# 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:** 11
**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, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/201 "2013-09-05T16:06:27Z")
There is a very good reason to suspect the solar cycle influences the Earth’s climate, backed by plenty of physics and sound science. What is pseudo-science is to ignore this, or insist that the CO2 forcing will dominate all other factors. Nobody actually knows that, and the feedback mechanisms are certainly the largest unknown for current earth science. The skeptics for good reason suspect the far reaching and doom and gloom predictions based on unproven assumptions about earth’s climate system. There actually is good reason theoretically to consider CO2 the main driver of long term climate change, but in regards to long term changes, not short cycles or even a century long or a 500 century long change of climate. This is because the last 18,000 years (the Holocene) shows clear evidence of drastic changes. Much larger than any we have experienced in the last 150 years. These were not CO2 driven. It’s part of what makes the “CO2 as climate God” claim hard to follow. Then there is the absurd position that anyone who doesn’t just get in line with whatever proclamation comes spewing out of some “experts” mouth, who doesn’t agree with their " final word" on things, is some sort of anti-science fool. ---
**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, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/202 "2013-09-05T16:16:12Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > There is a very good reason to suspect the solar cycle influences the Earth’s climate, backed by plenty of physics and sound science. What is pseudo-science is to ignore this, or insist that the CO2 forcing will dominate all other factors. Nobody actually knows that, and the feedback mechanisms are certainly the largest unknown for current earth science. Misleading, and a straw man, scientists already do take the sun into account. the pseudoscience comes from telling others that scientists do not take the sun into account. ---
**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, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/203 "2013-09-05T16:29:58Z")
As usual, the ones mistakenly claiming that the sun is the driver ignore that for practical purposes it is mostly the background, very important, but not the item behind the current warming. > **[Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm)** > > \In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.\ > [@](#): > > Inability to explain empirical observations > > Aside from the fact that solar effects cannot physically explain the recent global warming, as with GCRs, **there are several empirical observations which solar warming could not account for. For example, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we observe a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night, which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect.** ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/204 "2013-09-05T16:56:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because one does not need to be a scientist to be familiar with expert scientific opinion. [_Argumentum ad verecundiam_](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_verecundiam) is not a fallacy but a valid and useful tool, so long as the authority is relevant to the question. So, why debate with (general) you? We can both be verecundiaming each other. I’ve read the sources. There’s no debate if you simply reply “read thing by anohter person”. > [@Trinopus](#): > > 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. Ok. > [@Lobohan](#): > > 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. No, I’m not one even remotely. > [@Lobohan](#): > > So, you’re a climate scientist? Can you please show me what you’ve published? > > 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: Since the phrase was “ignorant in science” I said “no”, cuz I’m not untrained or ignorant in science. I can’t back statements I haven’t made. If one simply repeats without understanding there is no merit in that person, even if what is repeated is true. Really? You’re doin’ the anit-vaxer thing now? Not even worth responding. Believe as you may please. ---
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/205 "2013-09-05T17:14:10Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No, I’m not one even remotely. Sure you are. You said, “In science money comes with strings attached.” Doesn’t that suggest that the holders of those purse strings are manipulating the results of scientific inquiry to their ends? > [@](#): > > Since the phrase was “ignorant in science” I said “no”, cuz I’m not untrained or ignorant in science. Science isn’t one skill. A physicist has little insight necessarily in biology. And unless you’re a climate scientist, your opinion on the field, is worth very little. > [@](#): > > I can’t back statements I haven’t made. > If one simply repeats without understanding there is no merit in that person, even if what is repeated is true. Again, you are thinking you have understanding, but are likely too ignorant to know how little you know. It’s a complex issue and I don’t have eight years to devote to learning the groundwork, so I leave it to the experts. You just take your gut instinct and think that’s worth the same as actual knowledge, and that’s scary. > [@](#): > > Really? You’re doin’ the anit-vaxer thing now? Not even worth responding. Believe as you may please. To be clear, you’re ignoring 97% of the experts in the field based on your personal untrained intuition. How is that unlike the anti-vaxer movement? You think 97% of the experts are wrong. And you aren’t an expert. It’s absurd. ---
**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, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/206 "2013-09-05T17:19:13Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > And unless you’re a climate scientist, your opinion on the field, is worth very little. By your own opinion, your opinion is meaningless then. That’s ridiculous. ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/207 "2013-09-05T17:24:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What do you think I’m trying to convince you of? I think you’re just piling on because of you perceived a chance to make points for your team. > [@](#): > > 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? 97%. If what I say is true? Do you think NASA is lying to you? Yes or no? It’s 97% because it’s a complex issue and 3% of people can be expected to either not understand or have other beliefs that are stronger than the evidence they see. I find it hilarious that you think a 97% consensus is a point in your favor. > [@](#): > > 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? Some experts are skewed. Around 3%, I’d say. 😃 But in any case, the vast, vast majority of experts think it’s real. I side with them, just like I side with the vast, vast majority of experts who think vaccination is a good idea. Or the vast, vast majority of experts who think evolution is real. ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/208 "2013-09-05T17:30:28Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > By your own opinion, your opinion is meaningless then. > > That’s ridiculous. No, it is not. For practical reasons one should not rely on a poster from an anomalous message board, therefore then one has to link to supported evidence or expert opinion, it is just common courtesy to show all that one can identify good evidence from the bad and get feedback. As even scientists (yes a few confirmed that via messaging or linking to their work) told me many times before that I get it, can you tell us who are the scientists that tell you that you are the beesnees? ---
**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, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/209 "2013-09-05T17:40:53Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > By your own opinion, your opinion is meaningless then. > > That’s ridiculous. I don’t have an opinion on the science. Like you, I don’t have the grounding to assess it intelligently. That’s why I let experts interpret it and accept their advice. You literally think that you, an untrained novice, has as much understanding as a PhD level expert? Honestly? ---
**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, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/210 "2013-09-05T17:45:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, it is not. For practical reasons one should not rely on a poster from an anomalous message board, therefore then one has to link to supported evidence or expert opinion, it is just common courtesy to show all that one can identify good evidence from the bad and get feedback. > > As even scientists (yes a few confirmed that via messaging or linking to their work) told me many times before that I get it, can you tell us who are the scientists that tell you that you are the beesnees? Or an \*\*anonymous \*\*message board, but I think we all are the former. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/211 "2013-09-05T18:14:57Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Sure you are. You said, “In science money comes with strings attached.” Doesn’t that suggest that the holders of those purse strings are manipulating the results of scientific inquiry to their ends? I can confidently say that the largest part of scientific research is not funded by people who “Go ahead, do science”. Most research has a (non nefarious) specific purpose. A friend of mine (her research lab, I mean) just got a two-million dollar grant to research weight-loss drugs. The money comes from a pharmaceutical company that, of course, hope to get a shitton of money selling the drugs (should they work). Whatever the result, the pharma compnay will decide if her lab is good enough for another grant. If “ **Let’s Save This Species Cuz It’s Kewl** ” gives you a grant, you know what results they expect. If you return a result of “This species is invasive, we should cull it”, you can imagine the pipeline from LSTSCIK is gonna get dry. You integrity will say what you do. Scientists that don’t return result that support AGW, don’t get money. No conspiracy. No mustache twirling. > [@](#): > > Science isn’t one skill. A physicist has little insight necessarily in biology. And unless you’re a climate scientist, your opinion on the field, is worth very little. I responded to the question. I know a ton of biology, physics, and chemistry. Took 6 calculus, 5 algebras and 5 statistics courses in college so I know my way around regression, trends, and so on. If only expert on the field can talk on an anonymous message board, then just cancel GD. > [@](#): > > Again, you are thinking you have understanding, but are likely too ignorant to know how little you know. It’s a complex issue and I don’t have eight years to devote to learning the groundwork, so I leave it to the experts. Ok, I will now treat -as per your very own suggestion- your opinions on the subject as being worth very little. > [@](#): > > You just take your gut instinct and think that’s worth the same as actual knowledge, and that’s scary. Since you have no idea of my knowledge on the subject, you opinion is not relevant. It’s not gut. In fact the gut instinct is to follow the trend. > [@](#): > > To be clear, you’re ignoring 97% of the experts in the field based on your personal untrained intuition. How is that unlike the anti-vaxer movement? > > You think 97% of the experts are wrong. And you aren’t an expert. It’s absurd. It’s not untrained, by far. Since I’m not ignoring the 97% then I don’t know what you’re talking about. In fact the original 97% comes from a sample of 77 people (out of 3000) given two softball questions. Those questions get a 90% at least in science-based sceptic circles. ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/212 "2013-09-05T18:39:57Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It’s not untrained, by far. > Since I’m not ignoring the 97% then I don’t know what you’re talking about. > In fact the original 97% comes from a sample of 77 people (out of 3000) given two softball questions. > Those questions get a 90% at least in science-based sceptic circles. You are only showing that you ignore that others confirmed that, not only by asking the scientists, but also by checking their papers. > **[Radware Bot Manager Captcha](https://validate.perfdrive.com/9730847aceed30627ebd520e46ee70b2/?ssa=0918894a-25c1-46e8-a208-72e178c02ede&ssb=41833216040&ssc=https%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2Farticle%2F10.1088%2F1748-9326%2F8%2F2%2F024024&ssi=17b34f63-cnvj-4b37-9e40-59761553a66d&ssk=botmanager_support@radware.com&ssm=47849828739156925139056993601639&ssn=898d2710e03c34cc364aeb589293aa6a52acc3811457-9144-4944-862a63&sso=fbf98521-cb93c0328861f1019b6f4fc6e7f9a19fc7ec8d65d7a89557&ssp=12391304871741423344174148400807470&ssq=92862208648575390387386484469104749358241&ssr=MTg0LjEwNS45OS4xMDA=&sst=Mozilla%2F5.0%20%28Macintosh%3B%20Intel%20Mac%20OS%20X%2010_15_7%29%20AppleWebKit%2F605.1.15%20%28KHTML,%20like%20Gecko%29%20Version%2F14.0%20Safari%2F605.1.15&ssu=&ssv=&ssw=&ssx=eyJfX3V6bWYiOiI3ZjYwMDA3NTdkNGEzOC1hOTkwLTQ2NzAtOTU4Yy03NTdmOThjNjFlMTExNzQxNDg2NDg0NDU4NjU5LTUxZjgyZWJjY2Q3ZmQzZjgxMyIsInV6bXgiOiI3ZjkwMDA2ODE3ZmU0NS02MjM5LTQ4MzMtOGJmMy02ODgxNzFiODk4NDIxLTE3NDE0ODY0ODQ0NTg2NTktOGM5MDY4OWQxZWIwNDY5YjEzIiwicmQiOiJpb3Aub3JnIn0=)** > [@](#): > > Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/213 "2013-09-05T19:16:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Ignorant say so, and already shown as wrong, try more than 100 years. (shortened for clarity) LOL. The IPCC is only 25 years old and has been struggling to convince people that their “scientific” opinion is the only scientific opinion anyone should listen to. Unfortunately for the IPCC, the more they talk and the longer they talk, the more doubt it creates in people’s minds. Maybe the new-and-improved IPCC report will clear up everyone questions? The current period of global warming began during the last ice age. Considering the very long history of global tempurature swings between global cooling and global warming that were somehow accomplished without any input from mankind, I think the IPCC has a lot of ‘splain’ to do if it wants to CONVINCE people that man-made CO2 is responsible for the current plateau of global temps. ---
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/214 "2013-09-05T19:32:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You are only showing that you ignore that others confirmed that, not only by asking the scientists, but also by checking their papers. > > [Radware Bot Manager Captcha](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article) This should be a softball question for you. Please clarify the numbers you believe were used to arrive at “97.1%”. Do you believe 100 MMCO2GW scientists chose to answer the question(s)? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? _Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, **97.1%** endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming_. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/215 "2013-09-05T19:36:33Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (shortened for clarity) > > LOL. The IPCC is only 25 years old and has been struggling to convince people that their “scientific” opinion is the only scientific opinion anyone should listen to. Read it again, I was replying to the misleading part that the debate is just going for 25 years. ---
**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, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/216 "2013-09-05T19:43:54Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > This should be a softball question for you. Please clarify the numbers you believe were used to arrive at “97.1%”. Do you believe 100 MMCO2GW scientists chose to answer the question(s)? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? > > _Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, **97.1%** endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming_. You need to understand first how polling works. The previous ones actually confirmed previous research by Oreskes and others, what we have now is yet \*\*another \*\*confirmation. > **[The Consensus Project](https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=faq)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... > [@](#): > > Methodology Questions > > Who contributed to The Consensus Project? > > The Consensus Project was a citizen-science effort that took over a year from beginning of the project until submission of the paper to the journal Environmental Research Letters. 24 volunteers contributed to the rating of the papers. Half of the raters completed 97.4% of the ratings. All of the major contributors to the project are named as co-authors or thanked by name in the Acknowledgements of the full paper. > > **In order to invite scientists to self-rate the level of endorsement of their own papers, 40 volunteers helped collect over 8,000 scientists’ emails. A total of 1,200 scientists responded to the invitation with over 2,000 papers each receiving a rating from the paper’s author.** > > It was very important to the volunteers at The Consensus Project that our published paper be freely available to the public (unfortunately, many peer-reviewed papers are hidden behind a pay-wall). For this reason, we chose the high-impact journal Environmental Research Letters, which charged a $1,600 fee to enable the paper to be open-access. This fee was crowd-funded by donations from Skeptical Science readers. The funds were raised in 9 hours. > > \*\*The importance of raising awareness of the scientific consensus on climate change cannot be overstated. Typically, the general public think around 50% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. The Consensus Project has shown that the reality is 97%. \*\*To help “close the consensus gap”, the website [TheConsensusProject.com](http://TheConsensusProject.com) was created pro-bono by the New York-based design and advertising agency, SJI Associates. > > How did you independently check your results? > > Nobody is more qualified to judge a paper’s intent than the actual scientists who authored the paper. To provide an independent measure of the level of consensus, we asked the scientists who authored the climate papers to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers. Among all papers that were self-rated as expressing a position on human-caused warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. This result is consistent with our abstract ratings, which found a 97.1% consensus. > > We adopted several methodologies to eliminate the potential of bias in our abstract ratings. We developed a strict methodology (see the Supplementary Material for more details) specifying how to categorise each abstract. In addition, each abstract was rated by at least two separate raters, with any conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. > > The entire database of 12,464 papers is available in the Supplementary Material. We have also published all our abstract ratings, which are also available via a search form. However, we have not published individual self-ratings from the authors of the papers as the “self-rating survey” was conducted under the promise of confidentiality for all participants. And as usual, one has to add that information like this has to be denied by the fake skeptics. One of the basic identifiers of pseudoscience is the trait of telling others that “there is a controversy among the scientists, you need to teach it”. A classic creationism tactic. ---
**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, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/217 "2013-09-05T20:10:19Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > 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?”. . . I was referring to what **GIGObuster** has said, and how he has said it. I did not refer to the report you invoked. It is foolish of you to insist that my words refer to something I had no intention of discussing. > [@](#): > > 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. . . . I disagree that there are any such things. You’re making an assertion without evidence. This is the sort of thing that some of us here, even without much knowledge of planetary science, consider unconvincing. My belief is that the scientific consensus has been gradually building, but the debate ceased to exist a decade ago. The deniers are in the position of evolution deniers. They can only manufacture a spurious pseudo-debate by contrivances and bad statistical methods. As noted, in many cases they aren’t even scientists, but still get called to testify to (Republican led) Congressional committees. That’s not only rotten science, it’s rotten politics. ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/218 "2013-09-05T20:19:39Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > 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. . . . Looking at long-term graphs of temperature, you see lots of pauses, and even small local declines. There is a kind of stair-step character to the curve. Steep, short increases, followed by longer, slower declines. The frog climbs up the side of the well three feet, then slides backward a foot. But overall, the curve is upward, in a fairly regular way. And, as asked, has anyone proposed a mechanism by which the warming would cease? Does any chemist speak of a “saturation point” or “breakeven point” or “feedback effect” in global warming? For instance, if very high concentrations CO2 were found to become white and reflective, bouncing away sunlight, that might be a negative feedback mechanism, increasing the earth’s albedo, and reducing absorbed energy. But…has anyone actually proposed or observed such an effect? (I remember the original “Gaia” writer saying that the earth has such negative feedback mechanisms; he suggested high heat would cause high clouds which would reflect too much light/heat. He also went further and suggested heat would cause the flowering of light-colored plants which would reflect might light. Some of this might have been true, although I think he was exaggerating. But such small negative effects don’t seem to be cutting the mustard when it comes to correcting for the millions – billions? – of tons of CO2 that our industry has put into the air. We seem to have swamped the earth’s natural corrective cycles. The ecosphere is fairly good at healing itself, but if you drop a nuke on it, it isn’t going to get better.) ---
**Author:** ![TommyzNR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@TommyzNR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TommyzNR)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/219 "2013-09-05T20:24:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You are only showing that you ignore that others confirmed that, not only by asking the scientists, but also by checking their papers. > > [Radware Bot Manager Captcha](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article) Please tell me I am miss reading Table 3 from your link…97% who have stated a position are in agreement. Do only 34% of scientists provide an opinion in the 12,000 papers reviewed? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/220 "2013-09-05T20:30:34Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > This should be a softball question for you. Please clarify the numbers you believe were used to arrive at “97.1%”. Do you believe 100 MMCO2GW scientists chose to answer the question(s)? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? > > _Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, **97.1%** endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming_. Be careful with the number you’re being given. (Taken form this horrible [evil puppy-kicking orphan-rapin oil-industry shill mayo-on-hot-dog double-dipping site.](http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/watch-the-pea/) 97% looks like a lot, but then you see the real numbers. 12000 papers on climate change 8000 not counted because the authors “don’t mention the cause” So now the 97% is only of 1/3 of all papers on,cimate change. Then they have the dodgy category of “implicitly endorse” Things like " **Proponents argue that sizable reductions are necessary as a hedge against unacceptably rapid changes in climate**", “ **As environmental issues, and the issue of global warming in particular, rise to the top of the international agenda** ”, and “.\*\* Emission of CH4, a gas implicated in global warming\*\*” are the pieces de resistance on AGW. This category is about 3000 papers. So now you’ve only got 1000. But only 65 actually and directly say it. * * * Also, the softball question is not quite the anyone you should be asking. What percentage of the rise in temperatura since 1950 is caused by the increase of CO2 caused by human activity? Is the real question not “humans have caused”. [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=10) [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=12)