# 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:** 5
**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, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/81 "2013-08-30T06:46:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > “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.” Do you actually read the things you copy and paste? ---
**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, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/82 "2013-08-30T06:49:58Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Do you actually read the things you copy and paste? Yes, do you? The article continues to explain that the range is wider as the IPCC is adding **an extra** very unlikely scenario that they did not included before. So as per your own words, do not forget that the article you claim to have read recommends Skeptical Science as a respected source, so you need to read a lot about the common myths that your likely sources of information an spin are coming from: > **[Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)** > > 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... ---
**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, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/83 "2013-08-30T07:23:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. Apples and oranges. There is not a 33 percent chance that smoking is killing _anyone_ at all. That chance is 100 percent. There is, according to this report, a five percent chance that human activity is \*not \*actually making the earth warmer, and the whole thing was basically an “oopsie”. That is actually a lot higher than I would have thought. I thought we were in “nearly certain” territory for human-caused warming, and that the only real uncertainty among climate scientists was about how much warming will occur in what time frame. So I guess my point is that this 95 percent number is not impressing me the way it is apparently supposed to. ---
**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, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/84 "2013-08-30T08:42:16Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Apples and oranges. There is not a 33 percent chance that smoking is killing _anyone_ at all. That chance is 100 percent. :rolleyes: > [@SlackerInc](#): > > There is, according to this report, a five percent chance that human activity is \*not \*actually making the earth warmer, and the whole thing was basically an “oopsie”. That is actually a lot higher than I would have thought. I thought we were in “nearly certain” territory for human-caused warming, and that the only real uncertainty among climate scientists was about how much warming will occur in what time frame. I was afraid of that, what you are demanding is not science. The point of the smoking was not to compare apples and oranges but the levels of danger a society uses to then act. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > So I guess my point is that this 95 percent number is not impressing me the way it is apparently supposed to. Once again, you are acting like if you can just wash away the fact that lower levels of certainty are accounted for, your say so was mistaken and so the conclusion you are reaching here is wrong also. What it seems it that the probability you are thinking is a bug is in reality a feature, the mountain of evidence is telling the scientists that there are many lines of evidence that show how the warming is caused by our emissions, each of those lines of evidence has been tested many times for many years, the levels of confidence are just reflecting all those checks made to those lines of evidence. The point here is that your say so that “it is not impressive” is not looking at the evidence or thinking that the number the IPCC is reporting is not based on observations also, not just the consensus of the scientists. ---
**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, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/85 "2013-08-30T09:02:05Z")
But as I pointed before the IPCC by its nature is conservative, as pointed before I do think that that is OK for policy reasons as one has to see that that result is reached by taking into account most of the evidence and probabilities of diverse studies into account. If you think about it, you would realize that then it would not be scientific to reach 100%. And if that 95% is the conservative estimate of the levels humans are causing the current warming, one would be really reckless to ignore that many others report that the results of the warming that is very likely to follow are not likely to be as nice as the few sources that have an interest in seeding FUD are assuming. [http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40652.html](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40652.html) > [@](#): > > Putting aside the manufacturing of doubt by ideologues, how do we best deal with the uncertainty inherent in climate science? In particular, what are we to make of the IPCC’s latest assessment report, published in 2007, which some have labelled “alarmist” despite the fact that it painstakingly circumscribed the scientific uncertainties? > > Sadly, the IPCC report was not alarmist but was probably overly conservative. > > My fellow cognitive scientist Professor Budescu, from the University of Illinois, recently showed that people’s perception of uncertainty deviates from that intended by the IPCC; in particular, most people underestimate the certainty and confidence that the IPCC assigned to “likely” and “very likely” events. Thus, events that are 90 per cent or more certain to occur - such as the increased frequency of extreme weather events - people perceive as being only 75 per cent probable, simply because the popular understanding of phrases such as “very likely” is more conservative than intended. > > Thus, far from being alarmist, the carefully chosen phraseology of the IPCC fails to communicate the urgency of the situation. > > The IPCC’s conservatism is not confined to people’s perceptions but extends to the physical climate as well. The planet’s climate is changing more rapidly than anticipated by the IPCC: According to a recent peer-reviewed analysis by Professors Freudenburgs and Muselli of the University of California, nearly 90 per cent of all reports about new scientific findings since the IPCC’s 2007 assessment reveal global climate disruption to be worse, and progressing more rapidly, than expected. > > This, then, is the crux of the matter that is too often overlooked or ignored: **Uncertainty cuts both ways.** Uncertainty means things could be worse, or indeed far worse, than the generally conservative assessment of the state of the climate provided by the IPCC and other bodies, such as the recent document published by the UK’s Royal Society. > > Uncertainty doesn’t mean we needn’t worry - because uncertainty also means that things could be worse than anticipated. > > Anyone who argues that we need not act on climate change because of uncertainty is really inviting you come along for a ride into a brick wall at 80 km/h because it might hurt only a little. > > Are you feeling lucky? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/86 "2013-08-30T16:57:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is not an insult to show that you are coming to this discussion with a mess of ignorance. > > …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. (shortened for clarity) LOL. Another insult followed by your disclaimer that an insult is not an insult. You’re a hoot. It appears that even you admit that the previous IPCC reports were wrong. I’m giving the IPCC yet another chance to explain “their” science. Maybe they’ll get it right this time??? The latest IPCC report WILL BE QUESTIONED, just any any other scientific report would be questioned, whether you like it or not. If it doesn’t stand up to public scrutiny (yet again), the public will not be convinced of the IPCC’s version of “global warming” or the IPCC’s claim that man-made CO2 is the cause. It’s interesting that you’ve chosen to defend a report that hasn’t been made public. Why do you assume the latest IPCC report will be any more accurate or provable than their previous reports? The IPCC’s history suggests that it’s data and test proceedures won’t be made available for public review. :eek: The IPCC’s history suggest that global warming zealots will once again claim that there is a “concensus” among scientists at the same time they are denouncing all of the scientific opposition. A “concensus” with massive opposition??? How is that possible? Did the IPCC use the same type of man-made inputs for their computer modeling that produced their original reports? Nah. The IPCC has convienently lost that data. There is certainly a “concensus” but only among the true believers. :smack: Not so much in the “Can You Provide Actual Proof” camp. I suspect the IPCC report’s release will result in an increase in the number of man-made CO2 global warming zealots who once again claim that “the science is settled”. Science is never settled. Even the IPCC has changed their reports. All the IPCC has to do is provide actual evidence (NOT claims) that global warming exists. I’ll wait for their next report and your next personal jab. ---
**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, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/87 "2013-08-30T17:21:17Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (shortened for clarity) > > LOL. Another insult followed by your disclaimer that an insult is not an insult. You’re a hoot. Once again do not misrepresent me, the insults go to the makers of those myths, that you follow them is just ignorance, that is all. > [@doorhinge](#): > > It appears that even you admit that the previous IPCC reports were wrong. Nope, that is called “the march of science” maybe you heard about it before, while many do know that Einstein was more accurate than Newton, Newton’s equations are still used today in less precise settings. [Sniped really silly remarks] > [@doorhinge](#): > > Did the IPCC use the same type of man-made inputs for their computer modeling that produced their original reports? Nah. The IPCC has convienently lost that data. There is certainly a “concensus” but only among the true believers. :smack: Not so much in the “Can You Provide Actual Proof” camp. And once again ignorance shows, the sources you depend on are lying to you. The Data was not lost, it is still available and the “expert” deniers know this already but are not telling that after 4 years that point was debunked. > **[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... > [@](#): > > 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.” > Scientists: CRU climate change findings similar to those of other research centers with separate data sets > > 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.” > > Santer: “[K]ey point here is that other groups … WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU.” Responding to charges made by the CEI, Santer wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > I am sure that, over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point here is that other groups -- primarily at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), but also in Russia -- WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and UK Hadley Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication completely independently. They made different choices in the complex process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT data results. > > > > ``` > > Conservative media also distort stolen CRU emails > > Destroyed data claims follow media’s aggressive distortion of stolen CRU emails. Since the reported theft of emails from the CRU, conservative media figures have aggressively claimed that those emails undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change, dubbing the supposed scandal “Climategate.” But these critics have largely rested their claims on outlandish distortions and misrepresentations of the contents of the stolen emails, greatly undermining their dubious smears. > [@doorhinge](#): > > I suspect the IPCC report’s release will result in an increase in the number of man-made CO2 global warming zealots who once again claim that “the science is settled”. Science is never settled. Even the IPCC has changed their reports. > > All the IPCC has to do is provide actual evidence (NOT claims) that global warming exists. I’ll wait for their next report and your next personal jab. And yet, more ignorance, The IPCC points at and categorizes the best reports and papers from climate science, that is the actual evidence. The reality is that outside the IPCC the consensus is almost the same as what the IPCC reports. The simple fact is that the contributors to the IPCC are also scientists that are in practice doing yet another peer review to the best and new papers published on the subject. The report is the result of that extra review to already published science and reports. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/OJ6Z04VJDco/hqdefault.jpg "27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco) (The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC) ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/88 "2013-08-30T18:03:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > … > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco) > (The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC) You have a YouTube! You didn’t say you had a YouTube. That changes everything. Now there is NO reason for the IPCC to release anymore reports. The science must be settled. There must be an actual concensus. :smack: LOL. As was mentioned in the YouTube, "Don’t respond with, _it’s all an IPCC hoax and a tax scam and computer models are wrong."_ Of course, why would the YouTube creator want to address any questions brought about by the fact-checking of the evidence presented in the previous IPCC reports? Questions must be un-scientific? Questions must suggest that the “concensus” isn’t really a “concensus”? If the “science is settled”, why is there a need for another IPCC report? I hope the new-and-improved (with brighteners?) IPCC report finally clears up all of the questions about global warming and previous IPCC failures. ---
**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, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/89 "2013-08-30T18:16:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > If you think about it, you would realize that then it would not be scientific to reach 100%. How about that 99+% “virtually certain” level? That is where I thought the climate scientists were. But apparently 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 30, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/90 "2013-08-30T18:20:36Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You have a YouTube! You didn’t say you had a YouTube. That changes everything. Now there is NO reason for the IPCC to release anymore reports. The science must be settled. There must be an actual concensus. :smack: LOL. And the attempt at killing the messenger fallacy is noticed, as it is your lack of acknowledgment that you were misled by others on the missing data. > [@doorhinge](#): > > As was mentioned in the YouTube, "Don’t respond with, _it’s all an IPCC hoax and a tax scam and computer models are wrong."_ Of course, why would the YouTube creator want to address any questions brought about by the fact-checking of the evidence presented in the previous IPCC reports? Questions must be un-scientific? Questions must suggest that the “concensus” isn’t really a “concensus”? If the “science is settled”, why is there a need for another IPCC report? First, the maker of the Youtube is Science writer Peter Hadfield, and he linked to the data he quotes, you really need to pay attention on how silly the points of the deniers are and are exposed by the real science. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/XO8WrE63__I/hqdefault.jpg "27a -- Sources for my last video "Evidence for Climate Change WITHOUT computer models...."") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO8WrE63__I) > [@doorhinge](#): > > I hope the new-and-improved (with brighteners?) IPCC report finally clears up all of the questions about global warming and previous IPCC failures. And that is a misrepresentation once again, even the OP articles mention that the latest IPCC report is not going to be much of a surprise as many of the scientists whose research will be included in the report are already available like the papers from Kevin Trenberth. The “failures” that you are talking about are still just the march of science bringing better evidence and tools forward, it is the deniers the ones that are shown to be even more wrong after every new report. Far from finding failures what it is found is more certainty for many items from previous reports, and some get a notice for more information needed, same old science in action. but as Richard Alley mentions we know enough already to act even if some items are more uncertain. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/a69_owv4jEE/maxresdefault.jpg ""We don't know enough..." How to talk to an OSTRICH") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69_owv4jEE) > [@](#): > > It’s true that Earth’s a massive jigsaw puzzle, with lots of pieces intricately fitting together. But, Richard Alley argues, we already know enough to see the Big Picture. The missing pieces of scientific understanding - exactly how clouds work, how extreme weather will change with global warming - are important, but we can already see how Earth works. ---
**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, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/91 "2013-08-30T18:32:50Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > How about that 99+% “virtually certain” level? That is where I thought the climate scientists were. But apparently not. The take home lesson is that not even biologists that point at evolution evidence do not talk about those levels of certainty in their reports. There is always some uncertainty that has to be acknowledged, The uncertainty observed in this case is telling us that we need to act now, and in fact less certainty but also overwhelming evidence was used when we decided to do something about our bad water in the cities, the phosphate contamination by detergents on rivers and lakes, ozone depletion, acid rain, etc. in none of those cases we waited for scientists to tell us we needed to be 99% certain. > **[Michael Mann Understands Science](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/michael-mann-understands-science/)** > > One of my favorite movies is Apollo 13, the tale of the fateful mission of astronauts Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, and Jack Swigert. Their hopes to land on the moon were dashed when an on-board explosio… > [@](#): > > But nobody ever succeeded in proving Newton’s law of gravity. In fact you can’t, in fact we’ve learned enough about the subject that we can prove it’s wrong! Despite its incorrectness, it’s good enough to enable us to get to the moon and back — alive. Nowadays we could talk about “Einstein’s law of gravity” and how it’s different from, and better than, Newton’s. Maybe it’s even right — but we can’t prove it. Maybe, someday, we’ll manage to prove that it’s wrong. > > That’s the nature of science. “Proof” is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages, not for science. > > **The best we can get are credible theories, those that explain the facts with such precision that they might enable us to do something useful, like navigate in space or build a skyscraper or eradicate the scourge of smallpox … or minimize planet-wide chaos from man-made climate change.** > > Michael Mann understands this. He understands science. > > Rich Trzupek does not. When Mann correctly stated that “Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science,” Trzupek had a conniption fit. Trzupek so severely fails to understand science, that he accuses a real scientist of his own failure. Trzupek’s criticism is nothing more than a cheap ad hominem attack, an attempt to discredit climate science by discrediting a climate scientist. Worse yet, it’s a pathetic attempt. > > Trzupek actually says “When I was going to school to earn my degree in chemistry, we were taught that science was indeed all about absolute truth and proofs at the end of the day.” If they really taught him that then he should ask for his money back, because this is an appalling misrepresentation of science. In fact it’s one of the horrible, but commonplace, misconceptions that real scientists have to work hard to correct. Yet Trzupek makes it the foundation of his criticism of climate science and of Michael Mann. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/92 "2013-08-30T21:59:50Z")
One of the better ways science advances is, not so much by discovering truth, but by rejecting falsehood and error. When a particular idea is shown wrong, everyone benefits: we know that the truth is somewhere else than there. Sherlock Holme’s adage. “Whatever remains…” The Theory of Evolution succeeded, primarily by knocking every other theory out of the ring. It won, not only by being better at explaining the world, but also by being the last theory standing. It isn’t perfect; but every other model was vastly and demonstrably worse. Climate change is falling into that category today. The competing hypotheses, including “it’s natural change” and “its driven by variations in solar output” and others are all falling by the wayside, having been shown to be incorrect. The loyal opposition doesn’t talk much about warming Mars any more. Why? Because it was wrong, and was shown to be wrong. The impossible is being eliminated. Whatever remains… ---
**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:** [September 1, 2013, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/93 "2013-09-01T02:16:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. This is exactly the kind of practical advice I am looking for to make money off the AGW scare. Unfortunately no one seems to be heeding it. I have noticed very anecdotally that even some of the wealthy AGW alarmists seem to love buying beachfront. When they start shorting it then I will start thinking they are believing their own message. Until then it is still gonna seem more like a fun new Great Cause to me. ---
**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 1, 2013, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/94 "2013-09-01T03:04:02Z")
Rich people will just move, they are rich. Dang, even the parodies of the “skeptics” are pathetic. Of course as you \*\*never \*\*had a good explanation why we could not follow similar solutions that government and industry applied with issues like this one as we did in the past with bad water in the cities, the phosphate contamination by detergents on rivers and lakes, ozone depletion, acid rain, etc. one can continue to dismiss your say so’s. ---
**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 1, 2013, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/95 "2013-09-01T03:16:08Z")
The really sad thing about AR5’s predictions of doom is that when in due (short) time they are shown to be wrong or vastly exagerated, the people’s confidence in science will be shaken. Next time we hear 95% cofidence by 97% of scientists we might think “yeah, right” I wonder what the final figure for forcings will be? THAT is the only real number. Although I imagine it’s be “95% it is between 1.2 and 6” ---
**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 1, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/96 "2013-09-01T03:24:22Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The really sad thing about AR5’s predictions of doom is that when in due (short) time they are shown to be wrong or vastly exagerated, the people’s confidence in science will be shaken. > Next time we hear 95% cofidence by 97% of scientists we might think “yeah, right” Read it again, the 95% confidence refers to the confidence scientists have that Humans are responsible for the current warming, warming that also goes to the oceans. It does not refer to the confidence on “doom”. This is a straw man. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I wonder what the final figure for forcings will be? THAT is the only real number. Although I imagine it’s be “95% it is between 1.2 and 6” And once again you did not read the reports, the low level is expected if we virtually go cold turkey on the global warming gas emissions, not likely and not recommended. IIUC the bit of the low level has been added to make a point on us doing better than expected. The reality is still that we are more likely to see more than 2 degrees of warming coming. > **[A physicist speaks: Dessler on climate sensitivity – very unlikely to be less...](http://hot-topic.co.nz/a-physicist-speaks-dessler-on-climate-sensitivity-very-unlikely-to-be-less-than-2oc/)** > > \[youtube There’s been much ado about climate sensitivity — the amount of warming we expect for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere — in the last month or two. A couple of recent p… > [@](#): > > There’s been much ado about climate sensitivity — the amount of warming we expect for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere — in the last month or two. A couple of recent papers, and an expected slight adjustment to the likely range in the upcoming IPCC fifth report1, has led to speculation that we might have less to worry about, or more time to get emissions cuts in place. It would be great if it were true, but it isn’t. In this excellent short video, Andrew Dessler, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M university, explains why atmospheric physics means it’s very unlikely that the climate sensitivity can be below 2ºC. ---
**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 1, 2013, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/97 "2013-09-01T04:25:45Z")
I love it that the IPCC cannot get 100% agreement on such a softball statement which would get, I’m sure, more than 90% agreement by science-based sceptics. I hope that AR5 finally shortens the gigantic error bars the love so much or at least present scenarios that don’t cover 1.5° to 6°C by 2100. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/98 "2013-09-01T04:47:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Read it again, the 95% confidence refers to the confidence scientists have that Humans are responsible for the current warming, warming that also goes to the oceans. It does not refer to the confidence on “doom”. This is a straw man. Unless there is the “doom” the rest of the report is pointless. ---
**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 1, 2013, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/99 "2013-09-01T05:32:51Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Unless there is the “doom” the rest of the report is pointless. I guess losing or having to spend a lot of money on coastal cities is pointless. This is ridiculous, the fact that humanity will not end does not mean that there is a lot of problems that can be less troublesome or costly if we act now rather than later. Doing nothing means that only if you assume the perfect behavior form all the states of the earth that we will avoid also wars and suffering caused by the human displacement this is bound to make. Indeed the point stands, we ignored the ones that recommended not doing anything about CFCs and eventually we dodged a lot of pain in the future by controlling those gases that damage the ozone layer. [http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/3113](http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/3113) So it is that we have to dismiss the ones that tell us that we should not do anything about this issue, I prefer to have some inconveniences now rather than huge problems in the future, even if they do not reach your preferred doom levels. ---
**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 1, 2013, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/100 "2013-09-01T05:33:54Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I love it that the IPCC cannot get 100% agreement on such a softball statement which would get, I’m sure, more than 90% agreement by science-based sceptics. > > I hope that AR5 finally shortens the gigantic error bars the love so much or at least present scenarios that don’t cover 1.5° to 6°C by 2100. And once again you did not read the previous posts, you \*\*really \*\*do not know what science is. [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=4) [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=6)