# 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:** 2
**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:** [August 24, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/21 "2013-08-24T00:05:47Z")
Temperature going up during the last century? Yes Humans a cause? Yes However such a generic, non-bounded statement has been accepted by 95% of sceptics as well. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2013, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/22 "2013-08-24T00:08:45Z")
[Checks WUWT, Forbes, many other “skeptic” sources] Nope, they still link or post denialist, full of errors or contradictory articles even if they still claim that they do accept the science. For more information that shows how inadequate and far away from science those sources are check the best debunking of misinformation math propeller head Tamino at “Open Mind”: > **[Open Mind](https://tamino.wordpress.com/)** > > KIDS' LIVES MATTER so let's stop climate change ---
**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:** [August 24, 2013, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/23 "2013-08-24T00:15:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > See also [Global Warming Denial Bingo.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Global_Warming_Denial_Bingo) Another version [here](http://pandodaily.com/2013/06/25/on-the-eve-of-obamas-climate-speech-we-invite-you-to-play-climate-change-denial-bingo/). The latter has links debunking each denial-claim on the bingo card. Well, knock yourself out. I am not going to try to stop anyone from making efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. And a lot of the things I do try to get accomplished, like greater use of bicycles and public transit and curbing suburban sprawl, dovetail with this effort anyway. And personally I do not own or drive a car and get around by bike. I’m just stating my opinion that I think the Chicken Little-ism is rampant on this issue. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2013, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/24 "2013-08-24T00:25:35Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Well, knock yourself out. I am not going to try to stop anyone from making efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. And a lot of the things I do try to get accomplished, like greater use of bicycles and public transit and curbing suburban sprawl, dovetail with this effort anyway. And personally I do not own or drive a car and get around by bike. I’m just stating my opinion that I think the Chicken Little-ism is rampant on this issue. The way I see it is that false skeptics have made a big deal of that accusation,\*\* in reality the IPCC is conservative and moderate\*\* compared to what other scientists are reporting. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2013, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/25 "2013-08-24T01:16:05Z")
I am referring to the hoi polloi in the left-blogosphere. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2013, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/26 "2013-08-24T01:22:16Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I am referring to the hoi polloi in the left-blogosphere. I’m on the record of taking them down a notch too, what I have found is that they are not as important or financially supported as the fake skeptical sites that \*\*do \*\*influence our congress critters. In any case, most of what you have posted here in the thread is wrong so far and the subject is the new IPCC report. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/27 "2013-08-24T01:24:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The way I see it is that false skeptics have made a big deal of that accusation,\*\* in reality the IPCC is conservative and moderate\*\* compared to what other scientists are reporting. That is . . . extremely frightening, if true. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2013, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/28 "2013-08-24T01:35:29Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Well, knock yourself out. I am not going to try to stop anyone from making efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. And a lot of the things I do try to get accomplished, like greater use of bicycles and public transit and curbing suburban sprawl, dovetail with this effort anyway. And personally I do not own or drive a car and get around by bike. I’m just stating my opinion that I think the Chicken Little-ism is rampant on this issue. Most people who say they’re worried about CO2 will not make any significant and painful changes to their lifestyles in order to really reduce their emmisions. They will walk a couple of extra times, change to CFLs and maybe a couple of solar panels, but teir lifestyle will be 99.9% the same. “curbing urban sprawl” is a nice way of saying “ther houses”, nobody wants forced changes to their own houses. Unless one is willing to make (especially if you’re middle class and up in the US, Canada, Europe) massive cutbacks in their lives, it’s a lot of posturing. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2013, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/29 "2013-08-24T01:46:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That is . . . extremely frightening, if true. I do not see it that way, I have seen virtually all fake skeptics tell people that the IPCC is an alarmist organization; however, while many experts reported that the loss of ice on the poles and glaciers was accelerating, the IPCC in the previous report had to acknowledge the reality that there was no good evidence to declare that it was. So the previous report on ocean rise was a conservative one. But I do think that it was necessary. One can not just add policy recommendations based just on strong suspicions, IIUC the new report will point at the recent evidence found on the field and the most provable rise of the oceans can be used now in the efforts that will need to be done to mitigate it if nothing is done to control emissions. The point here is that an example like this one is always ignored by the fake skeptics, many who still insist that the IPCC is an alarmist organization. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/30 "2013-08-24T01:52:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I do not see it that way, I have seen virtually all fake skeptics tell people that the IPCC is an alarmist organization; however, while many experts reported that the loss of ice on the poles and glaciers was accelerating, the IPCC in the previous report had to acknowledge the reality that there was no good evidence to declare that it was. > > So the previous report on ocean rise was a conservative one. But I do think that it was necessary. One can not just add policy recommendations based just on strong suspicions, IIUC the new report will point at the recent evidence found on the field and the most provable rise of the oceans can be used now in the efforts that will need to be done to mitigate it if nothing is done to control emissions. The point here is that an example like this one is always ignored by the fake skeptics, many who still insist that the IPCC is an alarmist organization. I meant, if the GW situation is even worse than the IPCC is reporting, that is extremely frightening. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/31 "2013-08-24T01:56:50Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Most people who say they’re worried about CO2 will not make any significant and painful changes to their lifestyles in order to really reduce their emmisions. They will walk a couple of extra times, change to CFLs and maybe a couple of solar panels, but teir lifestyle will be 99.9% the same. > > “curbing urban sprawl” is a nice way of saying “ther houses”, nobody wants forced changes to their own houses. > > Unless one is willing to make (especially if you’re middle class and up in the US, Canada, Europe) massive cutbacks in their lives, it’s a lot of posturing. And that is just a lot of ignorance, many times in the past it has been pointed out that the costs are exaggerated by few skeptics with the only intention to seed FUD. > **[Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy](https://skepticalscience.com/richard-alley-we-can-afford-clean-energy.html)** > > Re-posted from Climate Crocks, an excellent video showing Richard Alley debunking the myths Renewable energy is too expensive and CO2 is not a pollutant in one fell swoop.  This video is well worth watching: > [@](#): > > Re-posted from Climate Crocks, an excellent video showing Richard Alley debunking the myths Renewable energy is too expensive and CO2 is not a pollutant in one fell swoop. This video is well worth watching: > [@](#): > > The video above comes from a TV series called, Earth: The operators Manual. While,regrettably, I have not seen the series, I have read the companion book of the same title. I highly recommend it. > > In it, Dr Alley writes: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Overall, hard-nosed real economic science, as applied by real economists in a classically economic approach, finds that a measured response to global warming is economically justified now (or, more accurately, is already overdue). This is not a big attack on global warming; in the Norhhaus optimization, CO2 rises to 685 ppm in 2100, almost 2.5 times the preindustrial level, with estimated warming in the model of 5.6 F (3.1 C for 2100 and 9.5 F for 2200 (5.3 C) relative to temperature in 1900. The optimal path invests $2 trillion to stop $5 trillion in damages, but damages totaling $17 trillion are allowed to happen. Note that all of these trillion-dollar figures are in “present value” - discounted from the future - so they represent much more money in the future.” > > (pp 193-194) > > In the next chapter he continues: > > > [@](#): > > > > "The optimal economic path outlined in chapter 15 would cost well under 1 percent of the world economy per year, with benefits outweighing the costs. But that parth allowed a lot of warming to occur. Enhanced national security, insurance against disasters, and fairness to others were among the additional arguments that favored more action sooner. > > > > ``` > > Several groups ... have attempted to estimate the costs of stabilizing the climate while still supplying abundant energy. These estimates generally ignore the benefits of avoiding climate change and present only the costs. Those costs depend a lot on how rapidly the stabilization is made. For plans that stop the warming at no more than a few degrees within a few decades, costs generally are in the neighborhood of 1 percent of the world's economy (gross domestic product, or GDP)." > > > > ``` As for the sprawl, there is new information that is showing that maybe we should not be so sanguine about it: [http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/08/suburban-sprawl-climate-solution](http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/08/suburban-sprawl-climate-solution) > [@](#): > > LONDON – Modern planners are building compact cities, believing tightly controlled zones are better for the environment. New research suggests the opposite: urban sprawl might be a better option, with solar power fitted to suburban houses and the adoption of electric cars transforming the energy needs of a city. > > Research in Auckland, New Zealand – the largest urban area in the country and a city built for the age of the motor car – shows that solar panels fitted to the average suburban home can produce enough power for that household, extra to charge an electric vehicle, and still generate enough watts to export a surplus to the grid. > Power for the urban core > > Adopting a citywide approach to fitting solar panels and providing charging points for cars would enable suburban homes to provide most of the power for the city center as well as keeping the transport running, according to Hugh Byrd, professor at the School of Architecture at the University of Lincoln in England. > > While a compact city is more efficient for internal combustion engine vehicles, a sprawling city is more efficient when solar power and electric cars dominate. > > In collaboration with the New Zealand Energy Center and the University of Auckland, Byrd and his colleagues found that detached suburban houses typical of an auto-age city are capable of producing ten times more solar power than is possible from skyscrapers or other commercial buildings. The calculations are based on a detailed cross section of Auckland, which has skyscrapers in its business center but has most of its homes spread out over the surrounding countryside in an urban sprawl. > > Although every city is different, the pattern of building in Auckland is repeated in many cities around the globe. Byrd’s idea: If planners insist solar panels be fitted to properties and charging points be provided for electric cars, then cities judged to be damaging to the environment could be transformed. ---
**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:** [August 25, 2013, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/32 "2013-08-25T09:40:39Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > “curbing urban sprawl” is a nice way of saying “ther houses”, nobody wants forced changes to their own houses. > > Unless one is willing to make (especially if you’re middle class and up in the US, Canada, Europe) massive cutbacks in their lives, it’s a lot of posturing. So my whole family living for years now without a motor vehicle is just a “lot of posturing” to you? Okie doke then. ---
**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:** [August 26, 2013, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/33 "2013-08-26T04:50:53Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > So my whole family living for years now without a motor vehicle is just a “lot of posturing” to you? Okie doke then. You have to realize you and your family are an exception that will never ammount to more than a small fraction of all those who express worries about GW. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2013, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/34 "2013-08-26T05:00:22Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Most people who say they’re worried about CO2 will not make any significant and painful changes to their lifestyles in order to really reduce their emmisions. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, did the government sit back and hope ordinary Americans would grab their pitchforks and look for ships going to Japan? When Abraham Lincoln wanted to improve public education, did he just hope a few citizens would start teaching their neighbors’ children altruistically? When FDR wanted to fight the Great Depression, did he say “Government’s not doing anything. Maybe some of you people should look for a job, or something.” _ **Why is it so hard for people to understand that problems requiring government coercion … require government coercion??** _ ---
**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:** [August 26, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/35 "2013-08-26T16:27:22Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, did the government sit back and hope ordinary Americans would grab their pitchforks and look for ships going to Japan? > > When Abraham Lincoln wanted to improve public education, did he just hope a few citizens would start teaching their neighbors’ children altruistically? > > When FDR wanted to fight the Great Depression, did he say “Government’s not doing anything. Maybe some of you people should look for a job, or something.” > > _ **Why is it so hard for people to understand that problems requiring government coercion … require government coercion??** _ FDR may have made depression worse, by the way. Two things about governement coercion: 1. It should be the onus of the governemt to show that coercion is the best way, that what is being coerced is the proper thing, and that the results will be met. 2. If coercion is required then the moral argument is lost; you do it because it’s the law. You didn’t change the behaviour, you were forced. ---
**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:** [August 26, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/36 "2013-08-26T17:00:06Z")
Someone is not reading or checking post #31. This issue is the perfect example of the tragedy of the commons, in the past no private group could afford and build the massive sewer systems that gave us clean water and less disease in the modern cities, so it is now with all the people treating the atmosphere as a sewer, government intervention is not only important but needed. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2013, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/37 "2013-08-26T17:15:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Someone is not reading or checking post #31. This issue is the perfect example of the tragedy of the commons, in the past no private group could afford and build the massive sewer systems that gave us clean water and less disease in the modern cities, so it is now with all the people treating the atmosphere as a sewer, government intervention is not only important but needed. " … with all the people treating the atmosphere as a sewer, government intervention is not only important but needed." This is correct, and apparently it’s the prevailing wisdom that only the Democratic Party will endeavor to clean up the atmosphere and work to counteract Global Warming, right? My question is: since Democrats are pretty much on board with Climate Change, and Republicans either deny it or will “officially” deny it for political reasons, exactly who are the Global Warming Boosters trying to convince? I honestly doubt the “teach Creationism in the schools and ban abortions” crowd will admit they’re wrong until L.A. is ankle deep in the Pacific, and the more clever Republicans will continue to wink at each other and maintain the status quo of the party platform for the sake of the Republican Hoi Polloi and their support. Are you preaching to the choir, or do you think there will be a Sea Change among right-wingers based on things like facts and evidence? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/38 "2013-08-26T17:25:59Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#): > > Are you preaching to the choir, or do you think there will be a Sea Change among right-wingers based on things like facts and evidence? He convinced me to take it seriously. Before coming to these boards, I’d only ever heard unfalsifiable claims about the stuff; to this day, I’ve _still_ only ever come across unfalsifiable claims on television and in the newspapers; were it not for GIGO, I’d presumably have kept rejecting it out of hand as Not Even Wrong. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/39 "2013-08-26T17:36:55Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > FDR may have made depression worse, by the way. That is the opinion of a minority of economists and a much smaller minority of historians. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Two things about governement coercion: > > 1. It should be the onus of the governemt to show that coercion is the best way, that what is being coerced is the proper thing, and that the results will be met. Of course, that “showing” is done in the course of the ordinary political/electoral/legislative process. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 1. If coercion is required then the moral argument is lost; you do it because it’s the law. You didn’t change the behaviour, you were forced. Bullshit. The moral argument is not lost, it is merely not resolved to the point of consensus or unanimity, that is all. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/40 "2013-08-26T18:09:48Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#): > > My question is: since Democrats are pretty much on board with Climate Change, and Republicans either deny it or will “officially” deny it for political reasons, exactly who are the Global Warming Boosters trying to convince? I honestly doubt the “teach Creationism in the schools and ban abortions” crowd will admit they’re wrong until L.A. is ankle deep in the Pacific, and the more clever Republicans will continue to wink at each other and maintain the status quo of the party platform for the sake of the Republican Hoi Polloi and their support. Are you preaching to the choir, or do you think there will be a Sea Change among right-wingers based on things like facts and evidence? No, but there might be a sea change among the “the more clever Republicans.” [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=1) [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=3)