OH YEA??? Well this guy is so disputed by "settled Science"!!!

[healthmyths]

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.
Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And REMEMBER... if Wikipedia.org says it's true??? WELL... here is one credentialed EXPERT who disagrees with "settled science".

His works can be seen on his own site RealClimateScience.com and on various other climate change sites.

After all this time, Heller has come to the conclusion that the level of warming the planet is seeing is mild or perhaps nonexistent.

Heller believes the waste from nuclear energy production is a much larger problem than pro-nuclear people make it out to be,
and the answer to satisfying the world’s energy needs is to just keep burning fossil fuels.

Despite the contrarian viewpoint, Heller’s opinions aren’t disregarded in the climate world. His credentials run deep in many scientific fields.
“Google Earth has this great feature where we can look at historical imagery for the Grinnell Glacier. It’s grown quite a bit, actually,” Heller said.
“The Park Service won’t admit it.”

Keep Burning Fossil Fuels, Says Wyoming Climate Change Skeptic

Cheyenne author, geologist, computer scientist, and environmentalist Tony Heller is a contrarian in national climate circles. He believes that carbon…

cowboystatedaily.com

And today... from this definitely NOT a weather expert... please someone explain this as "Climate Change"...
OH... here it is..
It may seem counterintuitive, but more snowfall during snowstorms is an expected effect of climate change. That’s because a warmer planet is evaporating more water into the atmosphere. That added moisture means more precipitation in the form of heavy snowfall or downpours.1

During warmer months, this can cause record-breaking floods. But during the winter – when our part of the world is tipped away from the sun – temperatures drop, and instead of downpours we can get massive winter storms.

In a warming world, why so much snow?

Here’s how a warming planet could fuel fiercer snowstorms, even as overall snowfall declines and the snow season shrinks.

www.edf.org

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.
Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And REMEMBER... if Wikipedia.org says it's true??? WELL... here is one credentialed EXPERT who disagrees with "settled science".

His works can be seen on his own site RealClimateScience.com and on various other climate change sites.

After all this time, Heller has come to the conclusion that the level of warming the planet is seeing is mild or perhaps nonexistent.

Heller believes the waste from nuclear energy production is a much larger problem than pro-nuclear people make it out to be,
and the answer to satisfying the world’s energy needs is to just keep burning fossil fuels.

Despite the contrarian viewpoint, Heller’s opinions aren’t disregarded in the climate world. His credentials run deep in many scientific fields.
“Google Earth has this great feature where we can look at historical imagery for the Grinnell Glacier. It’s grown quite a bit, actually,” Heller said.
“The Park Service won’t admit it.”

Keep Burning Fossil Fuels, Says Wyoming Climate Change Skeptic

Cheyenne author, geologist, computer scientist, and environmentalist Tony Heller is a contrarian in national climate circles. He believes that carbon…

cowboystatedaily.com

And today... from this definitely NOT a weather expert... please someone explain this as "Climate Change"...
OH... here it is..
It may seem counterintuitive, but more snowfall during snowstorms is an expected effect of climate change. That’s because a warmer planet is evaporating more water into the atmosphere. That added moisture means more precipitation in the form of heavy snowfall or downpours.1

During warmer months, this can cause record-breaking floods. But during the winter – when our part of the world is tipped away from the sun – temperatures drop, and instead of downpours we can get massive winter storms.

In a warming world, why so much snow?

Here’s how a warming planet could fuel fiercer snowstorms, even as overall snowfall declines and the snow season shrinks.

www.edf.org

The bed wetters got tired of having to change the narrative from "global cooling" to "global warming" every few decades so they came up with climate change.
That encompasses anything- hot/cold, wet/dry, calm/storm- they all can fit under that umbrella to fool the sheeple with nonsense hysteria about the weather.

The climate has always & will always change. Going Chicken Little over it is for the masked morons.
Most of the US is under record breaking drought conditions so where's all this water going?

 

[Crick]

You two are idiots. Tony Heller is one man and has virtually no training in anything resembling climate science. To suggest that his uninformed and unsupported opinions refute the thousands of studies by thousands of actual experts in this field is pure confirmation bias and the sort of complete failure of critical thinking in which your prejudicial ignorance unsurprisingly results.

There never was a global cooling narrative outside of sensationalist media. And anyone attempting to claim some value to the use of the terms climate change and global warming is simply another fool with no evidence to actually make an argument.

 

[ding]

You two are idiots. Tony Heller is one man and has virtually no training in anything resembling climate science. To suggest that his uninformed and unsupported opinions refute the thousands of studies by thousands of actual experts in this field is pure confirmation bias and the sort of complete failure of critical thinking in which your prejudicial ignorance unsurprisingly results.

There never was a global cooling narrative outside of sensationalist media. And anyone attempting to claim some value to the use of the terms climate change and global warming is simply another fool with no evidence to actually make an argument.

You literally just argued in another thread not more than 10 minutes ago that the planet was slowly cooling and CO2 saved the planet from further cooling.

 

[healthmyths]

You two are idiots. Tony Heller is one man and has virtually no training in anything resembling climate science. To suggest that his uninformed and unsupported opinions refute the thousands of studies by thousands of actual experts in this field is pure confirmation bias and the sort of complete failure of critical thinking in which your prejudicial ignorance unsurprisingly results.

There never was a global cooling narrative outside of sensationalist media. And anyone attempting to claim some value to the use of the terms climate change and global warming is simply another fool with no evidence to actually make an argument.

Now LIKE you inept, ineffective commentators, you provided NO LINKS.. NO verification of your subjective personal opinion!
How in the world can you criticize someone with out at least giving some substantiation...I know, I know a big word which means.. Dictionary.com Is The World's Favorite Online Dictionary › browse › substantiation
Substantiation: "definition, evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, valid, or real; proof.."

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." — Richard Feynman

• BS Geology, Arizona State University
• Masters Electrical Engineering, Rice University
• Boston University Geology
• Northern Arizona University Computer Science
• Colorado State University Computer Science
• University of New Mexico Geochemistry

Lifelong environmentalist.
I testified at my first Congressional hearing in support of Wilderness in 1972.
I fought for the Clean Air and Water acts
Wilderness Ranger Cibola National Forest, New Mexico
Wilderness Ranger Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico
Currently battling the City of Boulder, Colorado to stop development on the South Boulder Wetlands
Full time cyclist for all my local transportation, for the past 40 years

Member of The CO2 Coalition

Teacher.
Science teacher, Athletic Director and Soccer Coach at Oak Creek Ranch School, Arizona
Math teacher at Phoenix Country Day School
Substitute teacher at Murphy School District, Phoenix Arizona
Computer instructor at Tomball College, Texas

Geologist.
Geothermal research at Los Alamos National Labs
Oil shale research at Los Alamos National Labs
Thermodynamic research of methane hydrates at Los Alamos National Labs
Volcano research at Los Alamos National Labs
Safety Analysis Report for the Permian Basin DOE nuclear waste disposal site
Volunteer curator Arizona Mineral Museum

Electrical Engineer
Compaq/SGI MIPS consortium design team
Power PC design team IBM/Apple/Motorola (Used in most game consoles over the last three decades, and PowerMacs)
Sandia Labs computer architect
Sandia Labs representative to Al Gore’s Bankers Trust key escrow consortium
Cyrix Media GX microprocessor design team manager
Raycer Graphics OpenGL graphics processor verification lead
Design manager Hitachi/ST SH5 microprocessor
Verification lead MemoryLogix microprocessor
Founder, design lead Visual Media video effects/editing software
OpenGL driver development ATI
Itanium/i7 design team Intel (very likely being used by you right now)
Sped up Helicos DNA sequencing algorithm by 50X
Sped up NCAR weather microphysics kernel by 500X
Ported NCAR’s radiative transfer model to GPU
Ported NCAR’s WRF weather model to Windows
Drone visualization and control software for the US military
Medical device control systems (under NDA)
Virtual reality visualization design (under NDA)
Radio control and visualization software (under NDA)

Who Is Tony Heller? | Real Climate Science

realclimatescience.com

 

[Crick]

You literally just argued in another thread not more than 10 minutes ago that the planet was slowly cooling and CO2 saved the planet from further cooling.

I argued that CO2 was warming the planet despite negative long term forcing factors. If you think that's some admission that I agree with your nonesense, you're as stupid as they are.

 

[ding]

I argued that CO2 was warming the planet despite negative long term forcing factors. If you think that's some admission that I agree with your nonesense, you're as stupid as they are.

You said the planet was slowly cooling and implied that CO2 stopped the cooling.

Still scratching my head at how you believe glacial cycles transition from interglacial cycles slowly. It’s like you have never actually studied the data.

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not driven by orbital or CO2 forcing. That’s what you people keep confusing for AGW. Not to worry the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and colder temperatures. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world. A cooling trend will be along shortly to destroy everything you believe.

 

[Crick]

You said the planet was slowly cooling and implied that CO2 stopped the cooling.

Still scratching my head at how you believe glacial cycles transition from interglacial cycles slowly. It’s like you have never actually studied the data.

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not driven by orbital or CO2 forcing. That’s what you people keep confusing for AGW. Not to worry the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and colder temperatures. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world. A cooling trend will be along shortly to destroy everything you believe.

Back on ignore.

 

[ding]

Back on ignore.

You never could face reality. You’ve got religion.

 

[healthmyths]

I argued that CO2 was warming the planet despite negative long term forcing factors. If you think that's some admission that I agree with your nonesense, you're as stupid as they are.

But no FACTS ! Plus someone who ignores the little red dotted line really is stupid.

It just amazes me how truly dumb people like you are! You make unsubstantiated, NO proof personalized comments as if they are true! And then you ignore a simple little red dotted line THAT points out an error...AND YOU IGNORE it.
How can people like you really exist if little warning signs like the above mean nothing to you?
Now as for your nonsense ...
Of all people a poor ignoramus like you should always, always do one thing..."Follow the money"!!!

Academic Distrust
Heller casts the same scrutiny on the conclusions of other well-known skeptics, such as Dr. Judith Curry.
Judith A. Curry (born c. 1953) is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She was a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee,[1] published over a hundred scientific papers, and co-edited several major works.[2]Curry retired from academia in 2017 at age 63.[2]

Judith Curry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Curry argues that climate change is real, but it’s not going to produce catastrophic results – something touted by many climate activists. She left the “crazy” environment of academia where she was regularly attacked for her ideas for the private sector, where she would have more scientific freedom.

Heller believes that since academics’ funding is dependent on finding a crisis in their research, they are all influenced toward a warming bias — even those like Curry who question catastrophic warming.

He points to the experience of Dr. William M. Gray, who was emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.
Gray claimed that scientists supported the scientific consensus on climate change because they were afraid of losing grant funding[17] and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.[18] Although he agreed that global warming was taking place, he argued that humans were only responsible for a tiny portion and it was largely part of the Earth's natural cycle.[16][18] In June 2011, Gray wrote a paper directed at the American Meteorological Society, opposing their embrace of anthropogenic global warming.[19]

William M. Gray - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gore asked Gray in 2009 to come to a conference and Gray, who died in 2016, agreed to go but warned Gore that they wouldn’t see eye-to-eye on climate change. He went ahead with this speech, which disputed Gore’s gloom-and-doom rhetoric.
“Bill got blackballed after that,” Heller said. “He never got another penny out of the government.”

SO CRICK!!! AT LEAST provide some proof as to what what you believe!

 

[Crick]

But no FACTS ! Plus someone who ignores the little red dotted line really is stupid.
View attachment 737252
It just amazes me how truly dumb people like you are! You make unsubstantiated, NO proof personalized comments as if they are true! And then you ignore a simple little red dotted line THAT points out an error...AND YOU IGNORE it.
How can people like you really exist if little warning signs like the above mean nothing to you?
Now as for your nonsense ...
Of all people a poor ignoramus like you should always, always do one thing..."Follow the money"!!!

I have a MUCH better idea. Follow the scientific evidence. Follow the conclusions that the word's experts on this subject have arrived at. Following the money may be effective in some situations, but not in science. The idea that the rich know better and that they will invest only according to what they know to be true is, simply put, ignorant bullshit. Your conclusion that I must be ignorant from using "nonesense" is completely irrelevant. Why don't you try considering the content of my posts. If that content makes you conclude I'm ignorant, have at it, but till then any such comment marks you as lacking any substance in this discussion.

Academic Distrust
Heller casts the same scrutiny on the conclusions of other well-known skeptics, such as Dr. Judith Curry.

I don't give two shits what Mr Heller has to say.

Curry argues that climate change is real, but it’s not going to produce catastrophic results – something touted by many climate activists. She left the “crazy” environment of academia where she was regularly attacked for her ideas for the private sector, where she would have more scientific freedom.

I don't give two shits what Ms Curry has to say either.

Heller believes that since academics’ funding is dependent on finding a crisis in their research, they are all influenced toward a warming bias — even those like Curry who question catastrophic warming.

So he believes the same ignorant bullshit you guys like to spout. What a surprise.

He points to the experience of Dr. William M. Gray, who was emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.
Gray claimed that scientists supported the scientific consensus on climate change because they were afraid of losing grant funding[17] and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.[18] Although he agreed that global warming was taking place, he argued that humans were only responsible for a tiny portion and it was largely part of the Earth's natural cycle.[16][18] In June 2011, Gray wrote a paper directed at the American Meteorological Society, opposing their embrace of anthropogenic global warming.[19]

William M. Gray - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gore asked Gray in 2009 to come to a conference and Gray, who died in 2016, agreed to go but warned Gore that they wouldn’t see eye-to-eye on climate change. He went ahead with this speech, which disputed Gore’s gloom-and-doom rhetoric.
“Bill got blackballed after that,” Heller said. “He never got another penny out of the government.”

Where did Gray show that human GHG emissions were only responsible for a tiny portion of the observed warming? How do you know that it was a valid conclusion on his part? In 2009 Gray was 80 years old and had been retired for over four years. I find it difficult to believe he ever even attempted to get government funding to conduct research after 2009.

SO CRICK!!! AT LEAST provide some proof as to what what you believe!

There are no proofs in the natural sciences. If you'd like to see observations, evidence, critical reasoning and logic leading to the conclusions held by more than 99% of the world's active climate scientists, go to www.ipcc.ch and find "The Physical Science Basis" from each of the six IPCC assessment reports.

 

[healthmyths]

I have a MUCH better idea. Follow the scientific evidence. Follow the conclusions that the word's experts on this subject have arrived at. Following the money may be effective in some situations, but not in science. The idea that the rich know better and that they will invest only according to what they know to be true is, simply put, ignorant bullshit. Your conclusion that I must be ignorant from using "nonesense" is completely irrelevant. Why don't you try considering the content of my posts. If that content makes you conclude I'm ignorant, have at it, but till then any such comment marks you as lacking any substance in this discussion.

I don't give two shits what Mr Heller has to say.

I don't give two shits what Ms Curry has to say either.

So he believes the same ignorant bullshit you guys like to spout. What a surprise.

Where did Gray show that human GHG emissions were only responsible for a tiny portion of the observed warming? How do you know that it was a valid conclusion on his part? In 2009 Gray was 80 years old and had been retired for over four years. I find it difficult to believe he ever even attempted to get government funding to conduct research after 2009.

There are no proofs in the natural sciences. If you'd like to see observations, evidence, critical reasoning and logic leading to the conclusions held by more than 99% of the world's active climate scientists, go to www.ipcc.ch and find "The Physical Science Basis" from each of the six IPCC assessment reports.

You said it yourself!!! "There are no proofs in the natural sciences."

Look at this photo and tell me why it took a little kid to give them common sense advice!

“If you want to get the truck out all you have to do is let the air out of the tires!”

So with consensus you make decisions is that right?
Well please tell me how millions of observations over 130 years by people trying to discern the difference between say
-20 ° and -22° while standing in the open with temperatures ranging from -30° to +120° AND then handwriting the results,
that are copied, re-copied a number of times to get a world temperature?
Further dispute comes from this:
A) Also if 12% of the earth's colder land mass WAS NOT included in the readings wouldn't that affect the temperature?
B) Finally there is an issue of most of the reading stations that were located in "Heat islands"... urbanized areas that experience higher temperatures than outlying areas. Structures such as buildings, roads, and other infrastructure absorb and re-emit the sun’s heat more than natural landscapes such as forests and water bodies. Heat Island Effect | US EPA
These simple questions have YET to be answered by anyone that I've put them to on this forum. Zero.
Just to repeat.. tell me the temperature on the below if you were standing outside in a major US city in +100°, in the shadow of a tall building ("heat island") and then writing with a pencil what you think you saw from a thermometer like the below.
And your readings are combined with thousands EXCEPT from 12% of the Earth's land mass where the average annual temperature is (32.9 °F). January averages about −20 °C (−4 °F) and July about +19 °C (66 °F), Siberia - Wikipedia
Again.. please explain how then we come to the conclusion the Earth has warmed 1.53° over 130 years with the above aspects.

 

[ding]

Crick will have a hard time explaining why sea level rise isn’t at 10mm/yr in 10 years.

Their undoing will be their unrealistic predictions. But they didn’t really have a choice because they had to peddle a catastrophe. So dumb.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AI will kill us for believing in Climate Change

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.
Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And REMEMBER... if Wikipedia.org says it's true??? WELL... here is one credentialed EXPERT who disagrees with "settled science".

His works can be seen on his own site RealClimateScience.com and on various other climate change sites.

After all this time, Heller has come to the conclusion that the level of warming the planet is seeing is mild or perhaps nonexistent.

Heller believes the waste from nuclear energy production is a much larger problem than pro-nuclear people make it out to be,
and the answer to satisfying the world’s energy needs is to just keep burning fossil fuels.

Despite the contrarian viewpoint, Heller’s opinions aren’t disregarded in the climate world. His credentials run deep in many scientific fields.
“Google Earth has this great feature where we can look at historical imagery for the Grinnell Glacier. It’s grown quite a bit, actually,” Heller said.
“The Park Service won’t admit it.”

Keep Burning Fossil Fuels, Says Wyoming Climate Change Skeptic

Cheyenne author, geologist, computer scientist, and environmentalist Tony Heller is a contrarian in national climate circles. He believes that carbon…

cowboystatedaily.com

And today... from this definitely NOT a weather expert... please someone explain this as "Climate Change"...
OH... here it is..
It may seem counterintuitive, but more snowfall during snowstorms is an expected effect of climate change. That’s because a warmer planet is evaporating more water into the atmosphere. That added moisture means more precipitation in the form of heavy snowfall or downpours.1

During warmer months, this can cause record-breaking floods. But during the winter – when our part of the world is tipped away from the sun – temperatures drop, and instead of downpours we can get massive winter storms.

In a warming world, why so much snow?

Here’s how a warming planet could fuel fiercer snowstorms, even as overall snowfall declines and the snow season shrinks.

www.edf.org

As soon as the word "consensus" was thrown out the word garbage came to mind. Mob Rule is not how science is done. You either have the facts to prove your position, or you do not. It's that simple.

The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis is not backed with facts. There is no basis for the word catastrophic as our water driven atmosphere will not allow any runaway temperature. A simple look at the Paleo Record shows the earth had levels in excess of 7000ppm for millions of years and not once did it stray out of the natural variational boundaries. Further, empirical evidence shows that CO2 alone should create about 2.1 deg C warming but has only managed about 0.6 deg C. Less than half of the expected from that trace gas alone and omitting other natural drivers. The effect of CO2 is much less than the current total warming seen, when natural vectors are included.

The atmosphere is dampening any reaction that CO2 could create. Proof that the paleo record is correct, and that no runaway temperature is possible in our current atmosphere. Also, there is no mid-tropospheric hot spot, this must exist for the hypothesis to be true. Again, it doesn't exist. This is also why all modeling fails empirical verification.

Dr Hellar is correct.

We do not dispute that man has some impact, that would be an asinine position to take. What we dispute is the effect it is having globally. What most people do not know is there is very little that is in dispute. Water vapor is not increasing. Storms are actually at a 150 year low today in both severity and counts. There is a whole lot of garbage out there today and 99% of it is pure hype to drive fear.

Here is a base line article on CAGW, what is agreed upon and what is in dispute with the facts to back it up.

The Skeptic's Case | Mises Institute

Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message.

mises.org

 

[Crick]

You said it yourself!!! "There are no proofs in the natural sciences."

I did so in response to your demand for "proof". And, of course, you are not the only one. It is extremely common for people unfamiliar with science to think it involves proofs.

Look at this photo and tell me why it took a little kid to give them common sense advice!
View attachment 737281 “If you want to get the truck out all you have to do is let the air out of the tires!”

The idiocy here is thinking that truck drivers anywhere are unaware of that possibility. They aren't. Ask a truck driver.

So with consensus you make decisions is that right?

Decisions have to be made under all manner of conditions, often lacking anything as comforting as a strong consensus among the experts.

Well please tell me how millions of observations over 130 years by people trying to discern the difference between say
-20 ° and -22° while standing in the open with temperatures ranging from -30° to +120° AND then handwriting the results,
that are copied, re-copied a number of times to get a world temperature?

Because your description of the method by which that data were gathered is grossly incorrect. It is a very common mistake of yours.

Further dispute comes from this:

Dispute? Not proof? Not refutation? Not falsification?

A) Also if 12% of the earth's colder land mass WAS NOT included in the readings wouldn't that affect the temperature?

Lots of things could affects the results. That's why the many highly educated, experienced scientists who work these figures out are very careful to avoid making mistakes. And the mistakes they do make are ones YOU wouldn't think of in a million years. Missing 12% of the world's land mass would be a mistake the scientists 6-year old would catch. And your comment, of course, is based on another error on your part.

B) Finally there is an issue of most of the reading stations that were located in "Heat islands"... urbanized areas that experience higher temperatures than outlying areas.

You're about a decade out of date. Most stations are not located in heat islands and the whole subject has been studied to death and accounted for in the data long ago.

Structures such as buildings, roads, and other infrastructure absorb and re-emit the sun’s heat more than natural landscapes such as forests and water bodies. Heat Island Effect | US EPA
These simple questions have YET to be answered by anyone that I've put them to on this forum. Zero.

That is simply incorrect. UHI was discussed, also to death, on this forum years ago.

Just to repeat.. tell me the temperature on the below if you were standing outside in a major US city in +100°, in the shadow of a tall building ("heat island") and then writing with a pencil what you think you saw from a thermometer like the below.
And your readings are combined with thousands EXCEPT from 12% of the Earth's land mass where the average annual temperature is (32.9 °F). January averages about −20 °C (−4 °F) and July about +19 °C (66 °F), Siberia - Wikipedia
Again.. please explain how then we come to the conclusion the Earth has warmed 1.53° over 130 years with the above aspects.

Because everything you've suggested here is incorrect. No one is ignoring areas of the Earth. In places where no direct measurements are possible, indirect measurements are made and verified. Measurement are made via satellite. Models are run to replicate likely conditions and thus likely temperatures between physically disparate measurements.

View attachment 737284

Why would you go to the International Energy Agency (IEA) for advice about the accuracy of Russian temperature data? That is not where their expertise lies and they have a documented history of providing inadequate emphasis on alternative energy technologies.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.

To what degree? Most everyone I know has stated that man's influence cannot be discerned from noise in our climactic systems. And that is the rub, man has an influence, but it is a very minor one.

 

[healthmyths]

To what degree? Most everyone I know has stated that man's influence cannot be discerned from noise in our climactic systems. And that is the rub, man has an influence, but it is a very minor one.

Obviously you didn't READ THE REST OF THE POST!


And REMEMBER... if Wikipedia.org says it's true???

WELL... here is one credentialed EXPERT who disagrees with "settled science".

His works can be seen on his own site RealClimateScience.com and on various other climate change sites.
His works can be seen on his own site RealClimateScience.com and on various other climate change sites.

After all this time, Heller has come to the conclusion that the level of warming the planet is seeing is mild or perhaps nonexistent.

Heller believes the waste from nuclear energy production is a much larger problem than pro-nuclear people make it out to be,
and the answer to satisfying the world’s energy needs is to just keep burning fossil fuels.

Despite the contrarian viewpoint, Heller’s opinions aren’t disregarded in the climate world. His credentials run deep in many scientific fields.
“Google Earth has this great feature where we can look at historical imagery for the Grinnell Glacier. It’s grown quite a bit, actually,” Heller said.
“The Park Service won’t admit it.”

Keep Burning Fossil Fuels, Says Wyoming Climate Change Skeptic

Cheyenne author, geologist, computer scientist, and environmentalist Tony Heller is a contrarian in national climate circles. He believes that carbon…

cowboystatedaily.com

And today... from this definitely NOT a weather expert... please someone explain this as "Climate Change"...
OH... here it is..
It may seem counterintuitive, but more snowfall during snowstorms is an expected effect of climate change. That’s because a warmer planet is evaporating more water into the atmosphere. That added moisture means more precipitation in the form of heavy snowfall or downpours.1

During warmer months, this can cause record-breaking floods. But during the winter – when our part of the world is tipped away from the sun – temperatures drop, and instead of downpours we can get massive winter storms.

In a warming world, why so much snow?

Here’s how a warming planet could fuel fiercer snowstorms, even as overall snowfall declines and the snow season shrinks.

www.edf.org

 

[Billy_Bob]

Obviously you didn't READ THE REST OF THE POST!


And REMEMBER... if Wikipedia.org says it's true???

WELL... here is one credentialed EXPERT who disagrees with "settled science".

His works can be seen on his own site RealClimateScience.com and on various other climate change sites.
His works can be seen on his own site RealClimateScience.com and on various other climate change sites.

After all this time, Heller has come to the conclusion that the level of warming the planet is seeing is mild or perhaps nonexistent.

Heller believes the waste from nuclear energy production is a much larger problem than pro-nuclear people make it out to be,
and the answer to satisfying the world’s energy needs is to just keep burning fossil fuels.

Despite the contrarian viewpoint, Heller’s opinions aren’t disregarded in the climate world. His credentials run deep in many scientific fields.
“Google Earth has this great feature where we can look at historical imagery for the Grinnell Glacier. It’s grown quite a bit, actually,” Heller said.
“The Park Service won’t admit it.”

Keep Burning Fossil Fuels, Says Wyoming Climate Change Skeptic

Cheyenne author, geologist, computer scientist, and environmentalist Tony Heller is a contrarian in national climate circles. He believes that carbon…

cowboystatedaily.com

And today... from this definitely NOT a weather expert... please someone explain this as "Climate Change"...
OH... here it is..
It may seem counterintuitive, but more snowfall during snowstorms is an expected effect of climate change. That’s because a warmer planet is evaporating more water into the atmosphere. That added moisture means more precipitation in the form of heavy snowfall or downpours.1

During warmer months, this can cause record-breaking floods. But during the winter – when our part of the world is tipped away from the sun – temperatures drop, and instead of downpours we can get massive winter storms.

In a warming world, why so much snow?

Here’s how a warming planet could fuel fiercer snowstorms, even as overall snowfall declines and the snow season shrinks.

www.edf.org

Dr Hellar is more of a scientist than most people are who work in the field.. LOL Wiki is garbage...
And he is correct about the Glaciers growing. We have 11 previously melted regions that have 3-5 years of ice growth on them now. Glaciation is resuming already in this region. And no, the NPS isn't breathing a word about it because it disproves the CAGW narrative of the Biden Admin.

 

[healthmyths]

I did so in response to your demand for "proof". And, of course, you are not the only one. It is extremely common for people unfamiliar with science to think it involves proofs.

The idiocy here is thinking that truck drivers anywhere are unaware of that possibility. They aren't. Ask a truck driver.

Decisions have to be made under all manner of conditions, often lacking anything as comforting as a strong consensus among the experts.

Because your description of the method by which that data were gathered is grossly incorrect. It is a very common mistake of yours.

Dispute? Not proof? Not refutation? Not falsification?

Lots of things could affects the results. That's why the many highly educated, experienced scientists who work these figures out are very careful to avoid making mistakes. And the mistakes they do make are ones YOU wouldn't think of in a million years. Missing 12% of the world's land mass would be a mistake the scientists 6-year old would catch. And your comment, of course, is based on another error on your part.

You're about a decade out of date. Most stations are not located in heat islands and the whole subject has been studied to death and accounted for in the data long ago.

That is simply incorrect. UHI was discussed, also to death, on this forum years ago.

Because everything you've suggested here is incorrect. No one is ignoring areas of the Earth. In places where no direct measurements are possible, indirect measurements are made and verified. Measurement are made via satellite. Models are run to replicate likely conditions and thus likely temperatures between physically disparate measurements.

Why would you go to the International Energy Agency (IEA) for advice about the accuracy of Russian temperature data? That is not where their expertise lies and they have a documented history of providing inadequate emphasis on alternative energy technologies.

You wrote: "Because your description of the method by which that data were gathered is grossly incorrect. It is a very common mistake of yours."
OK prove me wrong! See pompous people make the assumption that JUST because they say so it is true!!! After all they are smarter than everyone else! But us dummies want to see proof! Prove to me that before computer systems in 2012 for over 100 years the method of recording temperatures DID NOT... AGAIN DID NOT require a human standing in -20° or less or +120 ° or more writing down what they may have seen was 1 degree differences that were then copied many times by humans! Proof to me that "urban heat islands" didn't affect temperatures! Prove to me that NOT including 12% of the Earth's land mass where the AVERAGE temperature is January averages about −20 °C (−4 °F) and July about +19 °C (66 °F)

Siberia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

PROVE to me those assumptions are wrong! I won't continue as correcting your remaining issues is beyond your attention span!