# More than 90% chance that global warming is due to human activity... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2007, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528 "2007-02-02T13:21:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/141 "2007-02-08T18:04:06Z")
[QUOTE=Anise] This is amazing… it actually IS put in with the debate threads!! [/QUOTE] I put it in GD not because it \*deserves \*to be debated, but because it \*will \*be debated, based on recent board history. And I wasn’t wrong, was I? You’ll notice I’ve been silent since the OP. It’s because, honestly and truly, I don’t know jack about this. My father, whom I respect immensely as a thinking person, up until at least a year ago was still in the “global warming is real, but we don’t really know how much it’s due to people and how much is just the natural warming/cooling cycles of the Earth” camp. I haven’t been able to talk to him since this report came out, so I don’t know if he’s changed his mind. This, I should point out, didn’t stop him one bit from Doing Something about it. He bought a hybrid car and installed enough solar panels on his new barn to power his property and sell a bit back to the electric company. He reduces, reuses and recycles and doesn’t club baby seals. Is my daddy going to solve the problem all on his own? Hell no. But he’s the one who taught me that the reasons why are irrelevant, except as they relate to the possible solutions, and that thinking persons can disagree and still work together to fix things. I’ve leaned towards the anthropogenic hypothesis, but without any real education to back it up, and I’ve tried to remain open to other ideas. Thank you, **Sam Stone** , for an excellent post. I feel like I learned a lot from it. I’m not sure what else I personally can do, but I am putting in fluorescent bulbs and we rarely eat beef. Every bit helps, right? ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/142 "2007-02-08T18:58:18Z")
[QUOTE=Lightnin’] I love it when global warming critics trot out the old “But Scientists said, back in the seventies, that we were heading into an ice age! If they were wrong then, then surely they’re wrong now!” [/QUOTE] But do they actually say that? Or do they say, “Hmm… back in the 1970s scientists said that we were heading for an ice age; that doesn’t seem to have happenned. How can we trust what they’re saying now?” ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/143 "2007-02-08T19:15:24Z")
[QUOTE=Lightnin’] I guarantee you- if some scientist were to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that global warming is caused by some natural phenomenon (rather than by all the CO2 we’re pumping out) he’d be lauded as a hero. [/QUOTE] Unfortunately, the pro-AGW lobby has a very bad reputation when it comes to treating those who aren’t in lock-step with them. Remember Dr Lomborg? ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/144 "2007-02-08T19:26:33Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] But do they actually say that? Or do they say, “Hmm… back in the 1970s scientists said that we were heading for an ice age; that doesn’t seem to have happenned. How can we trust what they’re saying now?” [/QUOTE] Nope. In my experience, they don’t ask why they should trust the scientists now, they say they don’t trust the scientists now. They’ve already made up their minds, and are just looking for reasons to maintain that belief. Of course, this completely sidesteps the fact that there was never a consensus, and the the global cooling hysteria was manufactured by journalists looking for a story. As for Lomborg, I must confess that I’d never heard of him before you brought him up. Some cursory reading, however, seems to imply that the charges brought against him _could_ have been valid. Or are you saying that he was singled out strictly because he disagreed with the AGW Cabal? 'Cause, that’s not what I’m seeing. It seems to me that his book was found to be “scientifically dishonest”, but that Lomborg wasn’t found guilty because of his lack of experience in that particular field, and that other scientific organizations disagreed with that finding. Got any other examples of the sort of censorship you’re accusing the AGW Cabal of? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/145 "2007-02-08T19:36:51Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] Unfortunately, the pro-AGW lobby has a very bad reputation when it comes to treating those who aren’t in lock-step with them. Remember Dr Lomborg? [/QUOTE] **Is** Lomborg an anthropogenic-climate-change skeptic? I can find nothing about that [here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomborg) (Nor can I find anything justifying your attribution of a “bad reputation” to the “pro-AGW” lobby.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/146 "2007-02-08T19:38:00Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] But do they actually say that? Or do they say, “Hmm… back in the 1970s scientists said that we were heading for an ice age; that doesn’t seem to have happenned. How can we trust what they’re saying now?” [/QUOTE] That is no more persuasive/reasonable than the way **Lightnin’** put it. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/147 "2007-02-08T19:43:31Z")
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane] Are you conservative? I ask because it seems like global warming skeptics have a political position they are supporting. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Quartz] Nice start there, attacking the poster. For the record, my politics are my own. [/QUOTE] So calling someone conservative is an **attack**? Is being a conservative a bad thing now, like being a liberal in the Reagan years? Back in the day\*, conservatives were proud of who they were. How the mighty have fallen. \*_2006_ Sailboat ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/148 "2007-02-08T19:45:24Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] This argument over who funds the various camps in the climate debate is pointless. Their arguments can stand on their own. If they’ve published their findings, then prattling on about whatever agenda you think they have, whether socialist or evil capitalist, really doesn’t matter. You’ve got their argument in your hands - refute it. It can be authored by monkeys, for all I care. Unfortunately for the nonbelievers, I think the science is in, and there can be no question that A) the earth is warming, and B) man has contributed some amount to that. At this point, if you disagree with that statement, you’re way, way out on a scientific limb. That’s not necessarily a bad place to be - stifling dissent in scientific debate is apalling, no matter which side is doing it. \ [/QUOTE] Thank you Sam, excellent post… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/149 "2007-02-08T19:51:54Z")
[QUOTE=Sailboat] So calling someone conservative is an **attack**? Is being a conservative a bad thing now, like being a liberal in the Reagan years? [/QUOTE] Yes. Any more questions? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hampshire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hampshire/32/4887_2.png) [@Hampshire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hampshire)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/150 "2007-02-08T21:05:55Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] Unfortunately for the nonbelievers, I think the science is in, and there can be no question that A) the earth is warming, and B) man has contributed some amount to that. [/QUOTE] I don’t know if this point has been brought up in the debate yet in regards to statement “B” and I don’t profess to have the answer but I still think it is debate worthy: Since it’s concluded that man has contributed to the warming, presumably throughout the 20th century, how much of this damage was done early on compared to the latter part of the century? While factories and cars have multiplied in numbers many time over throughout the century, early cars and factories had absolutely no restrictions on their emmisions. Major industrial cities skies were constantly black from pollution. Vehicles were anything but clean burning or fuel efficient. Emmision controls? What’s that? So while the blame goes on humanity for the warming, exactly when was the most damage done? I think people have the perception that it just kept getting worse and worse well into the 1980s and 90s and we need to do something now. Is there any debaters out there that challenge this and say the bulk of the damage occured much earlier on and actually improved at the end of the century? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/151 "2007-02-08T22:42:59Z")
**Hampshire** : (1) Unfortunately, the greenhouse gas in emissions from burning fossil fuels are not the “dirty” products from incomplete combustion that cause tradition pollution. Rather, they are CO2, which is a product of perfect combusion and is thus not reduced by making the emissions “cleaner” in the tradition sense. (2) In fact, the traditional pollutants are believed to have had an overall cooling effect that to date may have counteracted some of the warming from greenhouse gases. [Sulfate aerosols, in particular, cause cooling. Black carbon soot causes warming…but probably not enough to counteract the cooling effects of the sulfate aerosols.] (3) It is the warming in the last ~35 years that cannot be accounted for by natural causes…so the evidence is that it is this part that we are most responsible for. The models imply this too. ---
**Author:** ![Anise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/anise/32/21721_2.png) [@Anise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anise)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/152 "2007-02-08T23:04:45Z")
I don’t know, but that _is_ a question that is appropriate for debate. Some of us are going to take one position on it, and some will take another that’s diametrically opposed, but it can _be_ debated. Most questions fall into that category in some way, but then there are some that don’t. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/153 "2007-02-09T14:17:41Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [QUOTE=Quartz] Unfortunately, the pro-AGW lobby has a very bad reputation when it comes to treating those who aren’t in lock-step with them. Remember Dr Lomborg? [/QUOTE] **Is** Lomborg an anthropogenic-climate-change skeptic? I can find nothing about that [here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomborg) [/QUOTE] For a recent snapshot of his position, he’s discussed responses to the IPCC report on [the _Guardian_’s Comment is Free site](http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/bjrn_lomborg/2007/02/climate_hysteria.html). He lays into journalists in general, unnamed scientists and Al Gore, together with a jab at the IPCC’s director, but on the report itself: > [@](#): > > The IPCC has produced a good report - an attempt to summarise what the world’s scientists know about global warming. Unlike the Bush administration, caught downplaying the science, the IPCC squarely tells us that mankind is largely responsible for the planet’s recent warming. And, unlike Al Gore, who has travelled the world warning that our cities might soon be under the oceans, it refrains from scaremongering … > > The IPCC is by statute “politically neutral” - it is supposed to tell us just the facts and leave the rest to politicians and the people who elect them. This is why the report is a careful and sensible document. More generally, his stance in recent years has been more about the relative seriousness of the consequencies compared to other issues facing us than arguing over the science. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/154 "2007-02-09T22:02:21Z")
[QUOTE=bonzer] More generally, his stance in recent years has been more about the relative seriousness of the consequencies compared to other issues facing us than arguing over the science. [/QUOTE] That doesn’t alter history. How he was excoriated and then vindicated. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2007, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/155 "2007-02-10T13:13:18Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] That doesn’t alter history. How he was excoriated and then vindicated. [/QUOTE] Conveniently forgetting that he explicitly accepted the reality of manmade global warming even in _The Skeptical Environmentalist_. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2007, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/156 "2007-02-10T16:36:51Z")
[QUOTE=bonzer] Conveniently forgetting that he explicitly accepted the reality of manmade global warming even in _The Skeptical Environmentalist_. [/QUOTE] Not in the copy I have to hand he doesn’t. > [@The Skeptical Environmentalist](#): > > Global warming, though its size and future projections are rather unrealistically pessimistic, is **almost** certainly taking place. Note that word ‘almost’. Also note the lack of the word ‘anthropogenic’. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2007, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/157 "2007-02-11T18:18:03Z")
More pertinently, his summing up in the chapter on the subject (p317) starts: > [@](#): > > Global warming has become the greatest environmental worry of our day. There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO[sub]2[/sub] and that this will influence temperature. Yet, we need to separate hyperbole from realities in order to chose our future optimally. Temperatures have increased 0.6[sup]o[/sup]C over the past century and it is unlikely that this is not in part due to an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, although the impression of a dramatic divergence from previous centuries is almost surely misleading. In 2001 it was part of his purpose to _minimise_ the significance of manmade warming, but he was already accepting that it was occuring to some degree. [QUOTE=Quartz] Note that word ‘almost’. [/QUOTE] As has been repeatedly emphasised in this and endless other threads, science doesn’t pretend to deal in absolute certainties. Any scientist would have included some such caveat in that sentence. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2007, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/158 "2007-02-11T20:49:18Z")
[QUOTE=bonzer] More pertinently, his summing up in the chapter on the subject (p317) starts: [/QUOTE] Unfortunately the chapter takes the premise that it’s real. This still does nothing to mitigate my point about his treatment. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2007, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528/159 "2007-02-11T21:47:18Z")
It appears you’re reduced to merely denying Lomborg’s own reasonably clear explanation of his position at the time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-than-90-chance-that-global-warming-is-due-to-human-activity/390528.md?page=7)