95 per cent chance that Man is to blame for global warming, say scientists

timesonline ^ | March 5, 2010 | Ben Webster

[PROCON]

The evidence that human activity is causing global warming is much stronger than previously stated and is found in all parts of the world, according to a study that attempts to refute claims from sceptics.

The “fingerprints” of human influence on the climate can be detected not only in rising temperatures but also in the saltiness of the oceans, rising humidity, changes in rainfall and the shrinking of Arctic Sea ice at the rate of 600,000 sq km a decade.

The study, by senior scientists from the Met Office Hadley Centre, Edinburgh University, Melbourne University and Victoria University in Canada, concluded that there was an “increasingly remote possibility” that the sceptics were right that human activities were having no discernible impact. There was a less than 5 per cent likelihood that natural variations in climate were responsible for the changes.

[PROCON]

Ping!

[lesko]

Now we have percentages to analyze this? How do they come up with this?

[SoldierDad]

Yeah, but which man???

[a fool in paradise]

"What R the odds?"

[FlingWingFlyer]

ROTFL! These losers need to give it up. The party’s over.

[Codeflier]

I love the Onion!

[garyhope]

Perhaps if the Muslims stopped breeding like out of control rabbits, there would be less “global warming”.

[ClearCase_guy]

94.7% chance actually. But I guess they rounded up.

[Parley Baer]

Ok, put your data out in the public domain and let everyone analyze it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

What are the chances that the climate "scientists" are collecting a paycheck from a government that wants to use "climate change" as an excuse to tax the holy living hell out of the peasants?

[Tzimisce]

More settled consensus?

[marstegreg]

“The evidence that human activity is causing global warming is much stronger than previously stated and is found in all parts of the world, according to a study that attempts to refute claims from sceptics.”

So why exactly didn’t they use THIS evidence in the first place? Fool me once.........

[Brett66]

How do you assign a 95% chance to something subjective like “blame”?

[a fool in paradise]

40 years ago they said we were headed into a new ice age and it was caused by man.

Then they said there were rising temperature trends and came up with a hockey stick graph going onward and upward, unbounded.

Now they say the 15 years of cooling since 1995 are “because of the warming” even though they were never factored into the graph.

They LIE. They cannot get their story straight and revise their predictions like good Stalinists.

[a fool in paradise]

Ask them ‘what are the odds’ that God exists?

[FrankR]

If we’re going to keep posting this sort of gibberish, why don’t we do some Bernie Madoff posts too....same scheme.

[SnakeDoctor]

There is no need to assign responsibility for a non-event.

This is the equivalent of prosecuting someone for a crime when there is no evidence that a crime even occurred (much less that the individual being prosecuted was involved).

SnakeDoc

[RockyMtnMan]

These a$$hats need to go $#!% themselves, talk about sore losers. I want undeniable proof using a rigorous scientific method and extensive peer review. All the data should be made available and everyone should come to the same conclusion independently. Anything else and they are simply talking out of their rear ends.

[Lexington Green]

2,500 podiatrists can’t be wrong.