Panel: Global Warming Caused By Humans

Delegates From 113 Countries Agree There's 90% Chance Climate Change Caused By Humans

(CBS/AP)  Officials from 113 countries agreed Thursday that a much-awaited international report will say that global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, delegates to a climate change conference said.

Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats are editing the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed-door meetings in Paris. Their report, which must be unanimously approved, is to be released Friday.

Two participants, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meetings are confidential, said the group approved the term "very likely" in Thursday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that global warming is caused by humans.

The last report, in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to change the wording this time to "virtually certain," which means a 99 percent chance.

The report is considered an authoritative document that could influence government and industrial policy worldwide.

"Very likely" means it is at least 90 percent certain that climate change is caused by humans burning fossil fuels, and will result in a temperature increase of between 2.5-10.4 F by the year 2100.

Some participants apparently had wanted to change that wording to "virtually certain," which connotes a 99 percent likelihood.

Scientists are trying to incorporate concerns that their early drafts underestimate how much the sea will rise by 2100 because they cannot predict how much ice will melt from Greenland and Antarctica.

In early drafts, scientists predicted a sea level rise of no more than 23 inches by 2100, but that does not include the ice sheet melts.

Also, for the first time, the climate panel says stronger hurricanes and cyclones since 1970 are "more likely than not" linked to global warming, according to a draft. That could change, however, since the issue is hotly debated in scientific circles.

One participant, who asked not to be identified, said there was a noticeable change in the U.S. delegation, which some accused of hanging up the 2001 talks: "The U.S. is much more constructive."

In the same way as the United States took a long time to accept the realities of global warming and its human causes, the Bush administration is now stressing a very different approach from most countries on how to respond, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips. One idea Washington is pushing is literally "pie in the sky."

The U.S. is funding a study to see if millions of reflective plates, launched into space and positioned between the Earth and the sun, could reflect enough energy away to limit the warming. It's a giant space sunscreen that, even the man studying it says, is a hugely expensive, desperate idea.

"What kind of a planet is this where you have to rely on the high technology fix. You have to go to the heart of the problem and reduce the greenhouse gases," says researcher Roger Angel of the University of Arizona.

The study traces global temperatures and so-called greenhouse gases going back thousands of years. It shows a gradual variation until the Industrial Revolution begins, when fossil fuel use skyrockets, as do temperatures, reports Phillips, who obtained an early version last week.

"As we add to those gases, we are just doing the same thing as putting another blanket on our bed at night," said Sir David King, British chief government scientific adviser. "The consequences are that you get warmer, and that is as simple as it is."

While this report presents the grim realities of climate change in stark terms, reports Phillips, it is not a doomsday scenario. There are responses - scientific, economic, political — that can help limit the damage and help the world react. Government advisers like King say solutions are already available. Among them: limiting emissions, hybrid cars, energy-efficient homes, alternative power sources and less travel.

During his State of the Union address last month, President Bush called for American imports to be cut by the equivalent of 75 percent of the oil coming from the Middle East.

In a subsequent a speech, Mr. Bush said he would seek $1.6 billion in funding over the next decade for research into alternative energy.

Former U.S. Sen. Timothy E. Wirth, a Colorado Democrat who was a former U.S. chief negotiator on the Kyoto Protocol, noted that the remarks were short on specifics, but that Mr. Bush was "understanding finally that this is a serious issue that the U.S. has to address."

Wirth added that the U.S. needed to provide leadership, but said it would be hard for Mr. Bush to do that.

"We will wait for John McCain or Hillary Clinton ... or somebody who will be in a very different position in 2009," he said, referring to the two senators who are considered the front-runners for the Republican and Democratic parties in the 2008 election.

Two private advocacy groups told a congressional hearing Tuesday that climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.

[shrade-2009]

....cont...
As for greenland and antarctica ice melting, actually in main land temp is decreasing in quite a few parts, and ice under the see lvl acumulating and huge rates faster then icebergs fall and drift away. I dont' doubt that global warming is a great issue we need to fight, but at this point there are so many facts and systems at work that we dont' know as much as we would like to. So far we only have predictions that haven't really shown any accuracy. And biggest problem right now is to find actually effective ways to deal with it. if US actually sign kyoto protocol and all follow it by 100 diference would be of almost negligable for global temp much less then increase we see in last 100 years. That's y main problem is to actually find some new energy sources couse cutting down at this momeny won't do a thing.

[shrade-2009]

Surely global warming is happening, but the main question is how big a human factor is in this issue, and when it comes to it there is still not much actual bullet-proof data except for predictions. And when it comes to them so far they are by 300% wrong if not more. Of course when they say tbat temprature is going to increase by 3-8 degrees difference seem low but comparing to actual increase in temp it makes all the difference. Actual calculations are so complex that nobody can actually preddict anything within reasonable accuracy to judge the actual human factor. As for hurricanes, there is no actually noticable trand in increase of them if to consider long term period, ya we are rather at the rather high activity period but we had same at around 1940-1970 so it doesn't differer much from regular decade cycles. As for regular temp rising it was rising for last 6k years. see levels also have been risin all this time since last ice age and rate didn't change much. Temp data around the world differs from place to place, if u actually find date u will see some cities even come decrease in temp instead of increase. Also there is such thing warming of the cities themselfs the bigger that get and it plays huge role in temp mesurmants, they do take an account for it when they make tables of data but they adjust it based on city population and quite often it gives inacurate results.

[godin6]

Meet Daisy the cow %u2013 global climate%u2019s enemy number one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/meet_daisy_the_cow_global_climates_enemy_number_on.html

Cattle %u2013 are responsible for an astonishing proportion of global warming gases - 18 per cent of the total, to be precise.

That%u2019s right, almost a fifth of all emissions which is more greenhouse gas emissions than all the transport on earth %u2013 planes, trains, cars, skidoos the lot.

[lars008-2009]

Harper's letter dismisses Kyoto as 'socialist scheme'
Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html

[lars008-2009]

Real Climate meet Real Science!!!!

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years (Paperback)
by Dennis T. Avery, S. Fred Singer
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Glob
al-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172


The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change (Paperback)
by Henrik Svensmark (Author), Nigel Calder (Author)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chilli
ng-Stars-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/184046
8157
http://www.realclimate.org/

[mikebeat1]

tucson23,
Brilliantly stated. I don't understand the argument. Are the black helicopters coming to take our Hummers?

[tucson23]

Okay, whether you believe that man is causing global warming or not, there is a middle ground here. Global warming is happening. Greenhouse gases can make it worse. Polluting the atmosphere is probably not a good idea no matter how you look at it. Oil will not last forever. So what is wrong with erring on the side of caution and reducing the pollution while looking for new and better sources of energy? Are all of you pro-pollution people oil company stockholders or something? Do you like being dependent on foreigners for energy? Exactly what harm will come of reducing the pollution of the air we all breathe? Even if global warming would happen without pollution, does that make pollution a good idea? Let's have some common sense here for Christ's sake!

[alphaa10-2009]

HawkSprings said, "The Global Warming Sheep have the illusion that by suppressing dissenting scientists and forcing everyone to walk in lock-step and ridiculing the non-believers, that that makes human-caused Global Warming a fact..."
---

Actually, if you read the report carefully, half of 279 scientists / researchers responding to a survey said Bush administrative pressures attempted to force them to do exactly what you condemn.

You can blame Bush for sticking his head where it shouldn't go, even as the scientific community tried to warn him of a clear and present danger to national security (one he never found in Iraq).

As you correctly point out, suppressing data does not create a new set of facts. The scientific consensus developing about global warming, however, may penetrate even the mindset of Bush-- a mentality also famous for ignoring disaster a la carte in Iraq.

[eclipsed-one]

HawkSprings first let me say you need to do research before you start making pathetic untrue claims you retarded half spanked monkey.

This year hurricane season, yea it was pretty quiet, but on AVERAGE they are getting stronger and more frequent, its not just single years **** boy, its on a whole! As for the coldest and snowiest winters yet, you must not live anywhere near someplace where it snows because it hasn't been! Green Christmas all around this year! and rather warm too! If you're listening to what Al Gore says then you've already admitted you have a problem, you need to fix that. He makes up new lies on a daily basis!

And no, it's not true that one large volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gases than humans ever have, NOT EVEN CLOSE!! even comparing the 2 is too much! I think you need to lookup what the term sunspot means and what goes on when it happens! Thousands of the top minds on the subject poor their collective knowledge into this topic and this is the outcome we get, and you think you're smarter than all of them??? LOL you don't think they take every aspect into account before they come to this conclusion? ****!

Yes the climates do run in cycles and we humans have a great understanding of them because unlike you, we are smart monkeyboy. And if you would read some articles on the topic you'd realize that what's going on now isn't supposed to be happening the way it is.

[hawksprings]

So tell me, all you Global Warming Sheep, why was 2006 one of the quietest hurricane seasons on record? Why is much of the US having it's coldest, snowiest winter in years? AlGore said we weren't going to have winters anymore, didn't he?
Isn't it true that one large volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gases than humans ever have? How does volcanic activity factor in?
Also, don't you think increased sunspot activity over the past few years might have just a TEENSY bit to do with any Global Warming? Or is the sun not a factor in Global Warming Science?
The Global Warming Sheep have the illusion that by suppressing dissenting scientists and forcing everyone to walk in lock-step and ridiculing the non-believers, that that makes human-caused Global Warming a fact.
So maybe the climate is changing, it's apparently changed before and it will change again. Turning off the Eifel Tower for 5 minutes won't natural climate change.