Shewchuk, please answer these question about your graphic: If your goal is scientific accuracy, why does your graphic consistently choose metrics, baselines, and visual framing known to downplay or obscure well-established climate trends? On hurricanes (top-left panel): -Why did you plot total global hurricane counts rather than intensity (Category 3–5), which is the metric climate science expects to change with warming? -How do you account for improved satellite detection since the 1970s, which artificially inflates earlier undercounts? -Why does your graph exclude Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE), a standard metric used by NOAA and the IPCC? -Can you explain why you used a simple linear trendline on highly variable data without showing uncertainty or statistical significance? -Are you aware that the IPCC reports low confidence in long-term trends in total cyclone counts but higher confidence in increasing intensity and rainfall? Why is that omitted? On tornadoes (top-right panel): -Why did you use EF2 tornado counts starting in 1950, when reporting practices and radar technology changed dramatically (especially post-1990 Doppler radar)? -How do you correct for non-climatic inhomogeneities in the tornado record that NOAA explicitly warns about? -Why not show normalized or environment-based metrics (e.g., convective available potential energy, shear trends) instead of raw counts? -Can you point to any major scientific body that uses this dataset to claim tornado risk is decreasing? On wildfires (bottom-left panel): -Why are you presenting global burned area without clarifying that the decline is largely due to agricultural expansion and land management, not climate effects? -Why omit data showing that fire weather conditions (heat, drought, vapor pressure deficit) have increased significantly? -Why not show regional trends, such as the well-documented increase in extreme fires in places like western North America or Australia? -Do you agree that burned area ≠ fire severity or ecological impact? If so, why present it as evidence of “less extreme weather”? On disaster deaths (bottom-right panel): -Why are you using raw death totals rather than deaths per capita, given global population growth? -Why omit the role of improved infrastructure, forecasting, and disaster response, which are the primary drivers of reduced mortality? -Are you suggesting that fewer deaths means hazards are decreasing, or just that humans are better at surviving them? -Why include 2020–2021 as partial data points, which visually exaggerate the decline? On CO₂ comparison (across panels): -What is the scientific justification for visually comparing CO₂ (a smooth upward curve) with highly variable hazard data without any causal analysis? -Why do you imply a relationship using dual-axis graphs, a technique widely criticized for creating misleading visual correlations? -Can you provide a peer-reviewed attribution study showing that rising CO₂ should reduce these hazards? On selective omission: Why does your meme omit: -Heatwaves (one of the most robustly increasing extremes)? -Extreme rainfall and flooding intensity? -Marine heatwaves? -How did you decide which indicators to include versus exclude? On methodology and transparency Can you provide: -The full datasets used (not just sources)? -The code or method used to generate the graphs? -Any uncertainty ranges or statistical tests? -Why are these figures presented without error bars, confidence intervals, or methodological caveats?

If we can get global CO2 emissions to zero, we generally expect the world to stop warming. But why this occurs is fascinating: cooling from falling atmospheric CO2 is more or less perfectly counterbalanced by warming from ocean temperature equilibration.