# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/61 "2013-08-29T16:06:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …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. Since the IPCC has such a long history of producing baloney, it’s little wonder that so many people currently have doubts about their new, soon-to-be-released report. I STILL chose to wait for the actual IPCC report to come out. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/62 "2013-08-29T16:35:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. try debunking the inability to produce a model that works. If it doesn’t work in the short term there is nothing to suggest it will gain accuracy in the long term. That’s a given. The oceans aren’t going to rise 50 feet in the next half century yet energy technology will continue beyond anything you can imagine in the next 50 years without any input from the IPCC. It’s time you got off this fantasy of yours that the world is coming to an end. It’s 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:** [August 29, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/63 "2013-08-29T16:38:17Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Since the IPCC has such a long history of producing baloney, it’s little wonder that so many people currently have doubts about their new, soon-to-be-released report. No give no evidence whatsoever, only your say so. > [@doorhinge](#): > > I STILL chose to wait for the actual IPCC report to come out. Like if there were no previous ones, and that is a hint that once again, you did not read the tread, more ignorance. ---
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/64 "2013-08-29T17:03:44Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > try debunking the inability to produce a model that works. If it doesn’t work in the short term there is nothing to suggest it will gain accuracy in the long term. That’s a given. And that is only just showing ignorance, once again, the point stands, it is high time that you complain to the ones that are giving you false information. > **[How reliable are climate models?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm)** > > \While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.\ > [@](#): > > \*What the science says… > > Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean. > \* > Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or “smooth out” - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare. > > Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future. > > So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings. > [@Magiver](#): > > The oceans aren’t going to rise 50 feet in the next half century yet energy technology will continue beyond anything you can imagine in the next 50 years without any input from the IPCC. And that just washes away one of the main complaints the contrarians (that are usually conservatives) make for the reason why we should do nothing, cost. In reality they ignore the full costs of doing nothing. > **[Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false)** > > The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. At a time when we need to clarify public confusions about the science and economics of climate change, skeptics have muddied the waters. I will describe... > [@](#): > > The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs). > > This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs. > > This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10 And yes, the full article points that the more likely ocean rise is a big part of those costs. > [@Magiver](#): > > It’s time you got off this fantasy of yours that the world is coming to an end. It’s not. And thank you for showing all that in reality you are depending on a straw man for your sorry point, scientists are not talking about the world coming to an end, and neither do I, you need to check my past posts and \*\*\*learn \*\*\*that I’m on the record of busting the alarmism of the ones that claim that this issue means the end of the world, the point is that not doing something will mean more costs for the future and likely wars and more pain that could be prevented but for the inaction of many conservative leaders of today that depend on false information to make policy. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/65 "2013-08-29T17:22:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is only just showing ignorance, once again, the point stands, it is high time that you complain to the ones that are giving you false information. Let me get this straight. You think making a model that works backwards but not forwards is a testament to the accuracy of the model? If only bookies would accept bets after the game. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/66 "2013-08-29T17:27:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And thank you for showing all that in reality you are depending on a straw man for your sorry point, scientists are not talking about the world coming to an end, and neither do I, you need to check my past posts and \*\*\*learn \*\*\*that I’m on the record of busting the alarmism of the ones that claim that this issue means the end of the world, the point is that not doing something will mean more costs for the future and likely wars and more pain that could be prevented but for the inaction of many conservative leaders of today that depend on false information to make policy. ah, I see, it’s not a problem except for global wars. Got it. ---
**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, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/67 "2013-08-29T17:35:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Let me get this straight. You think making a model that works backwards but not forwards is a testament to the accuracy of the model? If only bookies would accept bets after the game. And thanks for let us know that indeed you do not know how models are used. ---
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/68 "2013-08-29T17:41:16Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > ah, I see, it’s not a problem except for global wars. Got it. And you are only showing to all that you do not check the links or quotes, it is not only wars for resources that is the danger [but it has to be mentioned also that the US armed forces do look at what the scientists report to conclude that indeed this issue has military implications, more costs for today and the future thanks to assuming that it would be cheap to do nothing now.](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change) The economist I quoted reports that indeed ocean rise will generate more costs just by the simple logic that just a few feet in ocean rise means that hurricanes will be more damaging to the cities in their path. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/69 "2013-08-29T18:15:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And thanks for let us know that indeed you do not know how models are used. I know that I can make one work backwards. I know the IPCC doesn’t know why theirs doesn’t work forwards. I know you don’t understand the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/70 "2013-08-29T18:17:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And you are only showing to all that you do not check the links or quotes, it is not only wars for resources that is the danger [but it has to be mentioned also that the US armed forces do look at what the scientists report to conclude that indeed this issue has military implications, more costs for today and the future thanks to assuming that it would be cheap to do nothing now.](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change) so which is it, is the world going to hell in a handcart or not. Pick one. ---
**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 29, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/71 "2013-08-29T18:37:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I know that I can make one work backwards. I know the IPCC doesn’t know why theirs doesn’t work forwards. I know you don’t understand the difference. That’s not quite fair; IIRC, he’s currently signed on for a forwards-looking _at-least-a-tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade-in-global-average-temperature_ prediction by the IPCC, which will prove true or turn out to be utterly false in fairly short order. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/72 "2013-08-29T18:52:42Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > That’s not quite fair; IIRC, he’s currently signed on for a forwards-looking _at-least-a-tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade-in-global-average-temperature_ prediction by the IPCC, which will prove true or turn out to be utterly false in fairly short order. So if its utterly wrong again, what will be the response? Global warming is real but we’re just not sure how long it will take? I don’t see where it matters. Unless it’s going to flood my basement next week I’m not worried about it. We have the technology available to radically change our energy consumption if we needed to. It’s not 1930 and it’s not going to happen overnight. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/73 "2013-08-29T19:34:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No give no evidence whatsoever, only your say so. > > Like if there were no previous ones, and that is a hint that once again, you did not read the tread, more ignorance. I’m giving the IPCC yet another chance to prove, actually prove, that global warming is occuring and that man-made CO2 is the cause of it. Proof that can be duplicated, not more unproven claims that are to be accepted and never questioned. Your particular debate style isn’t going to change anyone’s mind about global warming. The IPCC has had over two decades to prove their theory. And there’s the disappearance of the IPCC’s man-made inputs and the computer modeling that originally suggesting global warming, the infamous hockey-stick chart that magically removed the little ice age time period, the four (4) dead polar bears that proved that polar bears die but nothing about how they died or how it’s related to global warming, and the scientists who helped gather the IPCC’s data but objected to the way the IPCC used/twisted their work. All these things have to be considered when considering the IPCC’s results and the claims of it’s devoted followers. I’m still willing to give the new, soon-to-be-released IPCC report a chance to actually prove it’s claims. In spite of your enthusiastic support of the unreleased report and your personal insults. ---
**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, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/74 "2013-08-29T21:55:43Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I’m giving the IPCC yet another chance to prove, actually prove, that global warming is occuring and that man-made CO2 is the cause of it. Proof that can be duplicated, not more unproven claims that are to be accepted and never questioned. > > Your particular debate style isn’t going to change anyone’s mind about global warming. It is not an insult to show that you are coming to this discussion with a mess of ignorance. This new report coming is the fifth, so you are not even aware of how many chances, or if it appropriate to talk about “chances”, and only on discredited sources is where one can get the “news” that they are getting it wrong. Far from it, they report on what the best science offers from the few years previous to one of the reports. One of the early reports included a graph that was accurate only for northern Europe, in it the local event than later began to be known as the “medieval Warm Period” was hailed by contrarians as the \*\*final \*\*and greatest bit to show that nature could be the reason for the warming observed recently. It was not, then subsequent reports got more data from other continents and then the graph, the so called hockey stick showed that even the medieval warm period was not as warm as what we are seeing in the past 15 years. So what the IPCC is showing is the current consensus and input from the latest science, but as usual the contrarian media is continuing to fool people like you. Look at their sites and sources and you can still see even the old graph shown as the best that it was, when it was presented by the IPCC, but it was superseded by the latest research and data. What that incident shows is that what the deniers used to misrepresent the latest science was only adequate for the day, and it does not matter that they got one of their more stupid points out of the IPCC itself, they then tell others to \*\*ignore \*\*the latest reports, continue using the old information as the final truth and imagine that! They \*\*still \*\*fool many that way. ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/75 "2013-08-29T21:59:19Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > so which is it, is the world going to hell in a handcart or not. Pick one. The Republicans are picking that up right now, as a citizen you need to tell them to choose wisely. ---
**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, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/76 "2013-08-29T22:10:35Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I know that I can make one work backwards. I know the IPCC doesn’t know why theirs doesn’t work forwards. I know you don’t understand the difference. Nope, the information linked to already shows that the IPCC models continue to hit the range of most possible outcomes, insisting that it is not only tells others that ignorance is preferred to the evidence. And it also avoids dealing with the fact that the best and most famous skeptical scientists continue to get their models wrong, remember, for a science discussion even if you insist that a group got it wrong **you have to point at the ones that are doing it correctly** , no such luck here for the contrarian media. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/77 "2013-08-30T05:21:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, the information linked to already shows that the IPCC models continue to hit the range of most possible outcomes, insisting that it is not only tells others that ignorance is preferred to the evidence. I linked to the article that said the IPCC couldn’t explain the cooling that has occurred. They don’t have a model that accurately predicts the warming trend. This is not up for debate. ---
**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 30, 2013, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/78 "2013-08-30T05:31:40Z")
No one has any comment on my point that 95 percent likely is still far from certain? ---
**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 30, 2013, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/79 "2013-08-30T06:08:35Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I linked to the article that said the IPCC couldn’t explain the cooling that has occurred. They don’t have a model that accurately predicts the warming trend. This is not up for debate. It is, your publication is not a science one to begin with and your interpretation is way off base, I linked to the more valid reports and the note from years ago of Latif that reports on the expected “pauses”. Your information is misleading and not only that, the article from Reuters reports that: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/16/us-climate-report-idUSBRE97F0KM20130816](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/16/us-climate-report-idUSBRE97F0KM20130816) “Experts surer of manmade global warming but local predictions elusive” Indeed **just what I have posted before in other threads and reported about what the actual scientists are doing**. “The main scenarios in the draft, using more complex computer models than in 2007 and taking account of more factors, show that temperatures could rise anywhere from a fraction of 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) to almost 5C (9F) this century, a wider range at both ends than in 2007.” “Experts say that the big advance in the report, due for a final edit by governments and scientists in Stockholm from September 23-26, **is simply greater confidence about the science of global warming** , rather than revolutionary new findings.” What I can see so far from your posts is just the spin from denier sites, the Reuters piece does not say that the predictions are failing. The Guardian report from the OP once again mentions that the model issues are at the regional level not at more wider areas or global. > [@](#): > > First, readers will likely find that this report is very similar to the last report (which was released in 2007). There will be slight changes to our confidence in certain observations. Climate models will have improved slightly, particularly in how they handle atmospheric particulates and cloud formation. A major effort since the last report has been the use of climate models to predict changes at the regional level. The report will likely say that this endeavor has had mixed success. The “medium confidence” bit you are latching on continues to say that contrarians should not use the slowdown of surface temperatures as a justification to be complacent, and they link to this article from skeptical science (Remember them? the same ones from the links that you have refused to check?): > **[Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming](https://skepticalscience.com/clarifying-continuation-global-warming.html)** > > As we have previously discussed, the overall warming or heat accumulation of the planet has continued, and if anything accelerated over the past 10–15 years (Figure 1). So yeah, we are clearly still within those boundary conditions, thus the models are still currently correct from the previous report, and the ones coming are bound to be better, so please do not get stuck in the past “say so’s” from the contrarian media. ---
**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 30, 2013, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/80 "2013-08-30T06:34:39Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > No one has any comment on my point that 95 percent likely is still far from certain? I’m not sure were you are getting at, for perspective just remember that just about 33% of smokers will die of all the possible ailments connected to tobacco smoke, yet the warnings are clear nowadays. And as a society we acted to limit the use of it. (It has to be remarked once more that many influential groups denying any danger from smoking moved to also deny that AGW is a problem.) When you look at the context, your claim of 95% being as “far from certain” has the problem that the IPCC has already numbers for far from certain items: [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html) I mean, would you say that they would be reporting ‘far, far, far, farthest, snowball in hell’ levels if they had reported that the confidence they had was at 33% or less? [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=3) [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=5)