and just one, followed by defenestration for those who refuse to desist.

Climate-driven changes in high-elevation forest distribution and reductions in snow and ice cover have major implications for ecosystems and global water security. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem of the Rocky Mountains (United States), recent melting of a high-elevation (3,091 m asl) ice patch exposed a mature stand of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) trees, located ~180 m in elevation above modern treeline, that date to the mid-Holocene (c. 5,950 to 5,440 cal y BP). Here, we used this subfossil wood record to develop tree-ring-based temperature estimates for the upper-elevation climate conditions that resulted in ancient forest establishment and growth and the subsequent regional ice-patch growth and downslope shift of treeline. Results suggest that mid-Holocene forest establishment and growth occurred under warm-season (May-Oct) mean temperatures of 6.2 °C (±0.2 °C), until a multicentury cooling anomaly suppressed temperatures below 5.8 °C, resulting in stand mortality by c. 5,440 y BP. Transient climate model simulations indicate that regional cooling was driven by changes in summer insolation and Northern Hemisphere volcanism. The initial cooling event was followed centuries later (c. 5,100 y BP) by sustained Icelandic volcanic eruptions that forced a centennial-scale 1.0 °C summer cooling anomaly and led to rapid ice-patch growth and preservation of the trees. With recent warming (c. 2000–2020 CE), warm-season temperatures now equal and will soon exceed those of the mid-Holocene period of high treeline. 

Read that as many times as you need to until it sinks in.

Or perhaps this will help:

...ice patches are distributed from near-modern treeline to the highest elevations, and radiocarbon dating of organic matter from ice cores and remnant wood collected at numerous ice-patch locations indicate that some initiated growth and persisted during the early- to mid-Holocene warm period (10,500–6,000 y BP) 

That's a roughly 4,500 year period, ending about 6,000 years ago but more importantly:

During the late Holocene (after 4,200 y BP), cool summers reduced forest cover and shifted treeline downslope to near-modern elevations (21).

And here we have hard, scientific proof -- the debate is over.

Remember, we've been told that we're the hottest we've ever been in the Holocene -- that is, ignoring the period of the dinosaurs and similar which perhaps is reasonable and perhaps not, but all of the claims that we're "ruining" the climate rest on the premise that what we're seeing now has never happened before in the time when the landmass we inhabit today has been where it is, and geologically the Earth has not materially changed.

That's been a lie and these folks just documented it.

You see, there were only about 10-15 million humans across the entire planet during that period of time.  The exact number is subject to quite a bit of debate and variation, but that's the general range, and there was of course no industry, no use of carbon fuels beyond burning wood for heat and cooking purposes, and there simply weren't enough humans on the planet, especially in the Rocky Mountains, to have any impact on the climate at all.

So if that warmer period of time occurred, and the evidence is that it did since the formerly-buried trees are there, and at present they can't grow there as it isn't warm enough we are forced to conclude that the claim that the current climate and temperature is "unprecedented" is a LIE.

And since we did not, obviously, cause it then because it was simply impossible for us to do so, the premise that we are causing it now is falsified since that premise rests on the claim, repeated since the so-called "Global Warming" crap was first run, that it has never occurred in the history of the planet when humans have walked upon it.

In other words the claims are lies.

Those who seek to use a natural phenomena as a means of enriching themselves are no different than the witch-doctors who insisted early humans throw someone's virgin daughter into a volcano to prevent it from erupting.

Had the people of the time realized they were being scammed they would have killed and eaten the witch-doctor.

Proof is now on the table you've been scammed.

Well?

PS: You want to know what's worse?  The record from ice cores is that interglacial periods last about 10,000 years and are only about 10% of the planet's history; the rest of the time the planet is a LOT colder.  We're in one of those interglacial periods now and this one has lasted 11,000.  Add to that the fact that the Atlantic current (AMOC), which has a cyclicality of approximately the same time, appears to be weakening materially.  Now this does not necessarily portend imminent doom, because even if we're entering a new colder period that will outlast all known civilizations in duration (and not a little either; on average these cycles tend to be ~5-6C decreases) it may be several hundred to a few thousand years before serious deterioration occurs.  That is not a guarantee however; there is evidence that some of those excursions have had severe and rapid changes in climate conditions over periods as short as 50 years time and we do not know why one cycle is much more-rapid in its excursion than another.  If that cycle is on the verge of repeating, and we have no evidence it won't nor do we have any possibility of stopping it since it has occurred many times before over millions of years, we had better be developing and deploying both long-duration carbon-based fuels such as coal and nuclear power in size because if we don't very significant parts of the currently-inhabited central landmass of America, along with the rest of the planet including virtually all of Europe, will become capable of supporting population densities approximately equal to that of North Dakota and that is only if we're prepared on an energy basis.  In other words we either use technology, and not "green technology" either, or the supportable human load of the United States north of roughly Texas, Georgia, Arizona and Florida, and the equivalent latitude through Europe and Asia (never mind the southern hemisphere northward as well) will be approximately equal to that of Siberia!

And by the way, if you think this is theoretical here's real data on where its cheaper to run gas or electric.  Note where the balance point is with average power costs of 15 cents/kWh, not what we pay here of 12c/kWh.

How sensitive is that to power cost? Assuming gas remains constant, here you go... the current actual cost per kWh is $0.12 - and this is a high-efficiency unit!

[08:05] Thermostat 174 cost/kWh to $0.15
[08:05] Balance point for thermostat 174 was 28F, set to 45

[08:05] Thermostat 174 cost/kWh to $0.12
[08:05] Balance point for thermostat 174 was 45F, set to 28

So with natural gas being what it is today if you pay 15 c/kWh for your power then you're out of your mind to use a heat pump below 45F as natural gas (again, high-efficiency furnace) is cheaper.  Yet we have states that are trying to mandate heat pumps -- any politician who demands or has passed such a "mandate" should be dragged out of office by their curly hair and forced to freeze to death outside right about now in that 15F average temperature across the US.