As many know, much of the global warming hysteria around the world is derived from the conclusions of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which warns that human activity is causing the world to become dangerously warm. Al Gore, who projects 20-foot sea-level raises over an unspecified time period, considers the IPCC report the magnum opus for climate change evidence.

Scientists in some respects are being paid to make, at best, guesses or projections of how climate change actually works and what temperatures will be like in the future. In reality, there is little actual science in the IPCC report. J. Scott Armstrong, a professor at the Wharton school at he University of Pennsylvania, stressed although there were over 2,500 scientists that signed the report, the message was controlled by only a few individuals.

Terry Dunleavy, the executive vice-chairman of the International Climate Science Coalition and honorary executive director of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, emphasized that no definitive conclusion can be reached when it comes to the science of global warming. In fact, IPCC scientists’ own conclusion admitted they were highly uncertain about future climate change or the impacts of human carbon dioxide emissions.

In a recent article by Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon, the authors convincingly argue that climate change models are useless for forecasting:

“Scientific forecasting research has shown that experts aren’t able to provide accurate predictions in this kind of complex and uncertain situation. It doesn’t matter whether experts present their forecasts as certain outcomes, detailed scenarios, expectations, likelihoods or probabilities. Or that the forecasts are the product of hard thinking by many highly qualified experts, or even of mathematics or computer simulations. The expert forecasts are nonetheless worthless.

The models employed by James Hansen and the IPCC are not based on scientific forecasting principles. There is no empirical evidence that they provide long-term forecasts that are as accurate as forecasting that global average temperatures won’t change. Hansen’s, and the IPCC’s, forecasts, and the recommendations based on them, should be ignored.

This lack of credible climate forecasts matters, because proposed policies – including taxing carbon emissions and cap-and-trade regimes – will increase energy prices, cause major wealth transfers, and cost jobs. It would be immoral to impose such punishing policies on the basis of dodgy forecasts.”

The full article, with more information, can be found here.

So much for scientific consensus.