95% chance that humans caused global warming, new report says

Global warming is caused by man, with a 95% certainty, according to a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That’s an increase from the last report, dated 2007.

The hard part, the report’s authors say, is determining the severity of its impact, and where.

More from Reuters:

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the UN panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

Earth via Shutterstock

Earth via Shutterstock

That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.

That shifts the debate onto the extent of temperature rises and the likely impacts, from manageable to catastrophic.

Governments have agreed to work out an international deal by the end of 2015 to rein in rising emissions.

I don’t usually do quick posts like this, but it’s a good long story from Reuters, and worth a read.

Here is more of Gaius’ earlier coverage of climate change.

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

44 Responses to “95% chance that humans caused global warming, new report says”

  1. klem says:

    Actually I got A’s in stats and physics, they were some of my best subjects.

  2. Steve Wilson says:

    @Klem Judging by your comment U probably would have been better off doing art. We know statistics or dimensional analysis isnt 4 U either…

  3. dannie23 says:

    I think the data is really irrelevant to us as we all know that we are the main accused for disturbing the environmental balance. So we must change and that is the only way to stop any further damage.

    Ruby on Rails Programmer
    Ruby on Rails Programmers

  4. klem says:

    You know, when I did my undergrad in science, if I took 10 variables with a 50% probability and arrived at a conclusion with a 95% probability, they would have tossed me out of science and told me to take art.

  5. arleeda says:

    The reason is important, but it doesn’t look as if we could stop catastrophe now even if the whole world quit using fossil fuels, which they aren’t going to do. I’m too old, but I have grandkids who will live in a very different world. I’m hoping science can figure out a way to capture the excess methane and CO2 and dispose of it.

  6. arleeda says:

    So true. I was in grad school in the 60s, when there was plenty of post-Sputnik money for science, and the flow continued throughout most of my working career. I wouldn’t advise any one to pursue science as a career today.

  7. therling says:

    It’s actually a conspiracy to get climate change denialists huge salaries from fossil fuel lobbying organizations. If they had nothing to deny, they’d be out of work.

  8. ComradeRutherford says:

    As I said, we had to stop supporting IE because it was costing us hundreds of work hours for code that ran fine on all other browsers.

  9. ComradeRutherford says:

    Chrome is a spying tool for Google to track everything you do…

  10. therling says:

    95% is the standard scientific rule of thumb for establishing that a result is not merely by chance.

  11. ComradeRutherford says:

    They say, “sunspots!” But in Real Life we are at a minimum on solar activity.

  12. BillFromDover says:

    Hey, throw the dogs a bone.

    After all, what else do they have goin’ for them?

  13. BillFromDover says:

    Again, why can’t these outliers explain these natural variations?

    In simpler words, what are these natural variations?

    Is it their collective, scientific, intellectual argument simply that sometimes, shit just happens for no reason?

    Well, hello!!!

  14. BillFromDover says:

    Just for shits and grins, this this guy:


  15. BillFromDover says:

    Seriously, deniers, how many scientists in other disciplines get paid (or not) for what they predict will happen in the future?

    None, ya say… so why are climate scientists any different?

    Do they not get paid for whatever their predictions?

  16. BillFromDover says:

    Here’s a start:


  17. BillFromDover says:

    “by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.”

    What natural variations?

    After all aren’t scientist supposed to back up their assertions with evidence?

  18. emjayay says:

    Nice to hear about Chrome not working. I’m suspicious of Chrome for some unknown reason so I avoid it no matter how many times they try to sneak it in.

  19. emjayay says:

    Huh. See my comment above. Almost everything works on IE, except for a couple of things that don’t a little, or don’t at all. And the opposite for FireFox.

  20. emjayay says:

    Yeah! Particularly since Explorer is the major one. Maybe I need Explorer 18 2023.

  21. emjayay says:

    Yeah I know, but for some reason it has no idea what to do with Towleroad, although it handles JoeMyGod comments just fine, which Explorer doesn’t . Wierd.

  22. emjayay says:

    Yeah, that’s why we’re spending billions on renewing beaches and housing and businesses on the Jersey shore and barrier islands, and on the Rockaway peninsula in NYC instead of buying everyone out, leveling the bigger buildings into hills, (a la Governor’s island), and making them into parks. Which they should have been in the first place.

    In 50 years, we’ll be so swamped (ha ha) by the coastal losses we will only be able to abandon them and let them collapse on their own. It would be interesting to be around to see what the hell they will do about Manhattan. Any billion dollar whatever they build to lessen storm surges will be a joke.

  23. Monoceros Forth says:

    But isn’t collecting pay the only valid reason for doing anything in the right-wing utopia? :p

  24. ComradeRutherford says:

    No one should ever use Internet Exploder no matter what. IE refuses to render basic HTML because M$ wants everyone to write special code just for their browser. My website design company always has headaches with IE, every other browser on the planet works just fine, but IE never does. After a while we had to abandon trying to get IE to work with our sites.

  25. ComradeRutherford says:

    All Climate Science is bogus because the scientists were paid for their work and therefore are biased. The only people that are believable were paid by the Koch Brothers, because they are obviously impartial.

    At least that’s what one Conservative told me…

  26. Fireblazes says:

    Really, those ice shelves the size of New Mexico break off of Antarctica all off the time.

  27. Fireblazes says:

    I have a daughter that is a Scientist, grant money is scarce and hard to come by. Most of it dried up with sequestration and the rich enriching themselves even further.

  28. Fireblazes says:

    Some people won’t believe it until they are up to their asses in ocean water.

  29. Fireblazes says:

    Squirrels believe in the facts. The squirrels are insulted by your linking them to ignorant humans.

  30. Indigo says:

    Yes it does!

  31. Monoceros Forth says:

    I do all the time anyway. I had been using Chrome to view this site but a few months ago it stopped working with Chrome. I’ve just gotten used to having two browser windows open.

  32. jomicur says:

    Hey, watch it. Everyone knows that facts–ANY facts on any subject whatever–are a liberal conspiracy to undermine squirrelly beliefs.

  33. Dave of the Jungle says:

    Witness the number of professional scientists who drive Volkswagens and 20 year old Toyotas.

  34. Monoceros Forth says:

    Yeah, I’ve always wondered just how and why almost every atmospheric scientist in the world is supposed to be in this vast cabal. I’ve actually heard the “grant money” rationale peddled once. Based on my admittedly brief exposure to the workings of academic scientific research, the notion that climate scientists are all getting fat off gummint money is absolutely ludicrous.

  35. Dave of the Jungle says:

    Meanwhile, the planet keeps warming and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, for some reason.

  36. BeccaM says:

    Yeah, and it’s what I use, too, but Emjayjay shouldn’t have to switch browsers just to read this site.

  37. emjayay says:

    I still say it’s a secret conspriracy by thousands of scientists who spent their whole life figuring out and explaining the truth of what’s going on in the environment, for no discernable reason at all. Except maybe to get more grants from socialist governments to make more stuff up to get more grants from socialist governments.

  38. Dave of the Jungle says:

    Firefox rocks as a browser and it seems to do a great job of blocking unwanted phenomena.

  39. emjayay says:

    Using Explorer, ads are still moved down and covering half the lower part of the posts here. Deleting them makes no difference.

  40. Rudy Haugeneder says:

    Where is the big, big pandemic that will cull our numbers to pre-Columbus numbers of under 500 million people compared to the 7.2 billion of us today?
    We all know it, or something similar and possibly worse, is overdue, so lets get it over with so the remnants of humanity can try again, this time — hopefully — sensibly.

  41. cole3244 says:

    prepare the stones to be thrown at the messenger, the good book says its so.

  42. Fireblazes says:

    Someones having a case of the Mondays. Remember no matter what you or John say, you can’t fix stupid.

  43. Dave of the Jungle says:

    One use of a statistic is to state that a hypothesis has been demonstrated to be true with 95% certainty. Another use of a statistic is to state that an event has a 95% chance of occurring or occurred 95% of the time in some sample of the event. It’s true; they are not the same.

    What the present article states is that it is more certainly the case that global warming is the result of human activity than it was possible to state in the past. Correctly: “arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame” are increasingly untenable.

  44. jjkfld says:

    95% certainty is not the same as a 95% chance. please take remedial statistics asap. reporters like you give the deniers incorrect fodder for their stupidity.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS