No Evidence

[jc456]

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it. I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it.

I heard it here.

radiates according to it's temperature.

No Evidence

I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

Why would you need to prove that?
Do you know anyone who disagrees?

why do you say it doesn't stop it?
you making shit up again? you are the master of shit.

why do you say it doesn't stop it?

How would it?

And why would I disagree with, "radiates according to it's temperature"?

And causality.

why would it need to? is it smart?

why would it need to?

What?

is it smart?

Matter does not need to be smart to radiate according to its temperature.

then you agree, the sun is the only surface warmer? no such thing as the atmosphere warming the surface.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it.

I heard it here.

radiates according to it's temperature.

No Evidence

I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

Why would you need to prove that?
Do you know anyone who disagrees?

why do you say it doesn't stop it?
you making shit up again? you are the master of shit.

why do you say it doesn't stop it?

How would it?

And why would I disagree with, "radiates according to it's temperature"?

And causality.

why would it need to? is it smart?

why would it need to?

What?

is it smart?

Matter does not need to be smart to radiate according to its temperature.

then you agree, the sun is the only surface warmer? no such thing as the atmosphere warming the surface.

I agree, the atmosphere slows the loss of heat to space.

 

[jc456]

why do you say it doesn't stop it?
you making shit up again? you are the master of shit.

why do you say it doesn't stop it?

How would it?

And why would I disagree with, "radiates according to it's temperature"?

And causality.

why would it need to? is it smart?

why would it need to?

What?

is it smart?

Matter does not need to be smart to radiate according to its temperature.

then you agree, the sun is the only surface warmer? no such thing as the atmosphere warming the surface.

I agree, the atmosphere slows the loss of heat to space.

how?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

why do you say it doesn't stop it?

How would it?

And why would I disagree with, "radiates according to it's temperature"?

And causality.

why would it need to? is it smart?

why would it need to?

What?

is it smart?

Matter does not need to be smart to radiate according to its temperature.

then you agree, the sun is the only surface warmer? no such thing as the atmosphere warming the surface.

I agree, the atmosphere slows the loss of heat to space.

how?

You don't understand absorption/emission spectra?
Weird.

 

[jc456]

why would it need to? is it smart?

why would it need to?

What?

is it smart?

Matter does not need to be smart to radiate according to its temperature.

then you agree, the sun is the only surface warmer? no such thing as the atmosphere warming the surface.

I agree, the atmosphere slows the loss of heat to space.

how?

You don't understand absorption/emission spectra?
Weird.

well sure. I understand that CO2 absorbs and collides more frequently by quite a lot than re-emit. So, I'm still wondering how you think it slows it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

why would it need to?

What?

is it smart?

Matter does not need to be smart to radiate according to its temperature.

then you agree, the sun is the only surface warmer? no such thing as the atmosphere warming the surface.

I agree, the atmosphere slows the loss of heat to space.

how?

You don't understand absorption/emission spectra?
Weird.

well sure. I understand that CO2 absorbs and collides more frequently by quite a lot than re-emit. So, I'm still wondering how you think it slows it.

I understand that CO2 absorbs...…I'm still wondering how you think it slows it.

LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You believe the Earth's atmosphere is kept 33C warmer than it ought to be by pressure?

it contributes you bet.

By this statement do you mean that pressure and other processes keep the Earth 33C warmer than it ought to be?

just like convection, conduction and the jet stream.

This statement makes no sense. Convection is a heat transfer process that takes place where fluid flow is initiated by a temperature-induced density differential. In cases where an external source drives the flow, it is known as "forced convection". Conduction is the transfer of heat within a material. The jet stream is a current of air driven by the temperature differential between two air masses. None of these is a source of energy. None of them warm or cool the Earth. All thermal energy lost or gained by the Earth moves via radiation to and from space.

you know the globe gets sun all day right?

Yes, I did know that. The sun's input is taken into account in the calculation that shows the Earth to be 33C warmer than it ought to be ignoring the greenhouse effect.

So, back to pressure. If I take some air and compress it, it warms up. If I take some air and decompress it, it gets colder. You've noted that air moves around, left, right, up and down. When it moves down, it gets compressed and warms. When it moves up, it gets decompressed and cools. All the air on the planet is stuck here. It doesn't leave and no new air is coming in from space. So, while the air is all moving around hither, thither and yon, at the end of the day - every day - the total mass of the air is in the same place: wrapped around the planet, half of it squished down into the first 5,000 meters or so and the rest trailing away, thinner and thinner up 300-500 kilometers. As much air moved up as moved down. If not, the pressure here at the surface would get higher and higher or lower and lower. But it doesn't. The idea that pressure is responsible for global warming is one most sixth graders would know to reject. I strongly suggest you do the same.

global warming I don't believe in. the globe is warmed by the sun and that heat is moved around the planet due to jet streams, conduction and convection, It's how one day it is minus 28 and the next it is 40 degrees. has nothing to do with anything related to greenhouse gases. And because we have moisture in our atmosphere the clouds that form create a blanket and hold the heat in, especially at night. like an oven, not a greenhouse.

Oh and for the record we have wind due to the sun ,

Ask a science teacher: What creates the wind?

"Generally, we can say that the cause of the wind is the uneven heating of the Earth’s surface by the Sun. The Earth’s surface is made of different land and water areas, and these varying surfaces absorb and reflect the Sun’s rays unevenly. Warm air rising yields a lower pressure on the Earth, because the air is not pressing down on the Earth’s surface, while descending cooler air produces a higher pressure.

But there are many other factors affecting wind direction. For example, the Earth is spinning, so air in the Northern Hemisphere is deflected to the right by what is known as the Coriolis force. This causes the air, or wind, to flow clockwise around a high-pressure system and counter-clockwise around a low-pressure system.

The closer these low- and high-pressure systems are together, the stronger the “pressure gradient,” and the stronger the winds. Vegetation also plays a role in how much sunlight is reflected or absorbed by the surface of the Earth. Furthermore, snow cover reflects a large amount of radiation back into space. As the air cools, it sinks and causes a pressure increase."

And because we have moisture in our atmosphere the clouds that form create a blanket and hold the heat in

How?

 

[jc456]

You believe the Earth's atmosphere is kept 33C warmer than it ought to be by pressure?

it contributes you bet.

By this statement do you mean that pressure and other processes keep the Earth 33C warmer than it ought to be?

just like convection, conduction and the jet stream.

This statement makes no sense. Convection is a heat transfer process that takes place where fluid flow is initiated by a temperature-induced density differential. In cases where an external source drives the flow, it is known as "forced convection". Conduction is the transfer of heat within a material. The jet stream is a current of air driven by the temperature differential between two air masses. None of these is a source of energy. None of them warm or cool the Earth. All thermal energy lost or gained by the Earth moves via radiation to and from space.

you know the globe gets sun all day right?

Yes, I did know that. The sun's input is taken into account in the calculation that shows the Earth to be 33C warmer than it ought to be ignoring the greenhouse effect.

So, back to pressure. If I take some air and compress it, it warms up. If I take some air and decompress it, it gets colder. You've noted that air moves around, left, right, up and down. When it moves down, it gets compressed and warms. When it moves up, it gets decompressed and cools. All the air on the planet is stuck here. It doesn't leave and no new air is coming in from space. So, while the air is all moving around hither, thither and yon, at the end of the day - every day - the total mass of the air is in the same place: wrapped around the planet, half of it squished down into the first 5,000 meters or so and the rest trailing away, thinner and thinner up 300-500 kilometers. As much air moved up as moved down. If not, the pressure here at the surface would get higher and higher or lower and lower. But it doesn't. The idea that pressure is responsible for global warming is one most sixth graders would know to reject. I strongly suggest you do the same.

global warming I don't believe in. the globe is warmed by the sun and that heat is moved around the planet due to jet streams, conduction and convection, It's how one day it is minus 28 and the next it is 40 degrees. has nothing to do with anything related to greenhouse gases. And because we have moisture in our atmosphere the clouds that form create a blanket and hold the heat in, especially at night. like an oven, not a greenhouse.

Oh and for the record we have wind due to the sun ,

Ask a science teacher: What creates the wind?

"Generally, we can say that the cause of the wind is the uneven heating of the Earth’s surface by the Sun. The Earth’s surface is made of different land and water areas, and these varying surfaces absorb and reflect the Sun’s rays unevenly. Warm air rising yields a lower pressure on the Earth, because the air is not pressing down on the Earth’s surface, while descending cooler air produces a higher pressure.

But there are many other factors affecting wind direction. For example, the Earth is spinning, so air in the Northern Hemisphere is deflected to the right by what is known as the Coriolis force. This causes the air, or wind, to flow clockwise around a high-pressure system and counter-clockwise around a low-pressure system.

The closer these low- and high-pressure systems are together, the stronger the “pressure gradient,” and the stronger the winds. Vegetation also plays a role in how much sunlight is reflected or absorbed by the surface of the Earth. Furthermore, snow cover reflects a large amount of radiation back into space. As the air cools, it sinks and causes a pressure increase."

And because we have moisture in our atmosphere the clouds that form create a blanket and hold the heat in

How?

asked and answered.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You believe the Earth's atmosphere is kept 33C warmer than it ought to be by pressure?

it contributes you bet.

By this statement do you mean that pressure and other processes keep the Earth 33C warmer than it ought to be?

just like convection, conduction and the jet stream.

This statement makes no sense. Convection is a heat transfer process that takes place where fluid flow is initiated by a temperature-induced density differential. In cases where an external source drives the flow, it is known as "forced convection". Conduction is the transfer of heat within a material. The jet stream is a current of air driven by the temperature differential between two air masses. None of these is a source of energy. None of them warm or cool the Earth. All thermal energy lost or gained by the Earth moves via radiation to and from space.

you know the globe gets sun all day right?

Yes, I did know that. The sun's input is taken into account in the calculation that shows the Earth to be 33C warmer than it ought to be ignoring the greenhouse effect.

So, back to pressure. If I take some air and compress it, it warms up. If I take some air and decompress it, it gets colder. You've noted that air moves around, left, right, up and down. When it moves down, it gets compressed and warms. When it moves up, it gets decompressed and cools. All the air on the planet is stuck here. It doesn't leave and no new air is coming in from space. So, while the air is all moving around hither, thither and yon, at the end of the day - every day - the total mass of the air is in the same place: wrapped around the planet, half of it squished down into the first 5,000 meters or so and the rest trailing away, thinner and thinner up 300-500 kilometers. As much air moved up as moved down. If not, the pressure here at the surface would get higher and higher or lower and lower. But it doesn't. The idea that pressure is responsible for global warming is one most sixth graders would know to reject. I strongly suggest you do the same.

global warming I don't believe in. the globe is warmed by the sun and that heat is moved around the planet due to jet streams, conduction and convection, It's how one day it is minus 28 and the next it is 40 degrees. has nothing to do with anything related to greenhouse gases. And because we have moisture in our atmosphere the clouds that form create a blanket and hold the heat in, especially at night. like an oven, not a greenhouse.

Oh and for the record we have wind due to the sun ,

Ask a science teacher: What creates the wind?

"Generally, we can say that the cause of the wind is the uneven heating of the Earth’s surface by the Sun. The Earth’s surface is made of different land and water areas, and these varying surfaces absorb and reflect the Sun’s rays unevenly. Warm air rising yields a lower pressure on the Earth, because the air is not pressing down on the Earth’s surface, while descending cooler air produces a higher pressure.

But there are many other factors affecting wind direction. For example, the Earth is spinning, so air in the Northern Hemisphere is deflected to the right by what is known as the Coriolis force. This causes the air, or wind, to flow clockwise around a high-pressure system and counter-clockwise around a low-pressure system.

The closer these low- and high-pressure systems are together, the stronger the “pressure gradient,” and the stronger the winds. Vegetation also plays a role in how much sunlight is reflected or absorbed by the surface of the Earth. Furthermore, snow cover reflects a large amount of radiation back into space. As the air cools, it sinks and causes a pressure increase."

And because we have moisture in our atmosphere the clouds that form create a blanket and hold the heat in

How?

asked and answered.

GHGs are cool!

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

 

[Billy_Bob]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

All Opinion by you and not based on facts...

Fact: Oil is naturally occurring..

Fact: Coal is naturally occurring.

Fantasy is Solar/Wind power because it is unreliable and requires massive battery banks, which create more poisons and pollution than their use removes.

 

[jc456]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels. We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid. In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.

All Opinion by you and not based on facts...

Fact: Oil is naturally occurring..

Fact: Coal is naturally occurring.

Fantasy is Solar/Wind power because it is unreliable and requires massive battery banks, which create more poisons and pollution than their use removes.

it is the battery.

 

[Crick]

First, that they occur naturally does not prevent them from being pollutants if moved from their initial location in the ground to our land, our oceans or our atmosphere. No one is contending that coal or oil are, themselves, pollutants. Their combustion products in our atmosphere, however, faithfully fit the bill.

 

[SSDD]

1353 posts in and still not the first thing to challenge any of the 3 statements made in the OP.

 

[airplanemechanic]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

 

[SSDD]

Killer Kows from Kornfield Kansas

 

[Crick]

James Powell, MIT professor of geochemistry, former president of three different colleges and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium has conducted three different reviews of the scientific literature with regard to their support or rejection of anthropogenic global warming.

The first study found 99.828% of 13,950 papers did not reject AGW.
The second found 99.956% of 9,136 authors did not reject AGW
The third found 99.979% of 69,406 authors did not reject AGW
Powell found the combined consensus of all papers studied was 99.94%

If anyone here thinks there is an argument to be made that 54,195 published scientific articles whose conclusions support the validity of AGW, contained no evidence with which to do so, they are lying to themselves (and us) in monumental proportions. Consensus, as Powell concludes, "nears universality".
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[1] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[2] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[3]
In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[4]
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia
*****************************************************************************************
James Lawrence Powell (born July 17, 1936 in Berea, Kentucky) is a geologist, author, former college president and museum director. He chaired the geology department at Oberlin College later serving as its provost and president. Powell also served as president of Franklin & Marshall College as well as Reed College. Following his positions in higher education, Powell presided over the Franklin Institute and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles.

Powell served 12 years on the National Science Board and is currently the executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium.

His book, Night Comes to the Cretaceous, explores the scientific debate regarding dinosaur extinction. In Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences, Powell addresses dinosaur extinction in addition to three other scientific debates: deep time, continental drift and global warming.

Powell has posited that the scientific consensus on global warming nears universality and he actively counters climate change denialism in his research and other publications.
Education
Powell earned a BA degree in 1958 from Berea College, a private liberal arts college located in Powell's home town of Berea, Kentucky. Powell then received a PhD in Geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1962.[5]
James L. Powell - Wikipedia
References

1. Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
2. ^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
3. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
4. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079.
5. Nemeh, Katherine (2014). American Men & Women of Science: A Biographical Directory of Today's Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences (32nd ed., vol. 5 ed.). Gale Virtual Reference Library. p. 1498. Retrieved 1 February 2019.

 

[SSDD]

All that and not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....

54,195 published papers and not a single one in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....what a colossal, expensive, pointless waste of time climate science has been...

 

[airplanemechanic]

All that and not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....

54,195 published papers and not a single one in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....what a colossal, expensive, pointless waste of time climate science has been...

That's the problem I have. All these "scientists" say the Earth is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. They can't explain 4.4 billion years of climate change before man ever stepped foot on this planet. If AGW is only responsible for the last 50 years, what's responsible for the previous 4.4 billion that is NO LONGER a factor in our climate today? What changed, scientifically, that the Earth warming is now solely because of man and not what caused it to warm and cool for the past 4 BILLION years? 50 million years ago was the thermal max this planet ever experienced. That was 49.99 MILLION years before man. So what caused it then that absolutely CANNOT be the cause today?

They have no explanation for this:

 

[SSDD]

All that and not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....

54,195 published papers and not a single one in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....what a colossal, expensive, pointless waste of time climate science has been...

That's the problem I have. All these "scientists" say the Earth is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. They can't explain 4.4 billion years of climate change before man ever stepped foot on this planet. If AGW is only responsible for the last 50 years, what's responsible for the previous 4.4 billion that is NO LONGER a factor in our climate today? What changed, scientifically, that the Earth warming is now solely because of man and not what caused it to warm and cool for the past 4 BILLION years? 50 million years ago was the thermal max this planet ever experienced. That was 49.99 MILLION years before man. So what caused it then that absolutely CANNOT be the cause today?

They have no explanation for this:

Or maybe they are claiming that man made global warming looks just like natural variability...that makes as much sense as anything else they say.