Climate Panel Claims ‘Near Certainty’ of Man-Made Global Warming

The results are in and they aren’t good, for anyone, climate deniers especially. The New York Times reports on the IPCC‘s dour assessment of climate change:

An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace.

Screen Shot 2013-08-20 at 8.11.10 AM

The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors.

The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound.

“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”

The draft comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of several hundred scientists that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, along with Al Gore. Its summaries, published every five or six years, are considered the definitive assessment of the risks of climate change, and they influence the actions of governments around the world. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, for instance, largely on the basis of the group’s findings…

[continues in the New York Times]


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

48 Comments on "Climate Panel Claims ‘Near Certainty’ of Man-Made Global Warming"

  1. Ted Heistman | Aug 20, 2013 at 7:57 am |

    NY Times, Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize. I guess I have no choice but to do whatever these people say!

  2. emperorreagan | Aug 20, 2013 at 8:26 am |

    My solution to global warming is for Al Gore to live in an average sized house from the 1930s and stop running around in jets and fancy cars.

    Also, if the efficiency gains of the last 100+ years had been leveraged to giving more people more free time instead of creating new layers of bullshit and pressuring people to consume more, this wouldn’t be nearly as big of an issue.

    The long and short of my position is this: bring me Jamie Dimon so I can skin him alive as a sacrifice to the gods to stem global warming.

  3. bobbiethejean | Aug 20, 2013 at 10:50 am |

    Gee, I wonder if the literal TRILLIONS OF TONS of shit we’re pumping into the atmosphere every year could possibly be having some kind of negative affect on the environment. Hhhmmmmm…….


    • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 29, 2013 at 6:35 pm |

      Well the science doesn’t back up that claim…and has not for the last 20 years.

      • bobbiethejean | Oct 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm |

        And from whence did you derive this opinion? Certainly not the scientists because they are almost unanimously in agreement that GCC is happening and largely human exacerbated. Let’s seee…… Hmmm……. who do I trust…… people who have a moneyed interest or emotional investment in GCC not being true or the scientists who are impartial and put their ideas through rigorous peer review? Hhmmmm.

  4. Wait a minute, what’s this “near certainty” crap? I thought the science was settled a long time ago.

    • bobbiethejean | Aug 20, 2013 at 9:28 pm |

      Science is never truly settled. By the very nature of the universe we live in and by the very nature of science, nothing can ever be truly known with absolute certainty. However, within current circumstances and as far as we presently know, global warming is a natural phenomenon that is being exacerbated to catastrophic levels by human activities. 97% of climate scientists around the world concur and some of that remaining 3% are unabashed oil lobbyists. So that’s that.

      • “Science is never truly settled.”

        I think you need to tell that to Al Gore and every alarmist who has been screaming that “the science is settled” for the last 15 years.

        And that business about “97% of climate scientists” is completely bogus. Various methods have been used to come up with that figure and each has been debunked as a statistical joke. You’ve been conned.

        • bobbiethejean | Aug 21, 2013 at 1:34 pm |

          You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. It is probably true that nothing can ever be fully understood or fully proven. Hell, we could all be a computer simulation and there’s no way to prove or disprove that. But that doesn’t mean things can’t be “settled” within certain contexts. For example, it’s fairly well settled that in current, realworld circumstances, if you drop a rubber ball onto a tile floor, it will fall, bounce, then roll away until friction or some other force changes its momentum.

          It’s also fairly well settled that pumping literal actual trillions of tons of exhaust and various other pollutants into the atmosphere is seriously exacerbating a natural phenomenon that would not be behaving as it presently is if not for our interference. Al Gore was just trying to educate people who are too stupid to be dealt with like adults. While his methods are sloppy, his efforts are commendable. This is a serious issue and people need to be educated that the way things are going, we will destroy our planet.

          And no, that 97% number is not bogus.

          • emperorreagan | Aug 21, 2013 at 3:08 pm |

            The problem with someone like Al Gore is that they also become figures to undermine the science in the public eye.

            When nominally “green” mainstream activists have major conflicts of interests (like financial interests in carbon exchanges, particular technologies, not curtailing their own lifestyle, etc.), it makes for easy strawman arguments.

            And unfortunately, a strawman argument against someone like Al Gore seems to resonate much more with the public than pointing out the huge financial interests Exxon-Mobile has in producing bad science to muddy the waters.

          • bobbiethejean | Aug 22, 2013 at 6:26 pm |

            You make some good points that I can’t entirely disagree with. I dunno. I’m kinda torn. On one hand, so much of our populace is utterly science-illiterate and Al Gore did do a really nice job of dumbing things down for that section. On the other hand, there are also a lot of people just science-literate enough to know that Gore is a windbag but not quite science-literate enough to be able to look at the evidence and draw rational conclusions. It’s a conundrum. What do you do in a case like this?

      • the only problem with the AGW theory is the data is causal correlating….its not empirical and can be falsified, quite easily. when it cant be, then we can all shut up and start packing a lunch, cause the hammer will start coming down.

        • bobbiethejean | Aug 22, 2013 at 6:31 pm |

          I realize that correlation does not necessarily equate to causation but in this case, it seems so obvious, I don’t know how someone could deny it. I mean, we can’t really think literally pumping trillions of tons of crap into the atmosphere for the past hundred+ years is having no effect on the environment? And anyway, maybe I have undo faith in scientists but I’d like to think a metric fuckton of scientists around the world wouldn’t all be jumping up and down like lunatics, crying that we’re destroying the environment. If it was only a handful of people or maybe even a few organizations, then that could be dismissible. But this is pretty much the entire body of climate scientists around the world. Ne?

          • “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” is the credo of most scientists, and the brutal reality is that scientific funding comes from varied sources, all with an agenda. please, read this article.

          • bobbiethejean | Aug 24, 2013 at 6:31 pm |

            Everyone has some kind of agenda. For scientists, it’s to understand the world around us. Sometimes scientists point out facts and draw faulty conclusions. That can happen, they’re human after all. But in this case it is so blatantly obvious, you’d have to be either blind to the facts, willfully ignorant, or in denial.

            Human beings are having such a catastrophic affect on the environment in general, why is it so hard to believe that we might be fucking up the climate and atmosphere as well? We’re fucking up everything else! Want to talk about the continental island of plastic floating around in the pacific? Perhaps you prefer to discuss the fact that we have poached and are continuing to poach a number of species to extinction. Or maybe you’d like to have a conversation about the fact that we’ve fished the tuna population down to 2% of what it was only 30 years ago. Oh! Shark-finning by the literal millions and whaling and massive bee deaths and the rapid spread of GMOs into the wild and the fact that we’ve cultivated 83% of the Earth’s arable land surface….. Oh but for some reason, nooooo, we couldn’t possibly be fucking up the Earth’s atmosphere and altering our climate with literal trillions of tons of pollutants….. That’s just preposterous!

          • all valid points, and i will counter with….wait for it…”Darwinsim”…yes, if the animals cant keep up, they must not be fit to survive. As far as the atmosphere goes, i highly recommend that you read the article i posted on the previous reply. caring about your environment is noble and responsible. demagoguing is not.

          • you are me, and we go down together, john lennon style when he wrote i am the walrus.

          • you havent emailed me, im disappointed…

          • Disappointing people is my calling.

          • bobbiethejean | Aug 24, 2013 at 9:51 pm |

            I don’t give two shits about being noble and I’ll demagogue to my heart’s content because my demagoguery is backed by facts.

            Your comment about Darwinism shows that you are woefully lacking in environmental awareness. It would behoove you to learn about exactly how interconnected everything is and how that very Darwinism could be responsible for robbing you of your nice, cushy firstworld lifestyle someday. That may sound a little extreme but quite frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually devolve into fighting over fresh water and space- a lot of the rest of the planet already is. And it’s only going to get worse.

          • being noble and valuable is the ultimate human condition. if you cant be that, then you are negated. i study the “environment” day to day, and have written research papers on the subject. facts are empirical, and Jarl Kampen proves it.

          • Why the scare quotes around the word environment?

          • scare quotes?

          • You put quotes around the word environment. Why?

          • bobbiethejean | Aug 25, 2013 at 4:23 pm |

            being noble and valuable is the ultimate human condition.

            Can you prove that empirically? I’d pay to see that shit. No, you can’t because there is no objective “best way to be.” Everyone thinks they know the best way but the truth is, there is no best way, only opinions. Being noble is preferable (in my opinion) but there are times when being noble will not get the job done. This isn’t even to get into the fact that your definition of noble may be very different from mine and everyone else’s.

            i study the “environment” day to day

            If you possessed even a precursory understanding of our environment, you’d have some kind of inkling about how deeply interconnected and interdependent everything is. Ask a marine biologist how quickly humans would die out if our oceans stop functioning the way they do. Or ask a geologist how quickly we’d lose 3/4 of our food if bees died off. Ask a botanist how quickly we’ll be fucked if the PH of rain keeps trending towards acidic. Ask a climatologist what happens when you fuck with the delicate balance of our atmosphere.

            And lest you think we could not possibly affect these changes, keep in mind that we changed the speed of the Earth’s rotation by building the Great Wall of China. Granted, it was only by microseconds, but consider that the Earth is a 6,585,000,000,000,000,000,000 ton object barreling through the cosmos at near light speeds. And we changed its centripetal momentum. Put that in your pipe and smoke it before you come back with some self-satisfied, smuggery-oozing ad-homs.

          • so, what is the end? you are intelligent, but misguided and nihilistic. what is the answer?

          • bobbiethejean | Aug 25, 2013 at 8:43 pm |

            I used to think we could fight it but I now see there’s no hope. Human beings are collectively too anti-science, anti-change, and ultimately, too anti-each other to actually combat any of the problems we’re facing. I promise you on my life that if humanity really wanted to, we could solve world hunger, end war, fix global climate change, and have fully functional flying cars within a decade. But that won’t happen because too many of us are too stupid, too ignorant, too complacent, too lazy and or in some cases, just too beaten down, handicapped, tired, or hopeless to work towards these goals.

            Personally, I admit defeat. The stupids win. I’ll probably be long dead before they blow up the planet anyway so it’s not my problem. If I thought there was any real hope towards actual change, towards leaving a better tomorrow for our children, I’d spin on a dime. I’d be the first one to jump up and shout TALLYHO, MOTHERFUCKERS! LET’S GET THIS SHIT DONE! But I’m not going to hold my breath.

          • what have you done to achieve these set goals, and out of what you’ve done, what can we learn from it?

          • bobbiethejean | Aug 29, 2013 at 12:01 pm |

            I did a lot of things and none of it made any damn difference that I can see. People are going to believe what they are going to believe. Most people, you can’t convince them otherwise even if you’re right and you have the facts. Doesn’t matter. So what’s the point?

          • My opinion is, no matter what Bobbie Jean, you need to survive.

          • or, rather, most have an agenda. not all.

      • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 29, 2013 at 6:52 pm |

        You make it sounds so good 97%…….but you leave out that only 77 scientists were involved in the survey. NO SURVEY of the world’s scientists HAS EER BEEN DONE.

    • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 29, 2013 at 6:44 pm |

      The entire hoax relies on wording like “near certainty” “medium certainty” “likely” “medium confidence” …… NOWHERE in any of the reports does it claim man made climate change is real. The “so called” facts only exist in the minds of the marxist believers and for them it’s not about science it about anti-human, anti-capitalism ideas. The good news is the climate change hoax is really only an American and European thing now. Russia, India, China……they don’t pay any attention to the hoax……Canada has backed off on the scam….and we all just seen that happened in Australia.

  5. IrishPotatoGun | Aug 20, 2013 at 4:48 pm |

    Good to know their science matched their preconceived notions. Has anyone even gone to jail for some of the massive industrial accidents that have caused widespread damage in the past 20 years? What you mean they only paid a small fine compared to their hourly profits? And then their solution is to tax everyone else while blocking any small business from competing through massive regulation that their are then exempt from. This is nothing but a scam.

    • Charlie Primero | Aug 21, 2013 at 12:46 pm |

      At least it has reduced the number of naive fools who thought government-paid scientists would NEVER dry-lab for falsify to please their employers.

  6. Charlie Primero | Aug 21, 2013 at 12:42 pm |

    The Climate Fraud is beginning to crumble. In twenty years few people will admit they fell for it “back then”, but I will.

    • And if the reverse turns out to be true–the climate gets much hotter and human activity is proven to be a or the major cause–will you admit you were in denial?

      • the world would have gotten hotter anyway, we are in an interglacial period, that’s what its supposed to do. i not saying that shitting where you eat is ok, but hell, the fear mongering is relentless form the eugenics club.

        • Agreed. I think we are in an interglacial period.
          I recently ran across some bit of copy somewhere suggesting that the Greenland ice sheet is melting, not because of gloal warming but because of volcanic activity.
          Now, as far as I’m concerned, whether global warming is man-made or not, it is still in all of our best interests if we as a species stop “shitting where we eat.” As you so eloquently put it, man-made global warming or not.

        • I don’t agree. And that didn’t answer my question.

          • look, Andrew, im sorry, but i lost total context of what the issue was. you seems like a very intelligent person, and kind as well. work has been crazy, if you want to discuss an issue in depth, please email me at thanks!

      • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 29, 2013 at 6:38 pm |

        Well for the last 20 years and billion spent on research the realists have been proven correct…and the alarmist pushing the hoax have been wrong.

    • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 29, 2013 at 6:37 pm |

      At this time in history if you want an alternative to fossil fuels….than nuclear is all you really have,

Comments are closed.