News Article: Report: 95% odds that humans are to blame for warming

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,622
10,715
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
The world's top group of climate scientists is preparing to report that man-made global warming is "extremely likely," putting the odds that humanity is the main reason for the warming at 95%.

The findings are from a draft of the 5th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report obtained by USA TODAY.

Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of the fossil fuels that power the world are the main cause of global warming.

• Each of the past three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850. The first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest. In the Northern Hemisphere, the period 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-.year period of the past 1,400 years.

• There is stronger evidence that the ice sheets and glaciers worldwide are losing mass and sea ice cover is decreasing in the Arctic.

• It is virtually certain that the rate of sea level rise has accelerated during the past two centuries. Global sea level will rise during the 21st century, potentially by over 3 feet.

• It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.

• It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global temperature rises.
OK, go at it you 5%ers :p
 

ValuJet

Moderator
Sep 28, 2000
22,626
19
0
....Yeah...and we've had an unpredented string of Category 5 hurricanes this year to prove it! I hear The Weather Channel may be laying off a few weather babes.
 

PacadermaTideUs

All-American
Dec 10, 2009
4,072
289
107
Navarre, FL
I am 95% certain that real science has nothing to do with consensus.

Time For Some Realism - But IPCC Fails

You would imagine that the document would review what was said last time round and how things have changed since that time, but you’d be wrong. This is, after all, the bureaucracy at work: difficulties have to be brushed under carpets and stones left unturned.
 
Last edited:

Gr8hope

All-American
Nov 10, 2010
3,408
1
60
Who determined the list of "top group of climate scientists" and how much was the grant they received to come to that consensus?
 

PacadermaTideUs

All-American
Dec 10, 2009
4,072
289
107
Navarre, FL
Who determined the list of "top group of climate scientists" and how much was the grant they received to come to that consensus?
Link

The IAC [InterAcademy Council - a scientific body composed of the heads of national science academies around the world] found “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected by politicians from a “club” of scientists and non-scientists who agree with the alarmist perspective.
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
I am 95% certain that real science has nothing to do with consensus.

Time For Some Realism - But IPCC Fails
Ooohh a link war!

http://www.toxicworldbook.com/?p=110

Being the eternal skeptic myself, I decided to find out who the people are at icecap so I looked over the list of adviser’s and I headed to Sourcewatch.com to find out where these people get their funding. Guess what? Yup, they are people who make their living from those who would most suffer from controls on global warming emissions.


Let’s look at who some of these people are:
Robert C. Balling Jr -Balling has acknowledged receiving $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and get this OPEC!!!
Sallie Baliunas – Between December 1998 and September 2001 she was listed as a “Scientific Adviser” to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies.
Robert M. Carter- Sits on the advisory board os the Institute of Public Affairs which is funded by the mining and tobacco industry along with Monsanto.
Reid A. Bryson- While certainly a climatologist and skeptic, Dr. Bryson passed away last year yet is still listed on icecap as being a consultant. Maybe they discovered how to channel the deceased?
Yes I know that this is like countering republican ideas by pointing people to democrats.org but I digress.

Appendix:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Balling

Wikipedia said:
At the 1998 hearing, Balling "acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead)."[4]
Between December 1998[5] and September 2001[6] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[7]
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,736
287
54
I can't link it here, but I think George Carlin's observations on saving the planet apply well here (and note that you CANNOT use the six-day creationist religious argument on Carlin, either). (Edited for TF)


You got people like this around you? Country is full of them now! People walking around all day long, every minute of the day — worried about EVERYTHING! Worried about the air, worried about the water, worried about the soil. Worried about insecticides, pesticides, food additives, carcinogens; worried about radon gas; worried about asbestos. Worried about saving endangered species.

Let me tell you about endangered species, all right? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control Nature! It's arrogant meddling! It's what got us into trouble in the first place! Doesn't anybody understand that? Interfering with Nature! Over 90 percent.. over... way over 90 percent of all the species that have ever lived — EVER LIVED — on this planet are gone. Whissshht! They are extinct!

We didn't kill them all.

They just... disappeared! That's what Nature does! They disappear these days at the rate of 25 a day, and I mean regardless of our behavior. Irrespective of how we act on this planet, 25 species that were here today, will be gone tomorrow! Let them go... gracefully! Leave Nature alone! Haven't we done enough?

We're so self-important. So self-important! Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees; save the bees; save the whales; save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all, "Save the planet." WHAT? Are these people kidding me? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the planet?

I'm getting tired of that. Tired of that ..... Tired! I'm tired of Earth Day! I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists; these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are. Difference. Difference! The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles; hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors; worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages... And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet... the planet... the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet will be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet is doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, "How the planet's doing?" You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long — LONG — time after we're gone, and it will heal itself; it will cleanse itself, because that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover; the earth will be renewed; and, if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the Earth plus plastic! The Earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the Earth. The Earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the Earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question, "Why are we here?" "Plastic!."
 

PacadermaTideUs

All-American
Dec 10, 2009
4,072
289
107
Navarre, FL
If you'd actually looked at the article I'd linked to (Time For Some Reason...), you would've seen that the article is not one written by ICECAP (though if it had been, would've been irrelevant - I'll get to that later). It's actually a reprinted blog by Andrew Lord Montford, another editorial by Bob Tisdale, and finally, the point of the piece, an article by The Scientific Alliance.

As for your argument against ICECAP, I can offer a wiki link myself:

Poisoning The Well

Quite coincidentally, one of the refrains from the Scientific Alliance article I linked above, speaks to the "Poisoning The Well" rhetorical fallacy. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address both:

Such talk smacks of desperation: if you can’t persuade an audience that your opponent is wrong by rational argument, then question their credibility.
 
Last edited:

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
Poisoning The Well

Quite coincidentally, one of the refrains from the Scientific Alliance article I linked above, speaks to the "Poisoning The Well" rhetorical fallacy. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address both:
Such talk smacks of desperation: if you can’t persuade an audience that your opponent is wrong by rational argument, then question their credibility.
Technically you are 100% correct.

However in practice when people argue from a position where their livelihood is based upon them continuing to hold a specific belief set, it is fair to question their motives. You could easily say that about most scientists I guess. And likely will counter a climate change denier getting 400K in donations from the oil and gas industry with the scientist who gets 400K in grant money from the US Government due to the US Government having staked its claim behind man made climate change.

So I guess we are at an impasse. You, with the 15% of the people who's livelihood are tied to the oil and gas industries, and me with the remaining 85% funded independently, through government backing and various world organizations will just have to agree to disagree. However from a rational point of view, is it easier to believe that those 15% of the people are really standing up for healthy science while those remaining 85% know that it is sham and are all on the government dole? Seems like an awful large number of scientists to get to keep quiet about a big conspiracy to convince the world that climate change is real.

*Note: I just made up the 15%/85% split. You can have more if you want. 51-85% of the worlds scientists participating in a gigantic climate change conspiracy is still an awfully large number to believe that have managed to keep quiet regarding the fact that they are all on the government dole.
 

PacadermaTideUs

All-American
Dec 10, 2009
4,072
289
107
Navarre, FL
Technically you are 100% correct.

However in practice when people argue from a position where their livelihood is based upon them continuing to hold a specific belief set, it is fair to question their motives. You could easily say that about most scientists I guess. And likely will counter a climate change denier getting 400K in donations from the oil and gas industry with the scientist who gets 400K in grant money from the US Government due to the US Government having staked its claim behind man made climate change.

So I guess we are at an impasse. You, with the 15% of the people who's livelihood are tied to the oil and gas industries, and me with the remaining 85% funded independently, through government backing and various world organizations will just have to agree to disagree. However from a rational point of view, is it easier to believe that those 15% of the people are really standing up for healthy science while those remaining 85% know that it is sham and are all on the government dole? Seems like an awful large number of scientists to get to keep quiet about a big conspiracy to convince the world that climate change is real.

*Note: I just made up the 15%/85% split. You can have more if you want. 51-85% of the worlds scientists participating in a gigantic climate change conspiracy is still an awfully large number to believe that have managed to keep quiet regarding the fact that they are all on the government dole.
You brought up conspiracies - I didn't. I'm not presenting a poisoned well argument. My only argument thus far has been that scientists disagree and question, which is, like, kind of their job.
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
You brought up conspiracies - I didn't. I'm not presenting a poisoned well argument. My only argument thus far has been that scientists disagree and question, which is, like, kind of their job.
True regarding the conspiracies, I did introduce that. It is germane to the conversation because that is the only logical explanation that climate change skeptics can really sink their teeth into when claiming that all of these scientists for climate change, who from all the data I can gather out number the skeptics, are shilling from a poisoned well position. You brought up the poisoned well argument which by your argument infers that the source of the information (most often governments) cannot be trusted.

The poisoned well argument goes both ways. If you believe I was attacking the source of your data due to the funding of some of its major backers, the same can be said regarding attacking the latest IPCC report. Picking and choosing your data and researchers is disingenuous for both sides.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.