# 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:** 12
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/221 "2013-09-05T20:44:29Z")
I’d also like to point out that if one says _"Humans have caused 30% of the warming_" you are an ignorant anti-vaxer rube. If you say “_I don’t know about sicence or statisitcs or if standard deviation is the new Häagen Dazs flavour but I agree with this article I read_” you’re a martyr for science. * * * \*\*Trinopus \*\*said > [@](#): > > That, and the fact that you can see photos of the glaciers disappearing all over the world. Glaciers have been receding since before the 1900s. In many cases faster than now. Black carbon…read about it. Also, albedo. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/222 "2013-09-06T00:19:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Read it again, I was replying to the misleading part that the debate is just going for 25 years. Read it again, the thread is about the IPCC (which is only 25 years old), a “leaked” report that can’t be verified by the public yet, an increase in confidence from 90% to 95% (without clarifying who comprises the 90%), and rising sea levels. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/223 "2013-09-06T00:39:25Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > … > > Quote: > 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. (shortened, bolded for clarity) I’m making the assertion BECAUSE the evidence no longer exists. The IPCC had man-made inputs and computer modeling. The IPCC has long admitted that they had based their earlier reports on their man-made inputs and computer modeling. So where are these man-made inputs and computer modeling? The IPCC says it’s all gone. They lost it. And no copies exist. The early work of the IPCC can’t be replicated. Which brings up another question. How did other organizations complete their peer reviews without being able to replicate the IPCC’s man-made inputs and computer modeling? Did they just take the IPCC’s word that the man-made inputs and computer modeling were correct? _Trust us. All of our man-made inputs and computer modeling are correct. You don’t need to actually see that information. Trust us. Really. You’ve never caught us lying to you before._ ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/224 "2013-09-06T01:16:16Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Be careful with the number you’re being given. > > 97% looks like a lot, but then you see the real numbers. > > 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”. (shortened for clarity) I find it best to carefully consider any numbers provided by the IPCC or IPCC zealots. It’s more of a case of “fun with numbers” with them than actual science. I’ll settle for a simple but comprehensive “proof” that CO2 or man-made CO2 is the evil that the IPCC claims it is. Maybe the new IPCC report will clear everything up? Or not. ---
**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 6, 2013, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/225 "2013-09-06T01:21:24Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Read it again, the thread is about the IPCC (which is only 25 years old), a “leaked” report that can’t be verified by the public yet, an increase in confidence from 90% to 95% (without clarifying who comprises the 90%), and rising sea levels. Just saying, and once again, the IPCC depends on the published science, it is pertinent to mention how far back in time the science goes as it demonstrates how far the paradigm shift happened also. ---
**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 6, 2013, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/226 "2013-09-06T01:29:21Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (shortened, bolded for clarity) > > I’m making the assertion BECAUSE the evidence no longer exists. The IPCC had man-made inputs and computer modeling. The IPCC has long admitted that they had based their earlier reports on their man-made inputs and computer modeling. > > So where are these man-made inputs and computer modeling? The IPCC says it’s all gone. They lost it. And no copies exist. The early work of the IPCC can’t be replicated. > > Which brings up another question. How did other organizations complete their peer reviews without being able to replicate the IPCC’s man-made inputs and computer modeling? Did they just take the IPCC’s word that the man-made inputs and computer modeling were correct? _Trust us. All of our man-made inputs and computer modeling are correct. You don’t need to actually see that information. Trust us. Really. You’ve never caught us lying to you before._ No, it does not work that way I already explained with cites how misleading this idea is, show the evidence that other researchers did not confirm that the data is there and the original research confirmed by others. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/227 "2013-09-06T01:36:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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](http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=faq) > > 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. So the Consensus Project kept reducing the numbers of eligible papers until a relatively small number of interested global warming zealots could, almost, all agree with themselves. 97% certainly sounds like a big number but knowing 97% OF WHAT is more important. I hope the IPCC knows that a lot is riding on their next report AND that it’s findings will be questioned, whether the IPCC zealots agree with that prospect or not. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/228 "2013-09-06T01:45:06Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Scientists that don’t return result that support AGW, don’t get money. [Sometimes they do.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_action_on_climate_change#Energy_industry) ---
**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 6, 2013, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/229 "2013-09-06T01:48:29Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 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/) It was an evil puppy-kicking shill. No easy pickings left huh? One just just needs to realize that both you and the blogessor does not know how surveys or polls work. If the blogessor has found a big flaw he should report it to the publication and publish a rebuttal, but what the blogessor said was not encouraging, in the end he just pouts that the makers of the recent survey should feel bad. > [@](#): > > If he is not prepared to do this, his survey will remain heavily flawed, and will be seen as no more than a PR stunt. :rolleyes: No, if the evidence is there it is very easy to get many orgs going after the journal editors and get many experts to support the effort to shame the editors… Or the surveys are correct and no support would come to the blogessor and he knows it. If there was any merit on what the guy you linked, then a god chunk of the scientific organizations would have called the fraud. **No pickings there**. > **[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... > [@](#): > > What other indicators of consensus are there? > > The seminal study in this area was done by Naomi Oreskes who surveyed 928 papers published between 1993 and 2003 whose abstracts matched the search term “global climate change”. She found zero papers rejecting the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. We expanded her search by adding another decade of papers and including the search term “global warming”, which swelled the number of papers to over 12,000. Our analysis confirmed Oreskes’ result - among the papers matching her search parameters, zero rejected the consensus. > > There have also been two surveys of climate scientist in recent years. One study by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman found that the greater the expertise in climate research, the higher the agreement that humans were causing global warming. The other study led by William Anderegg surveyed public statements on climate change by 908 climate scientists. Both of these studies found a 97% consensus. Our paper mirrors the methodology of Anderegg’s study by examining published statements of climate scientists. We found that among scientists publishing climate papers that state a position on human-caused global warming, over 97% endorse the consensus. > > Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009. This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent global warming. Our analysis also finds that the consensus is strengthening with an accelerating number of scientists endorsing human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature. > > A non-peer-reviewed analysis also examines the level of consensus in the peer-reviewed literature, examining “global warming” or “global climate change” papers published from 1991 to 9 November 2012. This analysis was actually the first stage of The Consensus Project, conducted by Jim Powell in collaboration with John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli. Powell’s analysis found 24 explicit rejections of human-caused global warming among 13,950 articles. This is consistent with the results in our paper, which provides peer-reviewed confirmation of Powell’s analysis. ---
**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 6, 2013, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/230 "2013-09-06T01:54:38Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > So the Consensus Project kept reducing the numbers of eligible papers until a relatively small number of interested global warming zealots could, almost, all agree with themselves. > > 97% certainly sounds like a big number but knowing 97% OF WHAT is more important. > > I hope the IPCC knows that a lot is riding on their next report AND that it’s findings will be questioned, whether the IPCC zealots agree with that prospect or not. Once again, you do not know how surveys or polls work, you guys would have a point if it was demonstrated that the same scientists are the ones being surveyed in this and all previous surveys that showed a consensus. As pointed before it follows logically that if you guys were correct then a good chuck of scientific organizations would had come condemning the fraud, as it was pointed before, there are no shill pickings there. > **[Scientific consensus on climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)** > > There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,: 8 : 11  and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,: 10–11  with a signif Nearly... > [@](#): > > As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[10][12] ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/231 "2013-09-06T02:25:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, it does not work that way I already explained with cites how misleading this idea is, show the evidence that other researchers did not confirm that the data is there and the original research confirmed by others. So where is the data and the man-made inputs that the IPCC originally used? No one has a copy? Every copy of it was lost? Not one organization has stepped forward to say they have a copy of the original numbers and inputs used to verify the original IPCC reports. It’s gone - as if by magic. You would think that something as important as the original data and inputs would be something that they would have kept in a safe place. Everything should be sorted out in the next IPCC report. Every question should be answered. Everyone will be happy again. ---
**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 6, 2013, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/232 "2013-09-06T02:55:55Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > So where is the data and the man-made inputs that the IPCC originally used? No one has a copy? Every copy of it was lost? Not one organization has stepped forward to say they have a copy of the original numbers and inputs used to verify the original IPCC reports. It’s gone - as if by magic. You would think that something as important as the original data and inputs would be something that they would have kept in a safe place. > > Everything should be sorted out in the next IPCC report. Every question should be answered. Everyone will be happy again. That figures, you have nothing to show for after all those accusations, people with more fair sense of justice only need to check the already cited Media Matters page on the issue, the right really just misled many on that one. > **[Conservative media hype misleading report suggesting CRU destroyed raw...](https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/conservative-media-hype-misleading-report-suggesting-cru-destroyed-raw-climate-data)** > > Conservative media have recently suggested that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia intentionally "threw out" or "destroyed" the raw temperature data "underpinning the man-made-warming theory," in the words... > [@](#): > > Scientists note that datasets from other research centers show the same climate trends. The Greenwire article said that Tom Karl, director of NOAA’s Climatic Data Center, “noted that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are based on several data sets in addition to the CRU, including data from NOAA, NASA and the United Kingdom Met Office. Each of those data sets basically show identical multi-decadal trends, Karl said.” The article also said that Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “said CRU’s major findings were replicated by other groups, including the NOAA climatic data center, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and also in Russia.” And how they could do that? because the data loss was only the one Jones used for his own research, and data from stations that even contrarians like Watts advised it was flawed to use. As even I pointed before, Jones and others deserves some criticism, but until then there was not much of an incentive to save that data when the raw data and sources are still there, for even contrarians to use. The fact is that they only can complain about a moot point because they can not make the data go colder. > [@](#): > > NASA climate modeler: “The original data is curated at the met services where it originated.” In response to a comment on his blog Real Climate asking whether it is true that the CRU lost the data, Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, replied: “No. The original data is curated at the met services where it originated.” ---
**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 6, 2013, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/233 "2013-09-06T09:07:29Z")
I’ve long held that warming can have positive as well as negative effects, depending on location and on what sector of the economy one examines. [This](http://www.npr.org/2013/09/03/217177149/pollution-not-rising-temperatures-may-have-melted-alpine-glaciers?ft=1&f=3) would seem to be a good example to bear that out: > [@](#): > > The soot idea could also explain why the glaciers in the Alps started to melt decades before glaciers upwind from Europe did. Industrial pollution from Europe wasn’t blowing onto Iceland or Norway, which remained cold and frosty, says Gifford Miller at the University of Colorado. > > “Maybe it gave the Alpine folks in Switzerland and the Italian Alps a bit of a head start in cultivating the highlands again,” he says. > > Could that be why we have Swiss milk chocolate today instead of Norwegian chocolate? “Could be,” Miller says, with a chuckle. > > Actually, it turns out that the Swiss did invent milk chocolate a decade or two after the glaciers started to give way to more pastureland, so it’s not an entirely nutty idea. Clearly, there are many other negatives to having a lot of soot in the air; fortunately CO2 is much cleaner. ---
**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 6, 2013, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/234 "2013-09-06T13:16:29Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (shortened for clarity) > > I find it best to carefully consider any numbers provided by the IPCC or IPCC zealots. It’s more of a case of “fun with numbers” with them than actual science. > > I’ll settle for a simple but comprehensive “proof” that CO2 or man-made CO2 is the evil that the IPCC claims it is. Maybe the new IPCC report will clear everything up? Or not. I find your optimism, bordering on naïveté, refreshing. 🙂 > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Sometimes they do.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_action_on_climate_change#Energy_industry) True enough, even though there is tons more money on the pro-AGW side. I’ll rephrase. Scientists who do no return the AGW results expected by their financial backers will see these resources dry up. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > I’ve long held that warming can have positive as well as negative effects, depending on location and on what sector of the economy one examines. [This](http://www.npr.org/2013/09/03/217177149/pollution-not-rising-temperatures-may-have-melted-alpine-glaciers?ft=1&f=3) would seem to be a good example to bear that out: > > Clearly, there are many other negatives to having a lot of soot in the air; fortunately CO2 is much cleaner. The effect of soot (black carbon) on glacier and arctic ice is proving to be an intereasting avenue of study, especially since China is burning “dirty” coal. The good thing about soot is that you can reduce it without almost any effect on production. That is one of the intelligent, sicence-driven, economically-sustainable solutions to the problems that human action cause on the environment. Clear target, realtively simjple solution. ---
**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 6, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/235 "2013-09-06T14:17:22Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I’ve long held that warming can have positive as well as negative effects, depending on location and on what sector of the economy one examines. [This](http://www.npr.org/2013/09/03/217177149/pollution-not-rising-temperatures-may-have-melted-alpine-glaciers?ft=1&f=3) would seem to be a good example to bear that out: > > Clearly, there are many other negatives to having a lot of soot in the air; fortunately CO2 is much cleaner. One item to keep in mind here: > [@](#): > > But nobody could explain the glacier’s rapid decline. Now, a new from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory uncovers a possible clue to why the glaciers **melted before temperatures started rising** : Soot from the Industrial Revolution could have heated up the ice. Now, the fact that there will be benefits on some regions was even noticed by me before, the problem is that with the global connections we have now it is reckless to expect that the regions affected negatively will not end up affecting the populations in the regions that benefit from this. As I have seen, most of the basis for this argument comes from the “it will be nice in Northern Europe, Siberia, Canada or Greenland” Forgetting that research has also found that when that happens regions of the USA and many other parts of the world will not be so nice. [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/05/2579991/just-degree-warming-kansas-wheat-production-20-percent/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/05/2579991/just-degree-warming-kansas-wheat-production-20-percent/) > [@](#): > > On climate change specifically, the researchers found that a one degree Celsius increase in temperatures for the area would cut wheat yields by 10.64 bushels per acre. Since the mean yield for 1985 to 2011 was 50.59 bushels per acre, that comes out to a 21 percent decrease. And three degrees of warming would cut yields by 32.36 bushels per acre, or a whopping 64 percent. > > To put that in context, take a look at this video of temperature projections for the United States, which NASA based off the latest National Climate Assessment. It shows that hitting atmospheric carbon dioxide levels of 550 parts per million (ppm) by 2011 warms the Great Plains region by 2 degrees Fahrenheit in 2040 and 6 degrees in 2080. In Celsius, that translates to 1.1 degrees in 2040 and 3.3 degrees in 2080. > > Now, the two projections don’t match up perfectly. The video shows warming starting from the average annual temperature from 1970 to 1999, while the Kansas State University study started its projections at the mean temperature for 1985 to 2011. But you get the gist: by 2080, global warming could reduce Kansas’ wheat yield by as much as two thirds. > > And that’s the optimistic scenario. Unless the world gets serious about reducing carbon emissions now, we’re going to blow past the 550 ppm mark. And as the video shows, 800 ppm by 2100 delivers 3.3 degrees Celsius of warming by just 2050 and around 5 degrees by 2080. There is also the issue of timing, and here there is a huge item that is missed always by contrarians, and it is that as long as there is no control of the emissions, the areas that benefit will not be able to be defined or I should say stable enough to be of good benefit soon. Reacting now will make a difference, what many forget is that even if “it is too late” we are talking of preventing the arrival of even worse scenarios that will be caused for delaying action. ---
**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 6, 2013, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/236 "2013-09-06T14:36:22Z")
Global change from pollution, or land use, is much like a large oil leak from a deep well. If not stopped the effects will be global, rather than regional. The problem is the same when it comes to exerting power to force somebody to sop. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/237 "2013-09-06T22:59:25Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Global change from pollution, or land use, is much like a large oil leak from a deep well. If not stopped the effects will be global, rather than regional. The problem is the same when it comes to exerting power to force somebody to sop. Global change from pollution is different than global change from man-made CO2. If you want to work on air pollution or water pollution, many people from both sides of the MMCO2GW issue will work together. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/238 "2013-09-06T23:31:11Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I find your optimism, bordering on naïveté, refreshing. 🙂 Naive or practical? The MMCO2GW issue has been argued for 25 years. It’s pretty much a stalemate at this point. “They” don’t believe “them” and “them” don’t believe “they”. (pls xcuse the wording but you get the idea) Momentum has swung both ways over the last couple of decades, much like the global tempurature itself has over eons. So what happens next? Should we continue to rehash the old arguments? Will that actually convince anyone to change their minds at this point in time? Should we repeatedly call the “other” side ignorant? If the name-callers aren’t respected by the targets of their abuse, it’s just another excersize in futility. I actually want the IPCC to finally succeed in producing useful data. I want them to collect factual data from properly calibrated gauges. I want them to share their calculations and inputs with ANY organization that asks for it. I want a proper and honest peer-review. I have questions and I want them to be answered in a useful and meaningful way. No more “Incontinent Truth”. No more dead, floating polar bears. No more “the science is settled”. ---
**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 6, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/239 "2013-09-06T23:31:45Z")
True on agreeing on the pollution bit, but it has to be mentioned here that CO2 **is** a pollutant. > **[PlantsNeedCO2.org claims that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and is good...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/oct/07/plantsneedco2org/plantsneedco2org-claim-carbon-dioxide-not-pollutan/)** > > With Congress deep in a debate over legislation to slow climate change, The Washbington Post has become a popular place > [@](#): > > Beyond the reams of scientific research to demonstrate how dramatically the Earth could change with increased carbon dioxide levels, some studies indicate that more is not necessarily better for plants. For instance, a two-decade study of the Panama and Malaysia rainforests demonstrated that temperature increases of more than 1 degree could lead to 50 percent reduction in tree growth. > > A study launched in 1997 in California studied the effects of climate change on grasslands. Scientists doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, raised the temperature by 2 degrees, increased precipitation by 50 percent, and raised levels of nitrogen, which is also a product of fossil fuel consumption, to simulate how the Earth might look decades from now. When carbon dioxide levels alone were raised, plants grew quite a bit. > > “But when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed,” Christopher B. Field, a professor at Stanford, told ScienceDaily in 2002. > > But back to [PlantsNeedCO2.org](http://PlantsNeedCO2.org)’s claim. They are wrong that carbon dioxide is not considered a pollutant. According to the EPA, it is. And the claim that “higher CO 2 concentrations actually help ecosystems support more plant and animal life” leaves out some important details. While carbon dioxide is good for plants, increased amounts of it in our atmosphere will have auxiliary effects that are decidedly bad for ecosystems. For [PlantsNeedCO2.org](http://PlantsNeedCO2.org), it’s False. ---
**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 6, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/240 "2013-09-06T23:40:44Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I actually want the IPCC to finally succeed in producing useful data. And really how can one \*\*not \*\*call attention to ignorance like that when it was already mentioned and shown that it is? The data they use comes from the most up to date published science, repeating this ignorant bit is sad. > **[IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change](https://www.ipcc.ch/)** > [@](#): > > The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. What you are doing does end in inferring to others that no scientist or science is being reference for the reports. [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=11) [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=13)