# 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:** 3
**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 27, 2013, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/41 "2013-08-27T03:20:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That is the opinion of a minority of economists and a much smaller minority of historians. Sure. > [@](#): > > Of course, that “showing” is done in the course of the ordinary political/electoral/legislative process. I admire your faith in that the ordinary political/electoral/legislative process can really glean deep scientific fact and find the right solutions. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. The moral argument is not lost, it is merely not resolved to the point of consensus or unanimity, that is all. Ok, not lost. However, you can claim a moral victory of, say, changing to CFLs because the police came, smashed your bulbs and waterboarded you till you installed CFLSs. ---
**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 27, 2013, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/42 "2013-08-27T04:09:04Z")
> [@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? There are still fickle (“swing”) voters, even in today’s polarised electorate. Think of how different the elections of 2006 and 2010 were, for instance. ---
**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 27, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/43 "2013-08-27T04:30:42Z")
It is actually a little bit worse than that for the Republicans **SirGalahad**. > **[Voters think Republican climate dissenters 'crazy', bipartisan poll finds](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/25/us-politics-climate-change-scepticism)** > > Results show risks that deniers in Congress pose to GOP as majority of younger constituents back Obama's carbon plans > [@](#): > > Republicans in Congress who reject the science behind climate change could soon be reduced to political fossils, with new polling on Wednesday suggesting three-quarters of young voters find such views “ignorant, out of touch or crazy”. > > The bipartisan poll conducted for the League of Conservation Voters found solid 80% support among under-35 voters for Barack Obama’s climate change plan – and majority support even among those who oppose the president. > > On the flip side the poll found three-quarters of voters, or 73%, would oppose members of Congress who stood in the way of Obama’s climate action plan. > > The findings could prove awkward for Republicans in Congress who have adopted climate contrarianism as a defining feature. I post for all the young moderate Republicans and independent people involved in science and technology that are finally beginning to notice how crazy the current Republican leadership is. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/44 "2013-08-27T20:18:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So – does anybody **still** want to claim global warming isn’t happening, or that humans are not causing it? The gauntlet is down. Of course not! What with the increasing confidence that GW is A, surely everybody is sold now that the confidence level is 95 instead of 90… Gauntlet. Bam. Denialists: Ignorant of Science. Unfortunately, I think the alarmists’ call is going to end up sounding like this: _“We are even more positive than ever that it’s our fault the sky is falling, although we now realize it’s not falling quite as fast as we thought it was. PS: We still don’t have any realistic suggestions about what to do about it because the basic problem is too many people wanting to live too large. Our host Mr Gore will be jetting in to help us work through the PR of that little nitpick.”_ Perhaps alarmists will eventually figure out their problem is not the Denialists. It’s the Living Largists. And we’re almost all (Me 'n Al Gore, especially) in favor of personally living larger while we turf costs to future generations. ---
**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 27, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/45 "2013-08-27T23:24:35Z")
Gore joke mentioned, got my Bingo! 🙂 [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Global\_Warming\_Denial\_Bingo](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Global_Warming_Denial_Bingo) ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/46 "2013-08-28T00:10:21Z")
[Cat Crying Sounds Like He's Saying Al Gore - YouTube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8ZcO78wkxNs#)! ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/47 "2013-08-28T01:26:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Check the cite, the scientists were not wrong, your sources are indeed lying by omission to you. according to the op’s link: “The new report, Reuters says, offers only “medium confidence” that scientists understand the reasons for this slowing. Causes cited include the possibility that the oceans are taking up more heat, that volcanic eruptions (which tend to produce cooling) may be providing a partial offset to temperature rise, contributing too cooling, or that the climate itself has a lower “sensitivity” to greenhouse gas emissions than previously proposed.” So they had no clue why their model was wrong but they were confident that there were some possible reasons for it. It could be volcanoes, Satan, or People flying from seminar to seminar to warn us of the impending doom. Face is GIGObuster, Their predictions were wrong. But as long as they’re “real sure” we’ll just wait for the next round of possible reasons to explain it. I’m 95% confident they don’t know why their models don’t work. I’m 90% sure the natural change in power consumption will negate the levels of Co2 we are releasing today without making ANY changes in policy. So fuck Al Gore and his flying circus of impending doom. ---
**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 28, 2013, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/48 "2013-08-28T01:51:29Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > according to the op’s link: “The new report, Reuters says, offers only “medium confidence” that scientists understand the reasons for this slowing. Causes cited include the possibility that the oceans are taking up more heat, that volcanic eruptions (which tend to produce cooling) may be providing a partial offset to temperature rise, contributing too cooling, or that the climate itself has a lower “sensitivity” to greenhouse gas emissions than previously proposed.” > > So they had no clue Full stop, that is not accurate at all. Even your followup points to the items that show that indeed they do have a clue. And you are skipping the explanations of scientists like latif that were made years ago. What it was clear by many expert sites that report on this issue is that they did predict that many false skeptics would grab that “medium confidence” bit on the surface temperatures to misrepresent the science. They were correct indeed. And your rant also omitted the more certain bits reported like the subject of the OP. False skeptics seem to live in a contradictory universe. ---
**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 28, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/49 "2013-08-28T02:07:35Z")
One nitpick: I see people here using “95%” as though it were equivalent to “100%” or at least “99.9%” when the chance of being wrong is 4,900% higher. I have played a lot of poker. And I know better than to think, when I get all in on the turn with a pair of aces vs. a pair of kings, that I can start counting the chips. There is about a 95.5% chance I will win the pot, yes. But seeing the king hit the felt on the river, while a bad beat to be sure, is not exactly some sort of legendary occurrence you can tell other players about without expecting a sarcastic response of “cool story, bro”. ---
**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 28, 2013, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/50 "2013-08-28T02:10:57Z")
But the Al Gore boogey man has been called once again, I do see it a Godwin in these discussions like the “it is a religion” accusation that virtually every pseudo science follower has launched against the scientists. It only shows that the “skeptics” do not have good ideas left. And the political angle inferred by calling Gore does reflect on the bankruptcy of once again attempting to make this issue a political litmus test, not even conservative Republican scientists are falling for that one, in the cite I referred to that **Magiver** avoided we had Republican scientist Richard Alley. And over here we have Conservative Republican scientist from BYU Barry Bickmore: > **[Willful Blindness](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/willful-blindness/)** > > I just watched a TED video of Margaret Heffernan talking about “The Dangers of Willful Blindness”.  (She’s also written a book called Willful Blindness, apparently.  See her offic… > [@](#): > > **Willful blindness.** > > … > > Now, I don’t have to tell my readers how I think this story relates to being a Republican Earth scientist who takes climate change seriously. But watch the video and pay attention to how Heffernan describes the excuses people make for remaining willfully blind. See if you don’t find eerie similarities with the excuses you hear coming from the “Do-Nothing-About-Climate” crowd. > > Climate change wasn’t the first issue about which I had encountered willful blindness, though. Back in 2000-2001, I worked on a project having to do with leaked nuclear waste at the Hanford Site in Eastern Washington. This is where most of the plutonium for US nuclear weapons was produced since the 40′s, and production stopped in the late 80′s after a safety inspector blew the whistle on some of the UNBELIEVABLY unsafe things that were being done. Since it was part of the weapons complex, all this stuff never came out before then because it was all hush-hush, national defense kind of stuff. Maybe a couple million gallons of high-level nuclear waste have been released into the subsurface, a few miles by groundwater flow away from the Columbia River. When I started the project, I decided to read up on the history of the site, and let me tell you, it cured quite a bit of my aversion to environmental regulation. If you want to read a good historical account, see Atomic Harvest: Hanford and the Lethal Toll of America’s Nuclear Arsenal, by Michael D’Antonio. > > This isn’t a uniquely Republican, or American problem. It’s just the way people are. But while I can use this fact of life to make myself feel a little more kindly toward people who brush off serious concerns about things like climate change, it also makes me want to give them a good shake and a couple backhanded slaps. If facing the truth is going to make people fly into a panic, well maybe they just need to buck up. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/51 "2013-08-28T02:43:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Full stop, that is not accurate at all. What’s not accurate? They didn’t predict the rise in temperature accurately. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > What it was clear by many expert sites that report on this issue is that they did predict that many false skeptics would grab that “medium confidence” bit on the surface temperatures to misrepresent the science. They were correct indeed. They didn’t correctly predict the rise in temperature. What part of that did you not understand? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And your rant also omitted the more certain bits reported like the subject of the OP. False skeptics seem to live in a contradictory universe. It’s not a rant if it’s true. They fucked up their predictions and they’re not even trying to take into consideration the natural reduction in co2 production because of the advancements on the Horizon. We aren’t going to be driving gasoline cars in the future. It’s a given. We’re already gravitating toward natural gas as a cheaper alternative to coal NOW. We already seek out high mileage cars and hybrids NOW and that will explode when battery technology catches up. When fast charging batteries hit the market it’s going to radically change how we consume power. ---
**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 28, 2013, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/52 "2013-08-28T02:47:02Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > What’s not accurate? They didn’t predict the rise in temperature accurately. > > They didn’t correctly predict the rise in temperature. What part of that did you not understand? Only by willfully missing what the point was from Latif is that you can say that. Scientists did not predict a constant rice in surface temperature. > [@Magiver](#): > > It’s not a rant if it’s true. It was not the truth, it was incomplete and just the typical misleading bit that denier sources of information put forth. It is the contrarians the ones that are so grossly wrong in their predictions that it is really silly to look at them for information on this issue: > **[Monckton misuses IPCC equation](https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm)** > > \Lord Monckton has taken a single equation from the IPCC, used it in an inappropriate manner, and then attributed his results to the IPCC. This is as if I borrowed your car, drove into a tree, and then blamed you. He uses a method that is clearly... > [@](#): > > IPCC vs. Contrarians Scorecard > > Figure 12 compares the four IPCC projections and the four contrarian predictions to the observed global surface temperature changes. We have given Lindzen the benefit of the doubt and not penalized him for denying the accuracy of the global surface temperature record in 1989. Our reconstruction of his prediction takes the natural variability of ENSO, the sun, and volcanic eruptions from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) (with a 12-month running average) and adds a 0.02°C per decade linear warming trend. All other projections are as discussed above. > > \*Predictions Comparison > > Figure 12: IPCC temperature projections (red, pink, orange, green) and contrarian projections (blue and purple) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.\* > > Not only has the IPCC done remarkably well in projecting future global surface temperature changes thus far, but it has also performed far better than the few climate contrarians who have put their money where their mouth is with their own predictions. ---
**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 28, 2013, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/53 "2013-08-28T03:37:56Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > What’s not accurate? They didn’t predict the rise in temperature accurately. > > They didn’t correctly predict the rise in temperature. What part of that did you not understand? > > It’s not a rant if it’s true. They fucked up their predictions and they’re not even trying to take into consideration the natural reduction in co2 production because of the advancements on the Horizon. We aren’t going to be driving gasoline cars in the future. It’s a given. We’re already gravitating toward natural gas as a cheaper alternative to coal NOW. We already seek out high mileage cars and hybrids NOW and that will explode when battery technology catches up. When fast charging batteries hit the market it’s going to radically change how we consume power. Dude, don’t you get it? There is always one model that at the end of a gigantic error/cofidence bar will include any temperature that happens short of a Thera-like event. Look at all the charts. It doens’t matter that we’ve got now 200 months of no warming, even if they extend to 1996, before the boogey-man of the 98 Niño. Isn’t it fun to see them circle-jerkin’? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/54 "2013-08-28T03:49:56Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Isn’t it fun to see them circle-jerkin’? This is inappropriate for GD and it’s insulting. Don’t be a jerk. ---
**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 28, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/55 "2013-08-28T19:19:45Z")
Ok. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/56 "2013-08-28T20:56:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > But the Al Gore boogey man has been called once again, I do see it a Godwin in these discussions like the “it is a religion” accusation that virtually every pseudo science follower has launched against the scientists. It only shows that the “skeptics” do not have good ideas left… (post shortened for clarity) I’ll wait for the actual IPCC report to come out. Given the documented 25 year history of global warming “science” being unable to prove that the actual global temp is actually climbing at any of the rates they had predicted AND the fact that the IPCC “scientists” managed to lose their man-made inputs and computer modeling data before anyone else could verify their predictions, I see no reason to rush to judgement. When the actual IPCC report is released, I’ll look at it. Until then, any “leaked” and “un-verified” reporting isn’t worth the effort. ---
**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 28, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/57 "2013-08-28T22:13:58Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened for clarity) > > I’ll wait for the actual IPCC report to come out. Given the documented 25 year history of global warming “science” being unable to prove that the actual global temp is actually climbing at any of the rates they had predicted AND the fact that the IPCC “scientists” managed to lose their man-made inputs and computer modeling data before anyone else could verify their predictions, I see no reason to rush to judgement. When the actual IPCC report is released, I’ll look at it. Until then, any “leaked” and “un-verified” reporting isn’t worth the effort. And thank you for showing all that you did not check the link in post #52, scientists did not predict a constant surface temperature increase, the evidence is overwhelming that the warming continues, and your sources of information already showed that they got it wrong many, many times. Sometimes it takes a demonstration of ignorance to show all how the contrarian bubble of information is malfunctioning, those sources of information do not care that they are giving misleading information to their followers. I will always wonder why the bile is geared towards the ones pointing that out and not to the ones that are giving you that sorry information. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/58 "2013-08-28T22:30:20Z")
BTW, apparently (and based entirely on leaks, of course), they’re predicting [a three-foot rise in the sea level by 2100](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/un-climate-change-report_n_3781643.html). Invest not in beachfront. [The 20 cities that have the most to lose.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/20/these-20-cities-have-the-most-to-lose-from-rising-sea-levels/) And that’s by 2050, not 2100. However: > [@](#): > > It’s worth noting, however, that climate change is only part of the reason for the increase in flooding risks. The authors estimate that average flood damage would increase to about $52 billion annually even if climate change wasn’t a factor at all — just based on population and economic growth. (As more and more Americans move to the coast, the cost of flooding goes up.) Rising sea levels then add another $11 billion per year on top of that. > > Even that could be a low-end estimate, though: This study is factoring in relatively mild sea-level rise scenarios of just 7.9 inches by mid-century. If the seas rise more, the costs go up. And then there are the years after 2050 to consider. A recent leaked draft of the forthcoming IPCC report suggested that sea levels could rise more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue unchecked. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/59 "2013-08-28T23:40:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And thank you for showing all that you did not check the link in post #52, scientists did not predict a constant surface temperature increase, the evidence is overwhelming that the warming continues, and your sources of information already showed that they got it wrong many, many times. > > Sometimes it takes a demonstration of ignorance to show all how the contrarian bubble of information is malfunctioning, those sources of information do not care that they are giving misleading information to their followers. I will always wonder why the bile is geared towards the ones pointing that out and not to the ones that are giving you that sorry information. LOL. Since the findings produced by the IPCC and it’s devoted followers has been a repeated demonstration of arrogance showing all how their bubble of information has malfunctioned, **I will STILL wait for the actual IPCC report to come out**. In the past, the IPCC FAR ran simulations using various emissions scenarios and climate models. Unfortunately, they’ve lost their man-made inputs that would have allowed others to actually check their results. How convenient. Now there is “leaked” information that may or may not have come from the “soon-to-be-released” official IPCC report suggesting all kinds of unprovable/unproven/speculative/conjured possibilities. :yawn: FYI - Attacking me is NOT going to prove global warming or climate change. It suggests that you’ve run out of argument and have gotten desperate. I suggest that you try to to stick to debating AGW and sea level rise. ---
**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 29, 2013, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/60 "2013-08-29T00:23:15Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > LOL. Since the findings produced by the IPCC and it’s devoted followers has been a repeated demonstration of arrogance showing all how their bubble of information has malfunctioned, > > **I will STILL wait for the actual IPCC report to come out**. > > In the past, the IPCC FAR ran simulations using various emissions scenarios and climate models. Unfortunately, they’ve lost their man-made inputs that would have allowed others to actually check their results. How convenient. You must be referring to the malarkey of several years ago where Phil Jones was accused of that, unfortunately your pathetic sources forgot to tell you that his research was confirmed by others. > [@doorhinge](#): > > Now there is “leaked” information that may or may not have come from the “soon-to-be-released” official IPCC report suggesting all kinds of unprovable/unproven/speculative/conjured possibilities. :yawn: > > FYI - Attacking me is NOT going to prove global warming or climate change. It suggests that you’ve run out of argument and have gotten desperate. I suggest that you try to to stick to debating AGW and sea level rise. Read it again, I’m attacking your sorry sources that are still repeating debunked baloney from years ago. You are even wrong on your observation here but thank you for showing your ignorance to others. [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=2) [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=4)