Patrick Moore, one of the environmental activist group Greenpeace’s earliest members, testified before the U.S. Senate on the issue of climate change.
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.
The multiple light colored lines track projections of mean global temperature for the lower Troposphere by 44 climate models. The dark black line is the 44-computer-model average, which is what the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses as its best estimate of predicted “catastrophic manmade global warming.” The two brightly colored lines represent the actual satellite temperature records measured by the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH – blue) and Remote Sensing System (RSS – red). These two lines demonstrate that actual planetary temperatures are far below what IPCC models predict.
Sifting Reality 
Hello John Barron,
Would you like to comment upon Patrick Moore’s statements from the same document:
“Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an
average global temperature of 14.5 C. This compares with a low of about 12
C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of
22 C during the Greenhouse Ages , which occurred over longer time periods
prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical , from pole to pole
. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested.”
and …
“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2 C
rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at t
he equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is extremely likely
that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”
As that would seem to indicate that:
1. The Earth can become a great deal hotter than it is at present.
2. The ice caps can melt completely.
3. According to Patrick Moore’s opinion, that’s good for humankind.
Which, in other words, means that global warming is real, it is happening, and therefore the scientific consensus is correct regarding humankind’s impact upon the Earth’s climate.
Theres more ice at the caps than ever. The trend simce the late 90s is cooling. Amd notice in the above chart, virtually ever prediction model projects significantly higher temps than what actually occurred. Tis a hoax.
Hello John Barron,
Given that you are not a scientist, not a climatologist, nor an individual in possession of even a rudimentary knowledge of science … I will dismiss your unqualified interpretation of the evidence and accept the conclusions of science.
David
Given that you are Not a theologian, not a philosopher of religion, nor am individual in possession of even a rudimentary knowledge of religion I will dismiss all your assessments of religion.
Always good to see the simpleton’s argument, ” because the world is warming, it’s all yuour fault and you must submit to a carbon tax scam wealth redistrubution effort without question. ” Yeah, that would work, except the modern warming cycle started long before humans were capable of influence, 300 years ago at the end of the LIA, and continues regardless of human influence. That, and the best computer models supporting the CO2 emissions driven hoax, have failed miserably since they were ” published” back in 1988 when James Hansen Published his steaming turd detailing his scenario A, B, C carbonophibic delusion. HADCRUT is so far below A at this stage to be laughable. Not one single metric of global mean temps rise above Hansen’s C, other than GISTEMP, the most notoriously adjusted dataset on the planet.