IPCC 95% Certain That Humans Are Dominant Cause Of Global Warming

So what will the Greedy Lying Bastards (that would be the climate change deniers) say about this? From BBC News:

A UN panel has released part one of its six-yearly update on the state of the Earth’s climate. The much-anticipated report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that with 95% certainty, humans are the dominant cause of global warming since the 1950s. The BBC News website’s science editor Paul Rincon breaks down some of the document’s key findings.


Part one of the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) on the Earth’s climate opens with the message that we are seeing changes in the climate system unprecedented in records spanning hundreds of years.

With this scene-setting out of the way, the report says the period from 1983-2012 in the Northern Hemisphere was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1,400 years. Each of the last three decades has got successively warmer, and these decades have all been warmer than any of the preceding decades since 1850.

The combined average land and ocean surface data show a temperature rise of 0.85C over the period 1880-2012, the authors go on to say.

In addition, it is “virtually certain” that the upper 700m of the Earth’s oceans have warmed during the period from 1971 and 2010. The deep ocean, below 3,000m in depth, “likely” warmed between 1992 and 2005, says the report, with the largest warming observed in the Southern Ocean.

The report says that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink, and Arctic sea-ice as well as Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to fall in extent…

[continues at BBC News]


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

115 Comments on "IPCC 95% Certain That Humans Are Dominant Cause Of Global Warming"

  1. Steve Stark | Sep 27, 2013 at 9:04 am |

    I’m 55% certain there a 29% probability that “95% certain” doesn’t mean anything, although there’s only a 1 in 3 chance of that.

    • Calypso_1 | Sep 27, 2013 at 1:01 pm |

      Thus you are within a 95% confidence interval that ” ‘95% certain’ does’t mean anything” is a null hypothesis.

      • Unfortunately for both of you, no statistical equation can calculate the percentage of an opinion.

  2. According to this same report, these dominant humans evidently haven’t had much new effect on it in the last 15 years. Yawn.

    • The sun has been in a cooling trend since the late ’70s.

      • But conflicting evidence shows the opposite, I would cite the paper, as I did in my last research paper on AGW, but I just can’t remember it off hand…and disinfo will never approve my posts with links.

  3. > So what will the Greedy Lying Bastards (that would be the climate change deniers) say about this?

    Over the past 15 years I’ve seen them go from “It isn’t happening” and “You’re lying” to “We aren’t responsible” and “It’s natural” to “We can adapt” and “Let the weak die” to “How can we make money off it?” (Reminds me of like the Kübler-Ross model, now that I think about it.)

    I’m sure this comment section will have plenty of examples.

    • Charlie Primero | Sep 28, 2013 at 8:11 am |

      You forgot:
      – “Dry-labbing data isn’t science”.
      – “Secret computer models are not science”.
      – “The IPCC is a political organization with a political agenda”.
      – “1,250 graduate students and politicians is not ‘4,000 Top Climate Scientists’.
      – “IPCC reports have so few peer-reviewed academic citations they would receive an F at community college”.
      – “The 2007 report predictions have failed miserably”.
      – “The Billions in “green energy” subsides go to giant energy corporations like GE, Exxon, BP, et al.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Allocation_of_subsidies_in_the_United_States

      • Calypso_1 | Sep 28, 2013 at 11:22 am |

        I see no problem w/ scientifically founded & managed political bodies. University political systems are brutal & would be a welcome counterweight to financial & business political machines. Bring on the postdoc politicians.

        • Charlie Primero | Sep 28, 2013 at 12:58 pm |

          Objective Scientific Socialism managed by an elite class of intellectually superior technocrats. Gee. I wonder why nobody ever tried that before.

          Are you really ignorant of how university chairs are actually funded and by whom?

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 1:32 pm |

            I think that’s basically the idea. Its setting up rule for a technocratic elite. These people want to be in charge whether Climate change is real or not. I personally think it is real, but I see it as besides the point.

          • DrDavidKelly | Sep 28, 2013 at 5:14 pm |

            Exactly. The actual proof of climate change being due to man made causes eludes us. Be it true or false is a moot point. What’s at play now is the perception of its truth and the instigation of cap n’ trade schemes to fuel a new bazillion dollar financial system. Like you I think that it is likely that global warming is potentially caused by human factors, amongst others but I only think this way because it seems like a reasonable deduction. Stuff goes into the air – effects environment. So far the climate computer models have failed to reflect the actual data but considering the limited scope of the IPCC this is hardly surprising. So we have this unusual situation where on the one hand it’s bad ie. evil technocrats trying to rule the world and on the other we have a real push to make the future cleaner and more sustainable. Rockefeller gets what he wants and so does Moonbeam River???

          • Calypso_1 | Sep 28, 2013 at 4:55 pm |

            I’m so ignorant that I’ve endowed several chairs. Forget the stock market, I’d rather try for patent %’s

        • Rhoid Rager | Sep 28, 2013 at 6:45 pm |

          Academics are some of the most narrow-minded blowhard insensitive people I’ve ever met. Academia did not leave a good impression on me at all. A lot of wasted bricks and mortar, universities are.

          • Calypso_1 | Sep 28, 2013 at 9:26 pm |

            My experience has certainly shared many parallels. However, working in combined public/private research initiatives and having come into them from a less than traditional perspective gives me an outsider’s edge. When there is waste I become a detritivore.

      • I repressed those memories, and if I wanted to recover them I’d talk to a therapist. Now I’m re-traumatized. Thanks loads.

  4. Liam_McGonagle | Sep 27, 2013 at 10:03 am |

    For my part, I say, “Keep that g*ddamned foot on the accelerator ’til we hit the wall, m*therf*cker!!!”

    Knowledge doesn’t matter. Facts mean nothing. People only use knowledge to achieve a predetermined political goal, almost never to develop a practical assessment of reality. If you laid out the case supporting a round earth, there’s certain to be some dumb*ss who’ll fight you to the death that it’s flat.

    Whatevs. We’s all gotta die sometime. Might as well be as slow and gruesome as possible.

    • I’m just hoping that the oil industry and the green fascists fight it out and kill each other, and finally give us normals some peace.

    • What pisses me off the worst is that, once the societal collapse really gets going, the nomadic tribes descended from us won’t even know why they live the way they do, when there’s archaeological evidence for their ancestors having built wonders. History as they know it will be a bunch of bullshit mythology devolved from Rupert Murdoch’s “news” products.

      • Nietzsche said human beings cannot live without lies. I think Robert Trivers and possibly Alice Miller would agree.

        • I recall a Greek blogger lady who opined that she needed some R&R from reality. I compared it to coming down from the glamour of fairie. She agreed instantly.

  5. Ted Heistman | Sep 27, 2013 at 10:37 am |

    So what are “climate change acceptors” doing that is so wonderful besides bitching and getting grant money?

    • Acknowledging that they’re part of the problem?

      • Ted Heistman | Sep 27, 2013 at 3:41 pm |

        sounds hard.

        • It was for me. You should try it some time.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 27, 2013 at 5:36 pm |

            No, I shouldn’t.

          • Right. Don’t accept responsibility for anything. That would impinge upon your sacred freedom.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 27, 2013 at 6:59 pm |

            So is it my bicycle riding, my wearing of recycled clothing, my refraining from air conditioning, or my growing all my own organic food that caused global warming?

          • Cows still fart, not good enough!

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 7:29 am |

            Do chickens fart? I am suspicious of this!

          • It’s a mystery.

          • Rhoid Rager | Sep 28, 2013 at 6:41 pm |

            When I had chickens, they would sometimes blow big diarrhea shits out their vents that would travel a foot or so. That had to have some sort of gas compression behind it to work up that velocity. Chickens can be hilarious.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 7:05 pm |

            They are good for shits and giggles! Seriously though I could spend hours watching them. They are so humorous. You can learn a lot about people from studying chickens! Like the way they huddle together for warmth yet fight over food!

            I think people have similar conflicting impulses.

            One thing I see a lot is one chicken will get a grasshopper and the other hens will chase her around an around, trying to steal it. She runs because she wants to set it down to swallow it head first but she can’t. Finally the rooster jumps on her and mates with her allowing another hen to steal the grasshopper! I have observed that happening 2 different times!

          • Rhoid Rager | Sep 28, 2013 at 9:45 pm |

            I know exactly what you are talking about! Oh the memories!

          • It’s your apparent pooh-poohing of the idea that millions of others who don’t do any of those things contribute to climate change.

          • So you want to tax air on the basis that man controls climate. Do you have any idea how credulous that sounds ? Not to mention what a lovely tax grab for the UN ? ( The IPCC is a UN bureaucracy tasked with generating ‘scientific’ ‘proof’ of the ever morphing AGW thesis. )

          • Shhhh, it’s ok. Don’t be scared. If you insist on being scared, please just lay there paralyzed with fear. Those of us who can adapt are putting ourselves at risk trying to assist you. Don’t worry, the beast will be along soon. The rest of us will be in the hills.

          • I didn’t say control, I said influence.

            And I don’t really give a shit about taxes. Money’s only game pieces, anyway.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 7:28 am |

            Change is good.

          • Any and all change?

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 28, 2013 at 3:16 pm |

            basically yeah. Because thinking of anything NOT changing is a delusion because the reality is that things change.

          • I disagree.

          • Stasis is the antithesis to life.

          • That doesn’t answer my question.

          • From my perspective, change is neither good nor bad. It is what it is. How we react to change can be percieved as good or bad. Or how we train ourselves to react to it.

            Does this answer your question?

          • Depends. Cooling would be much worse. Can you imagine the effects of a tax on fire when you want to keep from freezing ? Seniors in the UK already face that sad fate. http://www.helium.com/items/2094726-scientists-suns-approaching-grand-cooling-assures-new-ice-age

          • bobbiethejean | Sep 28, 2013 at 2:42 pm |

            Dude, just give up. You’re fighting a losing battle. You can’t convince these people. You can SHOW them GCC happening and they still won’t believe it because they have some weird emotional investment in it not being true, probably because they don’t want to have to take responsibility and change their ways.

          • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 29, 2013 at 6:22 pm |

            20 Years of crying and the science STILL does not support the silly theory…..just as many said it wouldn’t. 114 out of 117 models wrong by as much as 400%. CO2 increased but temperature have not kept pace. Both Arctic and Ant-arctic ice have increased. Yet the alarmists have no answers…..just marxist cries.

          • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 29, 2013 at 6:20 pm |

            Yet CO@ continues to rise….what have you done?….Nothing except ship your pollution to China and India…..the net result…..nothing accomplished.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 30, 2013 at 5:29 am |

            wtf are talking about! You sound like a flag waving goofball.

          • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 30, 2013 at 3:46 pm |

            What I am saying is despite all the Billions spent and research….and the TRILLIONS spent on fraud wind and solar farms…..and all the good intention, people like you have not done one thing to improve anything.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 30, 2013 at 6:56 pm |

            Yeah so what do you do to save the planet go to football games and sing God save the Queen?


          • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 30, 2013 at 7:01 pm |

            Nothing other than try to be efficient and take care of my farm.

          • Ted Heistman | Sep 30, 2013 at 7:05 pm |

            Yeah? thats what you do with your Billions of pounds sterling?

      • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 29, 2013 at 6:19 pm |

        There actually doing nothing except moving pollution around the world. The small decreases in North America has made GIANT increases in China and India. The alarmists have essentially done nothing but cry about a hoax that even the science doesn’t support.

    • Charlie Primero | Sep 27, 2013 at 11:23 am |

      The money to buy off academics and do media promotion is only a small part of it. The *real* money is in government subsidy to energy corporations.

      • Yeah because your word has more esteem than the UN?

        The data comes from more than 600 authors around the world, who assessed more than 9,000 peer-reviewed studies.

        And it’s totally not delusional to think that over 9,600 people were bribed to shill for a worthy cause.

        That’s it, Charlie calls bull shit. I am going to pick up several loads of tires in my humvee and burn them all.

        • Peer reviewed, huh ? That’s funny. They don’t bother to tell you the nature of the peer expertise…not to mention peer review is a buzzword to lend a veneer of respectability to a dubious proposition. Modeling is not data. Nor can you even get a decent assessment of the baseline. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf All I see is a culturally appropriate crystal ball utilizing the principle of G.I.G.O. Garbage In = Garbage Out

          • So all the experts are either corrupt, or stupid?

            You seem to know alot about bullshit and garbage. Can I assume that you’re an expert?

          • I seem to be expert at receiving it. Does that count ? In any case there is outstanding use of Logical Fallacies to disarm reasonable conversation and turn casual discussion into channeled and futile racetracks. Pundits usually refer to Moving the Goalposts as a means to cheat the uninitiated of logical discussion. It can be subtle – but the proper term for sabotaging reasoned discourse is Moving the Overton Window.

          • bobbiethejean | Sep 28, 2013 at 2:46 pm |

            Peer review is anything but a “buzzword.” It is a grueling, rigorous process that most hypotheses do not make it through.

          • Rhoid Rager | Sep 28, 2013 at 6:38 pm |

            I had a submission this year unanimously rejected by all three reviewers because none of them admitted there was a connection between money and energy. My submission was for the Review of Radical Political Economy. Granted that’s a social sciences journal, but ‘peer review’ implies that you have to have ideas that have already been accepted by your peers into the big club of academia, and if you have new ones, they can’t be too divergent from the status quo. I’m not impressed when I hear the term ‘peer review’.

            But, this isn’t an argument against the existence of anthropogenic climate change. I think 150 years of constantly burning hydrocarbons must have had an effect on our atmosphere, and continuing the status quo of industrialization is likely to further destroy the vital systems on which we depend. Conversion to a low-energy lifestyle is inevitable for the sake of survival.

          • bobbiethejean | Sep 28, 2013 at 7:28 pm |

            because none of them admitted there was a connection between money and energy.

            O__O; And they expressly admitted that? You KNOW for a fact that’s why your submissions were rejected? They just came right out and said that?

          • Rhoid Rager | Sep 28, 2013 at 9:28 pm |

            They each wrote a page-long critique that contained other arguments that diverged from each other. I guess the editor tried to balance out the ideologies of the reviewers, because my article lambasts mainstream social science and economics, specifically. One reviewer was a capitalist-triumphalist, the other was a Marxist, and the third was a feminist. They each offered their own critiques in line with their ideologies, but I noticed that the common point among them was the fact that the links between energy and money were tenuous. Perhaps I didn’t explain it well enough in the article. This was back in January and I haven’t touched that piece since, but I’m thinking about coming back to it. This time I’d like to submit to the journal Minerva.

          • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 29, 2013 at 6:28 pm |

            It’s funny because over the years the very contributors to the IPCC reports said they have never seen a larger abuse of the peer-review process. Several NY times articles interviewed authors of IPCC reports and they were upset about the fraud process. The peers should be scientists not politicians that get to VOTE on what is or isn’t science.

        • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 29, 2013 at 6:25 pm |

          The UN has a piss poor reputation…..the hoax might have more credibility if the UN (primarily communists and dictators) was not attached to the scam…and people didn’t get to VOTE on the science.

        • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 30, 2013 at 7:10 pm |

          The UN has no esteem. It is hatred vy a great part of the world…..even the US has had votes in the past to leave the corrupt UN. Please top talking about the UN as though they have some credibility. Keep in mond the vast majority of countries in the United nation are either communist or dictatorship countries. Do you even know who is behind the UN. I don’t and yet I have been reading about them constantly trying to figure out……no one seems to know. I do know it was the Rockefeller foundation who gave the land. It was the Ford foundation who paid for the buildings and it was the rockefeller foundation that drew up the first drafts forming the UN. But who is behind it? There are a lot of conspiracies…..but no real facts to be found. On a side note….I am an architecture fan and they foundations shoose the very finest COMMUNIST architects of the day……funny thing is they choose the best communist artists from around the world to decorate it’s headquarters. Strange. I must admitt I am no fan of communism but I did like Oscar Niemeyer (check out Brazilia) he did the entire city. The communist city of the future. No fan of Corbusier though.

      • Guy_in_Kingston | Sep 29, 2013 at 6:24 pm |

        Yes handouts to scam green energy company I agree…..When the handouts stop the industry collapses just like it did 30 years ago.

    • BuzzCoastin | Sep 27, 2013 at 2:45 pm |

      bitching seems to be the main activity
      ’cause there’s nothing effective one person can do
      & in the ten years of my puny efforts
      no car, public transport, solar power
      nothing has changed
      only my convenient access to transportation has been reduced

    • Calypso_1 | Sep 30, 2013 at 11:27 am |

      Trying their damndest to get pollution control regulation, scrubbers on power plants, cleaning up toxic neighborhoods/waterways, weathering the political & cultural abuse of shortsighted community standards that contribute to problems….shit like that.

  6. Ugh, here we go again. Jarl Kampen debunked the IPCC already, here you are: http://edepot.wur.nl/159148

  7. Lookinfor Buford | Sep 27, 2013 at 2:39 pm |

    F*ck the UN. Whether or not there’s any truth to any of it, I will *not* pay a tax on the air I breathe or expel. F*ck anyone who thinks I should, or thinks I will. These pseudo scientists are the scum of the earth. Misanthropes, every last one of them.

    • There’s no truth to it. Nobody has ever seriously proposed taxing human breath, and there is no plot to do so, by the UN or otherwise. Robert Tracinski was whining hyperbolically in 2007 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/taxing_us_for_breathing.html), and it strikes me as telling how sumbunall climate deniers swallowed it whole yet don’t believe massive deforestation and air pollution can alter the climate (or blame HAARP and/or chemtrails).

      • Lookinfor Buford | Sep 27, 2013 at 4:32 pm |

        A) I don’t even know who that dickhead is. B) I was being facetious about taxing our air. ANY tax based on this bullshit is nothing but extortion.. a scam. The idea of carbon tax is ludicrous. C) I never said those things couldn’t alter the climate.. what I’m saying is these f*ckheads don’t *know* the first thing about it.. Just look at their ‘sliding scale of’ certainty. What an f’ing JOKE! We’re going to find out just how stupid the group-thinkers of this world are. This report is nothing more than a propagation of the biggest ‘BIG LIE’ ever unleashed by the political establishment in this world. PROOF. THEN, and only then can we talk about arrangements to pay for fixing it. So take your little ‘climate denier’ nomenclature over to someone who buys your bullshit. Calling me a name and putting me in a box won’t alter my independent, rational opinion one bit.

        • Rhoid Rager | Sep 27, 2013 at 5:37 pm |

          lol. I can picture you shouting at your screen as you typed that. Did you go have a smoke afterwards?

        • If those things can alter the climate, then what exactly is the “BIG LIE” you’re talking about? That carbon taxes will fix it? Because I’d agree with you on that — they won’t.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Sep 27, 2013 at 6:05 pm |

            The carbon tax is their reward for successfully brainwashing the world into believing that A) they have and understanding of the climate situation and B) they have the ability to control it.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Sep 27, 2013 at 6:09 pm |

            I personally believe there should be balanced and fair regulations to protect the environment to a degree, and that’s it. Global warming advocates and the 6 million “Climate Scientists” who recently received this bogus degree can just suck it. Go find something else to do besides run around crying the sky is falling. Didn’t we all read chicken little? Jeez.

          • If you must. A piece from prehistory – by today’s standards. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3423init_warming_hoax.html

          • Odd that alleged eugenicists would propose a program of halting third world development as a way to curb population growth, considering that industrialization has always resulted in drops in fertility and birth rates.

            Basically, I think Hecht is full of shit.

          • What would you say to a plan to get people to sign on to a scheme remitting tax to a global government ( the UN, whose bureaucracy the IPCC is ), putting themselves at a self imposed trade disadvantage to scofflaws at a time when the temperature can be expected to bottom out due to solar fluctuations, freezing the poor and cutting food production. That is a method to keep energy to oneself and get rid of outside claimants. Just a thought – but hardly unrealistic in the circumstances, one of which is that oil is to be paid for in U.S. dollars.

          • I’m not in favor of a carbon tax. My personal opinion is that fossil fuels should be outright banned worldwide. Fuck taxing them.

          • Banning outright involves non monetary tradeoffs which are unattractive. Oil and coal are strategic materials because of the advantages energy brings to battle, for instance. That is also the greatest cause of environmental destruction. For obvious reasons consolidation of government is sold as a cureall – but the usual villains would be in charge. Breaking the stalemate using the net runs into it being military tech – and planners foresaw such concerns long ago. You might like http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k6gteyV0vnU or http://www.youtube.com/user/homeproject

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 1, 2013 at 7:00 am |

            Yeah nobody would do mean things to people in third world countries, especially not rich Western elites.

            In all seriousness though, its hard to imagine how these countries can develop without industrializing. To me it looks like the plan is for them to live in shacks and grow GMO crops.

          • I thought you wanted us to go back to a wilder lifestyle. To a degree I would agree. Don’t industrialize the third world, de-industrialize the first.

          • notcreastive | Oct 1, 2013 at 7:05 pm |

            Nice, first post on this site from the cult I was in.

      • It beats me how you can propel the propaganda that there is a clique of ‘climate deniers’ rather than a gaggle of individuals who do not gleefully swallow mumbo jumbo. Not everybody on the planet has received cheques from the Koch Bros. despite representations to the contrary. http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/why-would-anyone-believe-a-single-word-coming-out-of-their-mouth/

  8. Jarl Kampen’s “A methodological not on the making of causal statements in the debate on anthropogenic global warming” (Oct. 2010) debunked the IPCC. Disqus won’t let me post the link to the .pdf for some reason.

  9. wfzlsster | Sep 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm |

    it must be true, governmental institutions never lie. The fact that it has not warmed in the past 15 years is no matter, nor is the fact that a gradual warming has been taking place since the end of the last ice age.

  10. Rhoid Rager | Sep 28, 2013 at 1:06 am |

    Climate change is as irrelevant a crisis as finance is now. The inevitability of a low-energy future will cure all. Plan accordingly. Over and out.

  11. Adam's Shadow | Sep 28, 2013 at 11:55 am |

    Just out of curiosity, what would be the major motivation for “bogus-degree” climate alarmists to be so up in odds about anthropogenic causes for climate change? This is a general question for those who see the IPCC and similar organizations, as well as their political allies, as basically a crock.

    • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 1, 2013 at 11:35 am |

      Umm, hoisting upon the world this dreamed up market of carbon credit trading (carbon tax)? Probably a 100b-500b market when all is said and done. One which will need a ton of “climate scientists” to operate. Uh, money? Not to mention power and influence over foreign economies. For the little liberal lemmings, their motivation is that they actually believe all this will benefit the environment. Poor misguided souls.

  12. FluorideWillHarmYou | Oct 6, 2013 at 12:56 pm |

    Humans produce only 4% of all global CO2 emissions. Even if we stopped producing ALL our CO2 output, it would do nothing to change the natural shift in climate patterns. This is intergovernmental deceit to have us bow down to a future carbon tax. This is a fraud! Don’t buy it!

Comments are closed.