Posted on 02/01/2007 8:17:53 AM PST by libertarianPA
PARIS (Reuters) - The U.N. climate panel agreed on Thursday it was "very likely" that human activities were the main cause of global warming in the past 50 years, stepping up certainty from a 2001 report, delegates said.
The wording "very likely" means at least 90 percent probability by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is meeting in Paris this week and will publish a new report on Friday.
The last study, in 2001, said that there was only a "likely" link, or a 66 percent probability, that human activities were the main cause of warming in the past 50 years.
"The phrase 'very likely' was approved today," said one delegate at the meeting. "There have been few major changes to the text," another delegate said. IPCC officials declined comment.
The conclusion matched those of a draft seen earlier by Reuters and could step up pressure on governments and companies to do more to slow warming that may bring more floods, droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels this century.
The report is the first of four IPCC reports this year that will outline threats of warming, linked to human activities led by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.
The Paris study will also project a "best estimate" that temperatures will rise by 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) by 2100 over pre-industrial levels, the biggest change in a century for thousands of years.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is modern science.
Dentist says "very likely" U.N. panel full of ****.
I'm waiting to see the panel's finding on humanity's role in the global warming problem on Mars and one of Jupiter's moons.
It is more than likely that the UN has been bought off.
The last time humans had an idea as stupid as "global warming and humans causing it"
We had the dark ages.
Man are they pushing for that cash....They can't produce anything else.
Does Algore know about this?
awww go take a nap!
Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html ^ | November 6, 2005 | Michael Crichton
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1777080/posts
Environmentalism as Religion
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html ^ | September 15, 2003 | Michael Crichton
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1777007/posts
Blasphemy! How dare you insult a great institution like the U.N. of corruption! What evidence do you have that...
oh, wait. Never mind.
He should. It's an "inconvenient truth".
Either that, or they see billions to be made in the trade of carbon emmission credits. It's Oil for Food all over again and the USA is the one that will be bled the most....
Wait a minute!
I thought this was 'settled science'.
Well if it's 'settled' than why isn't it 100% likely that it is caused by humans?
Guess it isn't as 'settled' as they've been telling us.
The only real questions are:
-what, if anything, will be the negative vs. positive effects (for humans) of continued warming? (it's not obvious that there are only negative effects, or even that negative would outweigh positive)
-what, if anything, can we do to alter the climate trend? (it's not obvious that we can actually do anything, or at least anything measurable)
-if there is something we can do to alter the climate trend, is it worth it, in cost-benefit terms, to do so? (it's not obvious that it is)
These are the only relevant questions. Figuring out whether humans have been "causing" whatever trend of the past 50 years does absolutely nothing to answer these three questions.
This refutes the UN study:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
My favorite part:
"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."
I think if the U.S. would cut off funding of the UN, a LOT of the global warming, along with the corruption and extortion of tax dollars, would cease.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.