Yes, it’s only “most likely” so we don’t have to do anything.

From the IPCC:

“It is therefore unlikely (bordering on very unlikely) that natural internal variability alone can explain the changes in global climate over the 20th century (e.g., Figure 12.1) … The additional warming in the second half-century is most likely to be due to a substantial warming due to increases in greenhouse gases, partially offset by cooling due to aerosols, and perhaps by cooling due to natural factors towards the end of the period.”

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/467.htm

.. the future of your ancestors? Wha…?

http://www.factcheck.org/article382.html

First, IPCC is NGO that collects and evaluates all available information on climate change. They are therefore somewhat more conservative than front-line environmental scientists because they have to balance their position against a high standard of criticism. That doesn’t mean that it is not a credit-worthy group of scientists, but it does mean that they are somewhat behind the curve on the latest findings. Had you read what I said, this would be transparent to you. Furthermore, if you knew any of the scientists who put IPCC TAR together, they would concur with what I’ve just said.

Second, what the fuck is your point if you are not trying to cast doubt on the anthropogenic origin of greenhouse gases? You want to get into an argument about semantics? This isn’t like a dice roll where 4 or above means it is anthropogenic, 3 or below, it’s some other cause. There is a mounting body of evidence. In science, there is no certainty – ever – as you surely must know. It is part of the game. If your only goal is to try to get every “fact” redacted from the blog record and replaced by “likely cause,” fine. What a trivial and pointless exercise.

Third, I did use the extreme language “incinerated” to make a rhetorical point, but it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that we could cook ourselves on this planet within two generations. If you look at Hoffert’s Nature paper (1998), you find that our current population trends, world GDP growth and energy consumption indicate as much as a 7 C increase in global temperatures. That isn’t incinerated, but it is pretty well done…

Finally, I have read extensively on the subject. I did my research at CalTech and UC Berkeley in Material Science and ChemE. I used to work for DOE. If you were a concerned scientist as well, you’d be well served to stop aligning yourself with Frank and the rest of the somnambulists who claim there’s not enough information.

You magnificently stupid bastard. When study after study shows that human activity has been a likely factor in 20th Century warming trends you read that as evidence that the jury is still out on the question.

And z_adura asserts:

JWG, you are lazy and irresponsible and ignorant. It is a shame because if you spent one-fifth the energy on self-education that you do on self-indulgence, you might actually be moved to see the scope of our global crisis.

And if you spent any time actually using facts to dispute the facts from the IPCC that I presented, then you wouldn’t have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
In reality, one of my master’s degrees is in geology with a focus on meteorology. I have been a science and technology teacher for the past 12 years. I am very well versed in all the reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the IPCC. I find it hilarious that you want to believe that I spend no energy on “self-education.” How many of the IPCC reports have you read and understood?
Please point to anything I have stated that claims global warming is not occuring. I have not even claimed that there are no anthropogenic forces at work on our climate. What I DO claim is that you both misrepresent what the actual scientific consesus is. The attribution of climate change to anthropogenic causes is not “certain” or even “very likely.” To call it a “fact” is a misrepresentation of what is currently understood.
z_adura goes even further by claiming temperature increases will incinerate the planet in less than 50 years. (Additionally, z_adura insults frameone, by proxy through me, as someone who is a classic case of knowing just a little bit by saying the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences are poor sources for climate change.) But I’m lazy, irresponsible, and ignorant? Thanks for the laugh.

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred.

The jury is still out on global warming, all the insults, arrogance, and condescension notwithstanding.

Let’s go back to the “evidence” presented by JK (Apr 11 2006 8:56 pm)

A supposedly “objective discussion”.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming in the last 50 years is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases, which accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community, the committee said. However, it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales, and the degree of confidence that can be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years based on evidence from tree rings or ice cores.

Real scientists don’t roll over for ideology.
Real scientists aren’t dogmatic.
Real scientists don’t find it necessary to personally attack their critics.

Frank, JWG, you are lazy and irresponsible and ignorant. It is a shame because if you spent one-fifth the energy on self-education that you do on self-indulgence, you might actually be moved to see the scope of our global crisis.

That’s one of the differences between you and me: I have an interest in facts, and you’re just trying to prove a point.

Not atypical for a liberal — “All life is a trial, and I am Perry Mason!”

JWG –

You magnificently stupid bastard. When study after study shows that human activity has been a likely factor in 20th Century warming trends you read that as evidence that the jury is still out on the question. It’s like when idiot IDers suggest that evolution hasn’t been proven because it’s only a “theory.” Why in the world does anyone take you morons seriously?

Americans Still Cool On Warming

incinerate our planet by 2050

Hmmm.

JWG, you are the classic case of knowing just a little bit. The IPCC is the most cautious of all organizations on the subject of global warming….you cannot cite them as evidence of current thinking on global warming.

Do you read that, Frameone?
Please do not cite the IPCC anymore, nor any group such as the National Academy of Sciences that quotes the IPCC. Then I will not have to provide their quotes on the subject and be chastised by environmental gurus like z_adura.
Well, actually, I will provide one more quote, since the IPCC thinks more highly of themselves than does z_adura:

Simply put, this latest assessment of the IPCC will again form the standard scientific reference for all those concerned with climate change and its consequences, including students and researchers in environmental science, meteorology, climatology, biology, ecology and atmospheric chemistry, and policymakers in governments and industry worldwide.
[...]
As is usual in the IPCC, success in producing this report has depended first and foremost on the knowledge, enthusiasm and co-operation of many hundreds of experts worldwide, in many related but different disciplines.

Nonetheless, taken even your cramped view of the world, isn’t there some part of you that shudders when you think that there is a greater than 50% chance that we are going to incinerate our planet by 2050 if we don’t learn to change our behavior? Given this, why do you even enter into this debate?

As I said, conservatives are generally skeptical, and sometimes, downright fearfull of science if it threatens their ideological framework.

How many times have we had this debate on so many other topics? Stem-cell, evolution vs. intelligent design…it doesn’t matter, conservatives routinely come down on the wrong side of science.

When you consider that “science” in its many forms, has brought us the airplane, the automobile, penicillin…..and sent us to the moon, and back, I don’t understand such resistence, but then again, I’ll never understand the mind of a woman.

JK