Tag Archive: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Why I Am A Climate Change Skeptic







” I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

  My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.”





” In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

  The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.”



Lest readers doubt the writer’s credentials , the editors thoughtfully provide a brief biography of Dr Moore:



[Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas. Watch his presentation about this piece at the video player to the left.] (see above)



Read more on Dr Moore’s epiphany in his own words at the Heartland Institute













‘The Latest IPCC Report Has Truly Sunk To Level Of Hilarious Incoherence’


Climate Depot Round Up: UN IPCC Exhumes, Brings Climate Catastrophe Back From The Grave…Politicians, Activists Dancing Like It’s 2007!



” I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence.  They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean.  However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.  However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability.  Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified. “










“The Science Is Over … Not”



” “The science is over”. Remember that line? There was a time when that angry and arrogant (not to say delusional) mantra about climate change was something you couldn’t get away from. It was complemented with the charge that anyone questioning the scientific “consensus” was a “denier” — a word more commonly used in the wider political discourse about those twisted individuals and groups that refuse to accept the historical reality of the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews.

If the charge of flat-headed anti-scientific stupidity coupled with neo-Nazi-type tendencies didn’t suffice to close down the debate, the sceptic must (it was, and continues to be, alleged) be in the pay of the oil and coal lobby. Honest disagreement, most particularly about the certainty of it all, was ruled out of court.

The IPCC is arguing that they are 95 percent certain that the planet is warming due to man-made activities. But, in scientific terms, 95 percent is no more a proof than 19.5 percent or 9.5 percent. It still means you can’t prove it.

Telling people that the “science is over” when it manifestly wasn’t, has only turned people off from doing that.”















” The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released a report that doesn’t find much evidence of “climate change” or “global warming” based on human activity, but nevertheless rushes to assure readers that the problem is still serious.  Not so fast, says the Heartland Institute and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change it supports:

“Whereas the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs,” the non-governmental panel announced, rolling out a hefty report with a succinct “summary for policymakers” to back up their claim.

In essence, the NIPCC is calling shenanigans on the United Nations panel, accusing them of “departing from proper scientific methodology.”

Global climate models produce meaningful results only if we assume we already know perfectly how the global climate works, and most climate scientists say we do not (Bray and von Storch, 2010). Moreover, it is widely recognized that climate models are not designed to produce predictions of future climate but rather what-if projections of many alternative possible futures (Trenberth, 2009). Postulates, commonly defined as “something suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief,” can stimulate relevant observations or experiments but more often are merely assertions that are difficult or impossible to test (Kahneman, 2011). Observations in science are useful primarily to falsify hypotheses and cannot prove one is correct (Popper, 1965, p. vii).”



Read more