Okay lots to address here. Starting with you’re complaining about funding sources and then talk about a non published or peer reviewed opinion piece from the Heritage Foundation says. The Heritage Foundation is a political think tank with direct funding from the fossil fuel industry.

The peer reviewed research says otherwise. Most climate models even from the 70s have performed fantastically. This study is self funded. Decade old models are rigorously tested and validated with new and old data. Models of historical data is continuously supported by new sources of proxy data. Every year

As for “determining the outcome of any study is who is paying for it” that idea doesn’t really hold up does it?

Richard Muller, funded by Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, was a climate skeptic. He and 12 other skeptics were paid by fossil fuel companies, but actually found evidence climate change was real

In 2011, he stated that “following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

If you’re looking for an example of the opposite, a climate scientist who believed in anthropogenic climate change, and actually found evidence against it… there isn’t one. Needless to say the fossil fuel industry never funded Muller again.

If there was a way to disprove or dispute AGW, the fossil fuel industry would fund it and there would be examples of it. But they are more than aware with humanity’s impact

Exxon’s analysis of human induced CO2’s effects on climate from 40 years ago. They’ve always known anthropogenic climate change was a huge problem and their predictions hold up even today

“Consensus” in the sense of climate change simply means there’s no other working hypothesis to compete with the validated theory. Just like in physics. If you can provide a robust alternative theory supported by evidence, climate scientists WILL take it seriously.

But until that happens we should be making decisions based on what we know, because from our current understanding there will be consequences if we don’t.

Not only is the amount of studies that agree with human induced climate change now at 99%, but take a look at the ones that disagree. Anthropogenic climate denial science aren’t just few, they don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus

There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. We are most likely responsible for 100% of the warming we have observed.

Our interglacial period is ending, and the warming from that stopped increasing. The Subatlantic age of the Holocene epoch SHOULD be getting colder slowly. Keyword is should based on natural cycles. But they are not outperforming greenhouse gases. The biggest issue is the rate of change. This guy does a great job of explaining Milankovitch cycles and why human induced co2 is disrupting the natural process