In parts of my state tonight there was 4 inches of rain and flash floods in just hours and this has been the norm. They will hit here tomorrow. We may well be crossing a tipping point. The cyclone in the Arctic this week that was caused by warmth mixing from Siberia where it was reported in the 70s this week to me is a portent of something we did not expect to begin for at least a couple more decades: exceleration of the cycle through escalated methane releases from permafrost. Combine that with excess methane from fracking the country to bits and all the other crap we are putting up in the atmosphere daily and well, you know. I want to scream and curse. It is so hard to remain collected in the face of such blatant ... I'll stop here.

Here in SW PA we've also been getting severe downpours from all that evaporated water out west. My basement has flooded from rain dozens of times this summer when, in the 37 I've lived here, it floods at most once a year.
What is really strange is that 20 miles west of me they aren't getting nearly as much rain and are in a drought. That is where major fracking is taking place. My good friend who lives there described it to me: "They come in, bulldoze every tree in sight, construct huge waste-water evaporation ponds, and have ruined the countryside and my property value. I spit at their trucks as they constantly drive by."
Two things struck me about what he said.
1. Bulldozing every tree in sight.
2. Waste-water evaporation ponds (aka Frack Pits).
As I've said before, scientists have recently discovered that trees produce chemicals via photosynthesis that create rain. Now in their place are frack pits evaporating hundreds of volatile compounds (VOCs) from millions of gallons waste-water into the air.
Is this why it isn't raining there but IS raining here where it's still heavily forested?

That is truly abhorrent. I don't think I'd be able to be that peaceful to people who would destroy the face of the land I love, and poisoning the earth and the water for the sake of a pocket of fuel. Fracking needs to be done away with.
I honestly believe that there is a reason why nature chose to have these gasses below the ground, and undisturbed. Science often discovers what nature has known all along.

We would be better served in further funding research in to cleaner energies, i.e., solar, heat, wind, magnetic, etc.
A time will come when our ancestors look back on these practices just as we look at the inquisition of the dark ages.

77.6 F that is amazing! It was 77.4 F in July of 1936.
We've arrived. It only took us 76 years to beat that record by 0.2 points with the help of man's contribution to CO2. In another 76 years, maybe we can beat it by another 0.2 points.
I'm certain the ancient roman's would scoff at this, they had it worse without the benefit of man-made CO2.

Don't panic. The sky isn't falling.

Actually the sky is rising from heat pushing thunderheads and cold air higher into the stratosphere.
I have no idea what 77.4 degree F you are referring to but you need to read what peer-reviewed scientists have to say about aerosol pollution keeping the climate cooler than it would otherwise be without them.
Could the Dust Bowl have been the result of the shut down of industry from the Great Depression? Could the sudden warming starting in 1979 have resulted from the Clean Air Act removing sulfur from smokestacks?
Science has learned in last two centuries what drives our climate - orbit, tilt, wobble and greenhouse gasses. It has been proven by peer-reviewed science that greenhouse gasses play the most significant role.
The Industrial Revolution averted an ice age.
May we learn from this data instead of making it merely a political issue paid for by Big Oil.
Humanity has rediscovered fire. Let's apply what we've learned to maintain a Goldilocks climate. We don't have to settle for a Mad Max future.

I believe there is legitimacy to a debate.
There has never really been had on a level playing field while one side claims it's unquestionable or "settled science" (as the drones repeat) while other teams and scores of experts and scientists compile mounds of opposing data.

Truth will persevere. What is the harm in having this debate if you're so confident that your side is correct?
Let them have it out, and then be done with it.

So what do you suggest we do? Shall we just trust the politicians and scientists that are being paid by Big Oil? Or shall we take a chance in trusting climatologists and other scientists that advocate cleaning up the planet? That is what it comes down to; continue polluting the planet and risk total devastation OR respect nature by living more sustainably. You go ahead and advocate the idea that people shouldn't trust the majority of scientists while we continue to pollute the planet. I know which side I want to be on in the long run.

Aren't you IceKat's brother? You sound and write just like him on this subject.

Well said! A voice of sanity as usual!

"Isn't it odd that so called scientists choose to ignore basic Thermodynamics, unless such mundane subjects are no longer taught in our enlightened schools."

BINGO

I don't think the NASA scientists that just landed Curiosity which will also be studying climate change on MARS are idiots.

You have to consider that thousands of scientists from all across the world doing peer reviewed work would consider 'the obvious' -- sun spots, volcanos, natural warming cycle, etc.

Mueller, as skeptic tried very hard to consider all of the other theories but finally came to the conclusion man is the major factor.

I learned thermodynamics in first semester University Physics. Thermodynamics can be added to any computer model. The difference in thermodynamics is overwhelmed as a component because radiation travels in waves that are directional. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation traveling away from the planet, and some of that is reflected back to the surface.

This isn't a case of being on big-oil's side, or being on the good side.
I'm 100% for energy efficiency and getting away from fossil fuels. In fact, getting away from fossil fuels completely, sooner, would prove the ridiculous notion that only the man-made portion of CO2 was not the culprit in global warming.

I find it humorous that many climate alarmists still drive these smog machines and don't put their money where their mouth is. I mean...if that isn't irony, I don't know what is.

The less pollution we have in the air, in our rivers, in our lands, the healthier we will be as a people.
I do not advocate the use of fossil fuels as it shackles humanity's growth and advancement.
Hell, Thomas Edison had an electric car back in 1901 which ran a trip from upstate NY to Connecticut and back.
Engines can be made which run off of heat, steam, electricity, water, hydrogen(the most abundant fuel in the galaxy), or any number of other non-fossil fuels.
Having our economy tied into these fuels was also another big mistake, but possibly the sole reason car manufacturers and governments have held onto it for so long.

I personally believe that sustainable living, and keeping an healthy equilibrium with our planet is vital to our long-term survival.

However, out of all of the complexities of our climate system, considering meteorologists still can't accurately predict our weather with 100% certainty day-to-day, given the innumerous amounts of variables (internal and external of earth's atmosphere), the fact that we have records showing that CO2 has been higher in the past, the disregard that other planets are also experiencing rise in temperature, etc, etc. ...to blame the smallest percentage of a trace element in our atmosphere...and even smaller the portion of that trace element which man (who exhales co2) is responsible for, it makes little rational sense.

I predict in the coming years, the earth will begin to enter into another ice age, as predicted in the 1970's. If use of fossil fuels have not been ceased, then Climate alarmists will have to invent a mechanism to describe how CO2 only retains heat for so long, and then it begins to rapidly expel heat into space at a certain saturation of ppm.
If we get rid of fossil fuels, then it beings to get cooler, they will exclaim that they were right the whole time.
So, it serves my purposes if we were to stop using fossil fuel tomorrow.
It wouldn't effect me much since I can build an electric vehicle.

I assure you there is no relation that I'm aware of.
However, perhaps the question you should be asking is why isn't a liberal-minded person like myself buying into the anthropogenic global warming philosophy.
I'm an independent-minded person strongly leaning upon common-sense and logic.

Aside from that, science has shown the earth to have historically higher and lower temperatures prior to the industrial age. It tends to happen in cycles.
God forbid it happens in my life time, but what with the climate alarmists do when the earth enters into another ice age...will they then encourage CO2 production to warm the earth? lol

I feel that time an energy is better served in creating solutions to help us survive these circumstances. It's a given that we should keep the air, land, and oceans clean and pollution free...we should be spending more time and energy trying to solve those problems at their ROOT, as well.

When it comes to alarmists screaming their heads off about how the man-made trace portion of CO2 is causing all of the climate calamities of today, while ignoring those of yore, it looks and sounds utterly ridiculous.
No matter what modern day "climate event" I've seen lately, I've always easily been able to find an analog of something that happened in the past that was either equal or more sever, including times when the atmosphere had a higher density of CO2 than today.

In this same scenario, I've seen many people who weigh heavily upon examples of extreme weather to indicate the effects of the warming trend...however when a blizzard arrives over most of Europe, and people start saying, "where's your global warming now" the view is that this is a result of it...yet somehow when it comes to past examples of the same exact thing, suddenly I get the response, "this is in the past, what does it have to do with today".
As a logical person, I must believe in cause and effect. Where I see similar circumstances and outcomes, and things which appear to be perfect analogs to these situations and yet the element of man-made emissions is omitted, one arrives at the conclusion that this variable is insignificant to the main cause of the problem.

It seems the more I learn, about this issue, the more holes I begin to see in the prognosis. Also, there seems to be a lot of "slight of hand" going on. All of which, really just doesn't sit right with me.

It is not a philosophy, it is science.

What is the source of this pie? Anyone can create a graphic like that and make it say what they want.

I can see how it would be difficult to believe. But whether it is hard to believe doesn't change reality.

To begin let's start with the red portion. Water vapor quantities are relatively stable as long as temperatures and pressures are stable. If we added more water vapor to the atmosphere it would cause saturation. If we increase water than water precipitates from the sky (meaning it would rain). Therefore, water vapor under normal conditions isn't a culprit.

In the absence of catastrophic volcanoes such as Tambora the green portion is stable as well. Still, you could argue we should pay attention to what might happen if there were such a volcano and you would be right.

The human additions are increasing and unlike rain CO2 and CH4 do not precipitate. They accumulate. Now, here comes the bad news. Small changes in CO2 concentrations drive the temperature enough to increase the amount of water that can stay in the air as water vapor before saturation occurs. Thus, the little blue guy is driving the big red guy up.

Your data is truthful. We might have different stances on this issue, but maybe we agree on this point. The science really is more important than the politics. Thanks for this.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at where you get your Crayola charts from. Notice you didn't dispute water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing. Your slight of hand is typical smoke and mirrors.

Who made that chart? Anyone can make a chart and make it say what they want.

They're from denier blogs. You can tell by the addresses.

Again, no source cited for that graph.

Funny. I don't see you making the same inquiries of Coolplanet of the graphs he posts.
I wonder why that is. Seems like a double standard, wouldn't you say.

I didn't know that the "Academy of Science" is in fact http://c3headlines.typepad.com - one learns something every day! Which Academy of Science, in which country, which city, who heads it?

So are you actually denying the existence of man-made climate change or disagree with a carbon tax approach to curbing our emissions?

Al Gore cites the world's leading climate scientists.
Jim Inhofe cites the Genesis 8:20.
Whose the cult leader?

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/podcasting/temperature-puzzle.html

"NASA satellites measure the sun's energy, which fluctuates due to a ten to twelve year cycle. Could increased solar activity be causing global warming? Satellite evidence shows that the solar cycle has only a slight impact on our planet's temperatures. In fact, even though the last few years have been some of the warmest on record, the sun has been in a deep lull in activity. That means slightly less solar energy is reaching Earth. And when the solar cycle ramps up again, scientists expect temperatures will rise even a little more."

That's precisely it, coolplanet. By every other account of temperature fluctuations whether it be the solar cycle or the Milankovitch Effect we should be cooling right now. Only the anthropogenic global warming explanation has the correct timing to explain this year's current run up in temperatures.

This to me is the most important point.
In the past century science has discovered what causes glacials and interglacials, and how orbit, wobble and greenhouse gasses control climate.
Humans have discovered something a lot more important than mere fire.
We now understand how to keep our planet in a temperature range suitable for growing crops and being comfortable. We have evolved beyond blaming God for the weather.

Too bad we couldn't have spent more time researching and understanding climatology before we went and made all those changes to the atmospheric chemistry. Usually, when people get a new toy they spend some time understanding the limitations before putting them to serious challenges. New cars are tested at the proving grounds. New computers are given a bounce test to make sure the electrical connections are secure. Homes are thoroughly inspected before they are sold. All the work is done up front before making changes. Smart people do that. Our planet is the single most important system that we know. To put the planet to a severe test without first learning the limitations... well, one would have to be an idiot.

I try to see it as a learning process.
We inadvertently stopped an ice age with the industrial revolution.
Jim Hansen subscribes to this hypothesis proposed by fellow climatologist Bill Ruddiman 10 years ago. It's a mind-blowing argument when you look at the data.
Hansen has discovered, in peer-reviewed papers, that keeping carbon dioxide levels at 350 parts per million will maintain a stable, comfortable climate in the present orbital cycle.
Currently we are at 400 ppm CO2 and rapidly rising, overheating the planet.
This is not hard to understand.
Sadly, religion and politics reject science, as usual.

If that's true then humans are realy toast. I blogged an article on this website
pointing to a 10 degree rise in average global temperature by 2100 or sooner.
We're not even at 2 degrees yet, and it looks like Big Oil & Big Lumber has
been terra forming the Earth into the planet from Hell. The artlcle I blogged
expects humans to be extinct by 2100.

Mueller said he thought the same thing, but after a billion data points he saw that was not the cause. If it were so something so simple as sun spots, don't you think climatologists would be able to figure that out.

Hansen does good work, but he wasn't the first. About 120 years ago Svante Arrhenius calculated that a rise in CO2 to 350 ppm by an industrial population would prevent the next ice age. Astronomers have long known that greenhouse gas concentrations are essential for predicting the surface temperatures of a planet.

Here are my basics:

Greenhouse gas theory is well-documented science that has its fundamentals rooted in intramolecular forces - like the theory of gravity. Extra greenhouse gases increases atmospheric heat retention.

Climate change comes from the planets natural cycles due to the sun, Earth, and the effects of tipping points. Climate change is like a sleeping lion that we would never want to piss off.

Anthropogenic global warming is what happens when we combine the effects of additional greenhouse gases with climate change. When we put our trash into the sky - when we contribute to planetary scale hoarding - we are prodding the sleeping lion.

Urban heat islands is a term that I've added most recently. Metropolitan areas are like point sources from which excess concentrations of CO2, and hence extra heat, can be traced.

Just to keep all of us on the same page the terms are not interchangeable. Although interrelated each has a distinct meaning.

All the data is confusing to someone who doesn't know how to interpret it.
It only makes it more confusing to see scientists bicker about it. I only know
for sure that the obvious trends are alarming. I never said what Rostradamus
or I believed was true, only that I believed it-tentatively. What's apalling is that
the bastards want to exploit it for monentary gain, as they ignore the harm it's
doing.

Excellent points!
I knew that Arrhenius thought atmospheric CO2 was a great thing and could reverse the 'little ice age' of his day but I did not know he arrived at 350 ppm as the desired number.
It's amazing that he figured this out over 100 years ago, when Jim Hansen and Al Gore were just twinkles in their great great grandfather's eyes.

Yes. Unfortunately, as far as I know Arrhenius never said anything about the day when we would pass 350ppm. : (

I would called him something else, but I might get flagged for saying it.

Good one! :)

I hope he does, i mean she!

He she it.
Say that 10 times fast and you are forgiven.

That almost sounds like a hail Mary! :)

In previous years the rainforests of Brazil and Indonesia were not being destroyed for Palm oil and other resources. More CO2 is emitted and less is absorbed at the same time. We are burning the candle at both ends.

This is bad news, however I believe the effects are mostly felt in the boreal forests of Siberia and Canada. That means we have to rely yet more heavily on the tropical forests of Brazil and Indonesia.

That was beautiful!
Thank you.

Show me a fossil of an upright walking primate other than Homo neanderthalensis with an arch in it's foot, a neck Vs. the head being nearly on the shoulders, the same shaped rib cage, the same sized forehead (versus almost no forehead at all), and a fully functional voice box capable of enunciating words as we do.

You won't find one. It's called the missing link for a reason. Scientists have yet to find one which directly links us to them. It doesn't mean one isn't out there...just that it hasn't been found. So...what's the harm in just filling in the gap with a logical conclusion?
-It's possible they might one day discover this link, but it might be much, much older than they previously thought...then what? -It throws the whole paradigm out of whack. lol

The scariest thought is if there is no missing link. But still, you have to go where the evidence points, rather than trying to make the evidence fit into your point-of-view.

I'm a science geek with the degree to prove it. It's what I do. ...you're welcome.

Don't panic, the sky isn't falling.

I must admit that I admire your ability to describe Inhofe at such length without using a single expletive...and as gruesome as your depiction of the man is, I think you were being merciful...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

These are the records broken, broken down by the state level.
Yours don't seem to match for some reason. There were only 3 entries for the 2000's on record highs or lows for each state, 6 if you're including 2011,2012.

That means that in the 2000's only 6% of the records were broken.

Let me break it down for you.
Records broken by decade (highs or lows).
1890s - 7
1900s - 5
1910s - 8
1920s - 2
1930s - 35
1940s - 3
1950s - 6
1960's - 5
1970s - 6
1980s - 8
1990s - 11
2000s - 3
2010s - 3

Seems to me that if Global warming were breaking so many records then it would do so constantly more frequently as time goes on, but that is not the case when it comes to State Record Temperatures. The 1930's holds the record, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was then.
A perfect case as to how things don't add up.

The temperature records and their dates are there for anyone to see at the link above, please see for yourselves, and feel free to double check my work.

Wow, you must live on another planet.

As does Wikipedia, apparently.

Are Universities these places you speak of funded by Energy Companies?

Also, I'm uncertain as to how the logical reservation of withdrawing from the evolution debate has anything to do with a company which publishes journalism on scientific discovers in other fields.
-Human evolution is an entirely different subject I'd reserve for an article dealing with that subject.

However, from the science and news that I find concerning what scientists outside of the UN IPCC concerning climate seems to be different.
Some would conclude that CO2 being the sole culprit in Global Warming. The evidence I've discovered seems to often contradict the mainstream view.
The fact that CO2 levels used to be much higher than they are now, and that they do not always directly correlate with temperature was a big red flag.

Science should never be "settled", as it is the constant probing and questioning which advances science and thus man to gain a better understanding of our world.
For example, when Volcanoes erupt they expel millions of tonnes of CO2, yet now scientists are suggesting that Volcano eruptions help to cool the atmosphere.
Science is meant to progress as new information is discovered.

"Are Universities these places you speak of funded by Energy Companies?"

hate to break it to you but Universities are deeply in-bed with big-corporate interests these days.

Wow...so we can't trust our scientists in academia only the scientists at the UN IPCC???
That's a huge number of scientists I can't trust anymore because you say their in bed with big oil.

bought-and-paid-for is what it is regardless of it offending you and right-wing-denial ideology. If "science" is being paid for by corporate interests you'd be wise to see the ideology behind their "findings".

The same can be said of those who's ideology is to seek control via setting policies.

Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate...The planet's climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” -- Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” -- Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

“Those who call themselves 'Green planet advocates' should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere...Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content...Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia's CSIRO's (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens' Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” -- Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.” -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

None of these alleged scientists are qualified with regard to climate. Many of them are simply students.

Spot check the list, I did.

Google the names and you will see ties to the oil companies and/or they are NOT climatologists. You should not be surprised to see that all of these people even work out of the same institutes.

Also, a lot of the names were made up.

Unpopular points of view are often discounted by peers, either out of fear of retaliation or fear of potentially being ousted for having conflicting views, regardless of what the evidence, or the proof you have.

Many of science's greatest success stories came from such people, but the truth only gained traction years after their discoveries.

The question is why do you need a scientist to TELL you about your own climate.
Do you lack the comprehension and tools to do the work yourself?
I don't.
The math in favor of anthropogenic global warming is fundamentally skewed.
There are countless examples of "peer-reviewed" scientists creating "mathematical errors" such as the famous Hockey Stick graph where no matter what data was entered into the model, a rising "hockey stick" shape was created at the end of the graph.

Not to mention emails circulating which specifically show suppression of data that doesn't fit the model of Global Warming, the practice of ostracising peers in the community who don't conform.
This day in age, even important groups are at the mercy of those who provide funding. Rather than sticking to their morals and providing the fullness of facts, they opt to tell people what they want to hear.

I'm sorry if the information I provide doesn't seem to be qualified enough to meet your expectations of the sources you can allow yourself to gain "trusted" scientific information from....but honestly, it doesn't take a genius.
-Just anyone with a science degree with healthy focus in math, chemistry, and physics.

Don't panic. The sky isn't falling.

So the findings of research associates and students are null and void until they have obtained a PH.D and have had the opportunity to publish and have a "trusted" peer review their findings...even if it's findings they found as students?

Should they do this successfully, would you still find fault with said findings because of when they were obtained?

Also, what Climatologist would review a work, which goes against the popular perspective of the community, thus putting his career and tenure on the line?

Should humanity place their trust in the information of only one group of "trusted scientists" (or news for that matter), we would indeed be in great trouble.
Especially for the things it that don't require the highest level of a degree to understand ourselves.

The students in question were (are) studying subjects that have nothing to do with climatology, and none of the scientists are qualified, but most of them got richly rewarded by the fossil fuel industries. That list is worthless.

cited sources please?

Also, i'm certain that even if I found independent scientists working in "related" fields that were "peer reviewed" from "trusted sources", it would still not assuage you. You would still find an arbitrary means to discredit it.

Sorry but, this debate is over for people who have a brain.

Correct. Thank you.