# Leaked IPCC report: 90% confidence in AGW is now 95% -- and sea level will rise! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002 "2013-08-23T20:36:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/181 "2013-09-05T01:19:36Z")
What’s most depressing is that we have entered into an era of shameless lying. An era where the Creationists and Flat-Earthers and Truthers and Birthers and others can promote their viewpoints, not only lying their asses off, but doing so knowingly. This is especially remarkable in the Faith-Based arguments, such as Creationism, given that one of the Commandments of the Lord is not to bear false witness. So, we, the average unwashed, vaguely educated blokes – I know next to nothing about planetary science or climatology! – are compelled to weed through mounds of excrement and lakes of sewage – much of it intentional distortions – to try to arrive at the truth. To me, thus, when a tipping point of consensus is achieved, and when one can say that 95% of all climate scientists hold a particular view, then the arguments against this have to be viewed with the direst suspicion. **GIGObuster** ’s cites are simply more persuasive than **Ají de Gallina** ’s cites. **GIGObuster** ’s explanatory approach is also the more persuasive. He presents his case with far less ridicule and less vitriol than the local opposition. He doesn’t resort to “Ha ha” rhetoric (or at least much less than the others.) Thus, between the better evidence and the better presentation, I have to hold with the current scientific consensus. That, and the fact that you can see photos of the glaciers disappearing all over the world. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/182 "2013-09-05T02:57:34Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > That, and the fact that you can see photos of the glaciers disappearing all over the world. Won’t glaciers continue to disappear for quite some time even if we see no further warming? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/183 "2013-09-05T03:47:55Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The real answer to Lobohan’s fallact-infected gotcha questiins is simple: > Scientists are people, in the same way as lawyers, waitresses, and pilots. > They respond to the same pressures: money, jobs, security. > Public opinion and grants and publishing is now depndent on AGW. The editor of a science iagazine resigned over the magazine’s publishing a non AGW article even after embarassingly ass-licking apology letter for, apparently, raping the Scientific Method’s mum. > > “Big Bang” is the derisive name given to Lemaitre’s “creationist” view of the Universe. Now, it’s science. > In science, money comes with all sort of strings attached. So you’re a conspiracy theorist. Fine. You believe that thousands of people around the world, from different countries, different organizations and different creeds are working together to trick you. Nice to know that you live in fear of that kind of world. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/184 "2013-09-05T03:48:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Now that’s gonna leave a mark. > > Excellent post. The problem, Magellan, old chum, is that you don’t know how uneducated you are when it comes to assessing climate science. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/185 "2013-09-05T03:54:05Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Not untrained, so no answer. So, you’re a climate scientist? Can you please show me what you’ve published? > [@](#): > > Now to you. > Why do you think you, being untrained and ignorant of the science can speak about and defend something you cannot understand and only repeat other people opinions on the subject? I am ignorant about much. I don’t know how to fly a jet. So I don’t tell people who do know that I think their techniques are flawed. I don’t repeat other people’s opinions. I accept the scientific consensus, you reject it, because you think people are lying to you. That’s an absurd stance, and one, I suspect you don’t take in other facets of your life. Are you an anti-vaxer too? Because you never know, those scientists might be lyin’. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/186 "2013-09-05T03:59:40Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The problem, Magellan, old chum, is that you don’t know how uneducated you are when it comes to assessing climate science. It appears that you’re the one who doesn’t know how educated or uneducated I might be on the subject. Just because you’ve gotten in over your head and been called on it—_beautifully_, I might add—that’s no reason to lash out out of frustration. Tsk, tsk, tsk. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/187 "2013-09-05T04:05:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It appears that you’re the one who doesn’t know how educated or uneducated I might be on the subject. Just because you’ve gotten in over your head and been called on it—_beautifully_, I might add—that’s no reason to lash out out of frustration. Tsk, tsk, tsk. I honestly don’t consider myself gotten. Intelligent people can’t know everything. So they should accept what the experts say. Like when you get on a jet, get operated on, walk on a bridge, or drive your car. In each of those activities you trust the experts who know so much more than you, who made those activities possible. Only someone suffering from the [Dunning-Kruger effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) can think that without training in science, they can accurately assess PhD level papers and that their opinions mean anything more than the gut-instincts of a novice. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/188 "2013-09-05T04:16:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And this can not be finish without noticing that your last paragraph is only repeating a basic contradiction, if you are correct, then it would be foolish to reduce CO2. That is once again one item that makes others not to take one seriously. uh… What? That is the stupidest thing you’ve said yet. We’re reducing co2 because technology is driving it and not because of the chicken Little crowd. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/189 "2013-09-05T04:32:32Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I honestly don’t consider myself gotten. Given that you profess to be part of the reality-based community, you really need to rethink that assessment. But somehow, I do not question that you are unable to see it. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Intelligent people can’t know everything. So they should accept what the experts say. Like when you get on a jet, get operated on, walk on a bridge, or drive your car. > > In each of those activities you trust the experts who know so much more than you, who made those activities possible. > > Only someone suffering from the [Dunning-Kruger effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) can think that without training in science, they can accurately assess PhD level papers and that their opinions mean anything more than the gut-instincts of a novice. Let me see if I understand you. You admit to not being an expert on the subject, you’re probably not aware of all the work and you admit not being able to fully comprehend PhD level papers on the subject, yet, you know, you just KNOW that these people are completely correct and that people like **Ají de Gallina, FXMastermind** or others who are skeptical of claims about the findings and some of the conclusions drawn from them are talking out of their asses. How dare they not swallow whole the arguments and papers that you admit to not being able to fully comprehend! Thank goodness you’re here—with your lack of expertise—to call them on it and shut down any dissent. :rolleyes: Now I don’t really agree that a non-expert can’t comprehend all the information. I admit to not even trying to do so. Which is why I have not made many claims about the science itself. In these threads it is attitudes like yours and GIGO’s that cause me to be even more skeptical. Truth be told, we agree MUCH more than we disagree. But as I’ve said before, you guys treat this like a fire and brimstone evangelist treats arguments from heathens. The fact that the basis for your belief is rooted in science instead of faith matters not. Again, it’s the attitude I’m talking about…the way dissent is entertained. Now look back to what you wrote. Don’t you find it funny that you’ve described people on your side of the debate and not the skeptics in this thread? I do. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/190 "2013-09-05T04:38:15Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Won’t glaciers continue to disappear for quite some time even if we see no further warming? The phrase “no further warming” is not scientific. How do you propose to show me records and graphs and measurements of “no further warming?” What will the earth’s temperature be in 2023? If you had said, “If warming actually stopped five years ago,” or some other length of time, that might have some validity. Except, of course, there isn’t any evidence for that, either. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/191 "2013-09-05T04:40:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let me see if I understand you. You admit to not being an expert on the subject, you’re probably not aware of all the work and you admit not being able to fully comprehend PhD level papers on the subject, yet, you know, you just KNOW that these people are completely correct and that people like **Ají de Gallina, FXMastermind** or others who are skeptical of claims about the findings and some of the conclusions drawn from them are talking out of their asses. How dare they not swallow whole the arguments and papers that you admit to not being able to fully comprehend! Thank goodness you’re here—with your lack of expertise—to call them on it and shut down any dissent. :rolleyes: > > Now I don’t really agree that a non-expert can’t comprehend all the information. I admit to not even trying to do so. Which is why I have not made many claims about the science itself. In these threads it is attitudes like yours and GIGO’s that cause me to be even more skeptical. Truth be told, we agree MUCH more than we disagree. But as I’ve said before, you guys treat this like a fire and brimstone evangelist treats arguments from heathens. The fact that the basis for your belief is rooted in science instead of faith matters not. Again, it’s the attitude I’m talking about…the way dissent is entertained. > > Now look back to what you wrote. Don’t you find it funny that you’ve described people on your side of the debate and not the skeptics in this thread? I do. To the extent that this is funny, it’s how you’re demonstrating my link in living color. In any case, I’m not a scientist. Neither are you (I suspect). Are you aware that the vast majority of working climate scientists think climate change is real and man is contributing? [Scientific Consensus - NASA Science](http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus) If you’re not aware of that, I guess I can understand why you think I’m randomly choosing one side. In fact, I’m siding with the vast, vast majority of experts. So you’ll understand why internet worthies like you lot don’t do much to convince me. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/192 "2013-09-05T04:43:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > . . . yet, you know, you just KNOW that these people are completely correct and that people like **Ají de Gallina, FXMastermind** or others who are skeptical of claims about the findings and some of the conclusions drawn from them are talking out of their asses. . . . Nope. What I do know is that their arguments are not as persuasive as **GIGObuster** ’s arguments. He is presenting the better case. He links to better sources, and his manner of scientific discourse is vastly the superior. He’s winning. The superiority of his demeanor is not proof of the correctness of his claims. It is, however, the way one wins and argument on a discussion board. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/193 "2013-09-05T04:55:14Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > To the extent that this is funny, it’s how you’re demonstrating my link in living color. > > In any case, I’m not a scientist. Neither are you (I suspect). > > Are you aware that the vast majority of working climate scientists think climate change is real and man is contributing? [Scientific Consensus - NASA Science](http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus) > > If you’re not aware of that, I guess I can understand why you think I’m randomly choosing one side. In fact, I’m siding with the vast, vast majority of experts. > > So you’ll understand why internet worthies like you lot don’t do much to convince me. What do you think I’m trying to convince you of? Also, if what you say is true, can you explain why there is not 100% consensus among scientists and experts. Do you think you and/or GIGO know more? Understand more? Finally, this debate is not like assessing the thickness of steel in order to support Load X. Implying it is is, _at best_, wrong. Surely you’re aware that there are political and social issues tightly tied to the debate. Are you of the mind that for all the experts involved on your side that the no one’s thinking is skewed one iota? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/194 "2013-09-05T04:56:38Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Nope. What I do know is that their arguments are not as persuasive as **GIGObuster** ’s arguments. He is presenting the better case. He links to better sources, and his manner of scientific discourse is vastly the superior. He’s winning. > > The superiority of his demeanor is not proof of the correctness of his claims. It is, however, the way one wins and argument on a discussion board. See above. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/195 "2013-09-05T05:31:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What do you think I’m trying to convince you of? > > Also, if what you say is true, can you explain why there is not 100% consensus among scientists and experts. Do you think you and/or GIGO know more? Understand more? Glad you ask, because one of the scientists that is a darling of the contrarians who is part of that 3% is here: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/global-warming-and-earth-design](http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/global-warming-and-earth-design) > [@](#): > > Design of Earth’s Climate > > The question of global warming and climate change is fundamentally about God’s design of the earth. There has indeed been a warming of earth’s climate, though the amount of warming is still debated. But the key questions are (1) could mankind be to blame? (2) could any actions taken by mankind really make a difference? and (3) will the climate change resolve itself without mankind’s help? First of all, advocates of global warming being a serious problem treat carbon dioxide as if it were a pollutant, but it really isn’t. Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent of earth’s atmosphere (about 0.04% of all atmospheric gases; methane and CFCs are much less), although it is true that it is one of a number of “greenhouse gases.” A greenhouse gas is a substance that allows light to transmit through the atmosphere to the surface, but which absorbs radiant energy escaping back out through the atmosphere. The overall process tends to convert mostly visible light from the sun to infrared, which heats the atmosphere. Light is able to pass through the atmosphere to earth’s surface, but the surface reradiates the energy at longer wavelengths in the infrared that get absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. When the infrared is absorbed on its way out of the atmosphere, this heats the atmosphere and affects our climate. > > But, carbon dioxide is not the most important “greenhouse gas” in earth’s atmosphere. The great majority of the greenhouse effect in earth’s atmosphere is from water vapor. Water vapor often changes state from gas to liquid or to solid. Its form and concentration also vary with humidity and cloud cover, thus its effect on climate and weather is extremely complex. It is very difficult for scientists to predict how water vapor might affect the temperature of earth’s atmosphere as a whole. Predicting global climate from climate computer simulations, especially over long periods of time, may be beyond what our methods are capable of at this time. There are many types of effects that scientists do not know how to model accurately in computer simulations, such as effects of different types of clouds, the presence of snow and ice, ocean surface effects, etc. > > Isaiah 45:18 in the Old Testament says that God made the earth “to be inhabited.” In many origins issues scientists have often seriously underestimated the complexity of life and the physical prerequisites for life. God has designed the earth as a system with “checks and balances” which prevent climate from getting out of control. There are many aspects to how the earth is designed to support life. Well, of course, a creationist would not be my choice, but there are no easy pickings for the contrarians, at least he is right huh? Nope. > **[Just Put the Model Down, Roy](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/)** > > For the past few years, Roy Spencer has had a love affair, of sorts, with “simple climate models”.  After all, who needs some fancy-schmancy global circulation model (GCM) when you can boil down th… > [@](#): > > Some Spencer-boosters might complain that the GCMs used by IPCC scientists have many more parameters than that. That’s a good point, except that those are typically not “fully adjustable.” When a modeler is using a complicated model, instead of letting all the parameters ride in some kind of statistical free-for-all, he or she typically would constrain most of the parameters to physically reasonable values. For instance, if in his original attempt Spencer had constrained the mixed-layer depth of the ocean (h) to a physically reasonable value (say about 100 m), he would have come up with much higher climate sensitivity. Instead, he allowed a 700 m mixed layer depth (!!!) to get the answer he wanted. > > In the later versions of his model, Spencer would have to constrain his diffusion coefficients to physically reasonable values, but there’s a problem with that. In the real world, “diffusion” is governed by random molecular motions, and can be described by expressions like Eqn. 4, but it’s typically very, very slow. Since heat transfer in the ocean doesn’t happen so slowly, it’s apparent that much of the heat transfer is due to “advection,” rather than diffusion. Thermal advection is essentially movement of heat with the medium, e.g., in currents, and it isn’t necessarily linearly proportional to the temperature difference between layers of the ocean, as in Eqn. 4. That being the case, I don’t have a clue what “physically reasonable” values for the model’s diffusion coefficients would be. > > Let’s ignore that last objection about the form of the model for a moment, and bring up a nitpick about how Spencer set up his model. That is, he set the initial temperature anomalies to zero for ALL the ocean layers. Since heat diffusion is dependent on the temperature difference between layers (Eqn. 4), that means Spencer set his model up so there would be NO HEAT TRANSFER among layers at the beginning of the simulation, and it gradually builds up over time. > > The Challenge > > I could go on with more nitpicks, but I’m going to stop here, because it should be clear that, once again, Spencer has made a big deal out of something that doesn’t have any evidentiary value. So if, as Spencer claims, “[t]he evidence for anthropogenic global warming being a false alarm does not get much more convincing than this,” then can we please move on? Can Roy PLEASE put his toy model down? > > I doubt he will, but maybe he will accept this challenge. Instead of complaining about how biased and awful the peer review system has gotten, he should (at the very least) get a statistician to work with him and do the modeling right, and then submit it for publication in a reputable journal. Personally, I don’t think the work can be saved, even then. However, I think the exercise of working with someone who knows how to properly make statistical inferences would be enlightening for Roy Spencer. > [@magellan01](#): > > Finally, this debate is not like assessing the thickness of steel in order to support Load X. Implying it is is, _at best_, wrong. Surely you’re aware that there are political and social issues tightly tied to the debate. Are you of the mind that for all the experts involved on your side that the no one’s thinking is skewed one iota? Don’t think so, you need to take your beef to Barry Bickmore, Kerry Emmanuel, Richard Alley \* and other conservative scientists that tell you that you are wrong on this one. We have to remember how skewed the sciences are regarding the number of liberals in their ranks, so it is very telling that among the less numerous conservative scientists we get to find many to press the point… …for the Democrats in congress. \*(Called **by the Democrats** to testify in recent Climate change hearings, **the Republicans prefer to call _non-scientists_ like Christoper Monckton to testify for them** ) ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/196 "2013-09-05T06:12:03Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Nope. What I do know is that their arguments are not as persuasive as **GIGObuster** ’s arguments. He is presenting the better case. He links to better sources, and his manner of scientific discourse is vastly the superior. He’s winning. > > The superiority of his demeanor is not proof of the correctness of his claims. It is, however, the way one wins and argument on a discussion board. I’m afraid that Alex Trebek wouldn’t agree with you. The Jeopardy catagory chosen in the OP was “Global Warming” for 100 - _"Leaked IPCC report: 90% confidence in AGW is now 95% – and sea level will rise_". Since the new-and-improved IPCC report hasn’t been officially released, there is no way the public could know what data, facts, and fallacy it contains. The correct answer is, “How would I know what’s in a report that hasn’t been made public yet?” 😃 The global warming debate has been going on for some 25 years. There are people who accept it’s warts and magically disappearing numbers as a thing of beauty. Others have argued that there is “something” wrong with the “claims” and would like to see more facts, figures, and proof. Most of us have seen or heard these arguments ad nauseum. If the old links and sources weren’t persuasive before, there is little reason to believe they’ll be persuasive the 3rd or 5th time. _The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) was North America’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America_. > **[Chicago Climate Exchange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Climate_Exchange)** > > The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) was a voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil. > CCX employed independent verification, included six greenhouse gases, and traded greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2003 to 2010. The companies joining the exchange committed to reducing their aggregate emissions by 6% by 2010. CCX had an aggregate baseline of 680 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. > CCX c... It operated from 2003 until 2010 when it died from lack of interest and boredom. People literally weren’t buying what the IPCC reports was selling. GW interest was high during the Kyoto Protocol days and there was some original excitement over the COP meetings but that excitment has waned as more and more specific questions were being asked about the science itself but few related answers followed. Instead, people were told they couldn’t understand it, or that they were ignorant, or that the science was settled. Hardly the best method to convince someone that your side is right. I’ll wait for the mother-of-all IPCC reports to convince me that man-made CO2 or just plain ol’ CO2 is currently driving the “global” temp higher and higher. I’ll wait for the MOA IPCC reports to divulge the total volume of ice at the poles and the current volume of water in the oceans. This ain’t rocket surgery. Adding the two together should give a pretty good estimate of how much the sea level could rise. The IPCC has a lot of practice issuing reports. Let’s see if they’ve learned how to write a convincing report? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/197 "2013-09-05T06:30:21Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The global warming debate has been going on for some 25 years. Ignorant say so, and already shown as wrong, try more than 100 years. As for the exchanges, the key for Chicago was “Congressional action” > **[National Geographic](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/)** > > Explore National Geographic. A world leader in geography, cartography and exploration. > [@](#): > > The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the eight-year-old platform where power companies, manufacturers, and others agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and traded the credits they earned for their success, will shut down that program at the end of this year. That’s when the current commitments made by the CCX market participants were set to expire, but those involved in the program agree that their efforts would have continued if there were any prospect of congressional climate change action on the horizon. And indeed it was thanks to the “no” votes of many Climate Change Denier Tea Partiers that got us that. So your assumptions why it fell down were wrong. Now, as the article from National Geographic reports, the voters in California were still in favor of going forward thus: > **[California's Third Cap And Trade Auction Sells Out, At Record Price](https://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/24/californias-cap-and-trade-system-keeps-getting-stronger/)** > > California's third cap and trade auction was held last week, selling all available 2013 permits and setting a record price of $14 per ton of carbon emitted. > [@](#): > > California’s Third Cap And Trade Auction Sells Out, At Record Price > > Seems like someone forgot to tell California that cap and trade was dying an untimely death. > > … > > But while cap and trade has been a boon for California, its success may be about to spread. After a short delay, the system is set to link with Quebec’s cap and trade market on New Year’s Day 2014, a step that could help build the growing global carbon market. > > In a recent interview, Quebec’s environment minister not only indicated the linkage would create new demand and keep allowance prices high, but also hinted the system had learned from Europe’s mistakes and would eventually link with new carbon markets outside of North America. > > Critics continue to lament EU price failures as evidence of cap and trade’s impending doom, but I just don’t see it. At what point will the growth of carbon trading in California, the US Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, South Korea, China, and even countries as remote as Kazakhstan turn the tide of opinion? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/198 "2013-09-05T07:42:18Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The phrase “no further warming” is not scientific. How do you propose to show me records and graphs and measurements of “no further warming?” What will the earth’s temperature be in 2023? > > If you had said, “If warming actually stopped five years ago,” or some other length of time, that might have some validity. Except, of course, there isn’t any evidence for that, either. Even the articles I linked to, from IIRC NYT and Scientific American, though they come down pretty substantially on the side of this being only a “pause” in warming before the global temperature starts rising again, admit to there having been a plateau for the past decade or more. But they also point out that this plateaued decade is the warmest on record. There is of course no conflict between those two facts because of all the warming that happened previously. You climb up to 8,000 feet and then go a hundred miles along a plateau, you are still at 8,000 feet. Anyway, my point is: the temperature could stay exactly where it is now (with of course a little fluctuation up and down) for the foreseeable future, and we would still presumably see glaciers continue to melt for quite some time, because we are dealing with a “new normal” of sustained temperatures that are warmer than they had previously been for a very long time before recently. Right? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/199 "2013-09-05T12:37:15Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Anyway, my point is: the temperature could stay exactly where it is now (with of course a little fluctuation up and down) for the foreseeable future, and we would still presumably see glaciers continue to melt for quite some time, because we are dealing with a “new normal” of sustained temperatures that are warmer than they had previously been for a very long time before recently. Right? There is one of those very messy issues concerning climate, global temperatures and the science of earth. Snowfall and possibly soot are the main factor in glacier growth or shrinking, except at lower altitudes. There are also drastic differences between tropical glaciers, alpine glaciers, tidewater glaciers and your giant Piedmont glaciers and glaciers that are actually ice sheets. They all respond differently. Tidewater glaciers are very much at the mercy of ocean circulation, and the smaller tidewater and alpine glaciers are used as climate indicators because they respond quickly to changes in temperature. Even with the “alarming warming” the large glaciers still haven’t melted away, and some are actually expanding, as snowfall in the upper elevations is the main factor, not LTT temperature trends. There are other major things concerning earth science in regards to climate, none of which neatly fit into the official story of the nebulous AGW fears. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/200 "2013-09-05T15:53:32Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Anyway, my point is: the temperature could stay exactly where it is now (with of course a little fluctuation up and down) for the foreseeable future, and we would still presumably see glaciers continue to melt for quite some time, because we are dealing with a “new normal” of sustained temperatures that are warmer than they had previously been for a very long time before recently. Right? No. Once again this is the problem of just depending on feelies. Please look at the record of the last 200 years and you can see that we already passed for an even longer pause from the 60’s to the 80’s, that the contrarians have even used in the past to make the misleading claim that “scientists predicted cooling in the 70’s” > **[NASA GISS: NASA News & Feature Releases: NASA Finds 2011 Ninth Warmest...](https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/archive/20120119/)** Then take into account that in reality a super majority of scientific papers noted that the “cooling” seen was temporary and that warming was going to come. (yes that was the case, contrarians relied and continue to rely on popular press articles that almost usually do get it wrong) Most scientists were correct, **and that is another reason why the consensus is what it is nowadays** , because the reason mentioned in most of those papers that reported that warming was coming after the pause pointed at the mechanism: Global warming caused by an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The point stands, CO2 is not likely to have reformed his ways from the 70’s, nor from the paleoclimate days. The more you add to the atmosphere the warmer will get and \*\*there is no good mechanism that could tell us that nature will continue to keep this pause forever, most of the ones proposed do not last for a long a time. \*\* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002.md?page=11)