your phrase stevo. They are not words I would choose but they do fit the tenor of many of your posts.