Climate Change Models Faulty Due to "Confirmation Bias"

In a blog, a Man Made Climate Change zealot bemoaned the fact that,  "It's so sad that science isn't allowed to say "proven" after being 99% certain for 34 years without achieving the climate action needed to SAVE THE PLANET." editorial-march-1-2015-

Previously I wrote: The argument has never been about whether man is affecting the atmosphere; of course he has. For hundreds of years it has been observed that smoke from coal fires have raised the temperatures in London, by creating a warming blanket in the atmosphere. The question is what is the extent of Man Made Climate Change (MMCC)? Most of the 97% consensus studies didn't even contact the scientists and were based on very faulty criteria. We already know that predictions of MMCC by zealots like Al Gore were incredibly overstated; and most the climate computer models are not that less fantastic. The truth is no one knows. The only way to calculate the extent that man is affecting Climate Change is by the very computer studies that have been churning out faulty information for the past 10 years or so. What we do know is carbon credits are a scam designed solely to raise taxes and rationalize global governance. While “People tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their world view,” Governments have also used science to justify oppression and tyranny. And so it goes..

This was my response to the zealot..

It isn't science's job to save the planet or make the world believe anything. Science is also not a democratic process were the majority rules; it should be noted that the most spectacular scientific discoveries were believed by a small minority before they became generally accepted. Further, Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) has shown itself to be a political movement verging on religious dogma, which is often defined as "confirmation bias". "A good theory or hypothesis also must be falsifiable, which means that it must be stated in a way that makes it possible to reject it. In other words, we have to be able to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong. Theories and hypotheses need to be falsifiable because all researchers can succumb to the confirmation bias. Researchers who display confirmation bias look for and accept evidence that supports what they want to believe and ignore or reject evidence that refutes their beliefs".

Further as I said before, while climate change is accepted science, as is MMCC to a lesser degree, there is absolutely no consensus on to what degree man is affecting the climate. As a matter of fact, the corner stone of MMCC, the raising levels of man created C02 causing global warming, has been called into question. For 18 years there has been no substantial global warming, even though C02 levels have continued to rise. It seems all the climate change computer models were based on the relationship between rising C02 levels and the raising global temperatures of the 1990's and the models have simply not been able explain the pause in global warming while C02 is still on the rise. But rather than question their global warming dogma, they have created other unsubstantiated theories to explain it without putting their theories into question (like the disproved theory that planet heat was hiding deep in the ocean; yes, ignoring physics by saying hot water sank below colder water). Another obvious example of confirmation bias. It isn't the point that science is not allowed to say "proven"; the point is that saying anything is proven is not science (in other words to wish science could declare a theory proven is wishing for the end to science); it's usually a political entity looking for a rationalization for oppression and tyranny.