The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the science of climate change suggested at least a 95 percent chance that human activities have been the main driver of global warming over the last six decades due to the CO2 spewed forth into the atmosphere by fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas.
The 95 percent likelihood factor is suspect on two fronts. First of all, the 2007 UN report cited the likelihood as 90 percent, five points lower than the current report. The 2013 report also ignores the 15-year pause in warming despite man continuing to pump more and more C02 into the air from power plants, automobiles, and industrial activity.
Over the past million years, climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages, and climate will continue to oscillate with regular cycles of cooling and warming from this time onward regardless of CO2 emissions.
The one-sided hypothesis used by the IPCC never explained why Antarctic ice, eight times greater than Arctic ice, is increasing rather than receding, or why IPCC prophecies were inaccurate when predicting hurricane activity would be more intense or that sea levels would rise drastically.
But could anything else be expected from a report where scientist's efforts are directed toward proving a set hypothesis by picking and choosing information that is compatible or when its climate models used are faulty?
The Heartland Institute published a report based on a "null" hypothesis set up by scientists free of political interference. Heartland's "Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science" challenges the UN claims.
Alarmists like Al Gore have no tolerance for skeptics of global warming like The Heartland Institute. Isn't it time for the public (and mainstream media) to wake up from a 25-year hoax by using common sense to evaluate reality?