# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/121 "2013-09-02T18:45:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …And he even explained why that does not help your point, you only evaded the conclusion that even the scientists are reporting, that that is evidence of the actual sensibility of what would happen when CO2 levels increase, **man made CO2 and prehistoric CO2 do the same stuff** , unless CO2 has reformed his ways the past tells us about the risks of not controlling the huge amount we are releasing now. > > [rest of silly complaint to the IPCC cut] > > And this is more of a refusal to look at the science, and actually the previous IPCC reports, they point at the evidence that is also used by virtually all scientific organizations that are relevant to the issue, as mentioned before, it is your lack of evidence and cites and support what shows to all who is getting desperate, and it is specifically the denier media and the groups that finance them. > > [Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) > > [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global\_warming\_denialism](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism) It all still hinges on the soon-to-be-released IPCC report. Will it be convincing or will more errors be found in yet another attempt by the IPCC to prove what it can not prove? Will all scientific organizations be given access to the IPCC’s methods and madness or will their data still be considered to have “Top Secret” or “Your Eyes Only” restrictions? Most, if not all, of the organizations you listed have produced flawed results based on faulty data gathering and political zealotry. Any honest scientific organization will correct their errors, recompile their data, and release corrected findings. Idology doesn’t replace common sense. Starting with expect results and manipulating man-made inputs to reach that conclusion isn’t a convincing argument. Claiming that everyone else is ignorant because they don’t believe what you tell them to believe is absurd and totally unconvincing. Consensus means a general agreement. It’s generally understood that there is an actual consensus that people still disagree over whether global warming is currently happening and that the minimal amount of man-made CO2 is actually driving global temp decreases and increases. The planet Earth will still continue to create, distribute, and absorb CO2 whether there are human beings or not. The global warming zealots have been so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that many chose to ridiculed everyone who questions their findings (as if that will change anyone’s mind), selectively chose who may recieve redacted copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy/faulty/disingenous computer code from being disclosed. That situation hasn’t changed. Maybe the new-and-improved IPCC report will clear everything up? Or not. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/122 "2013-09-02T18:52:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, the desperation happens to the one that does not even know the difference between an ignorant an an asshole. > > I’m an ignorant on many mathematical things and many grammar conventions. \*\*I however do welcome when other dopers let me know how off base I am on those subjects because I do want to learn.[/B You’re an apologist for bad predictions. You’re unwilling to deal with the reality that the ipcc predictions from 1990 were not accurate and your reasoning is that their models worked backwards therefore they’re accurate. When the predictions fell flat they had to change the name from Global Warming to Global Climate Change and then went on to pronounce that we would experience more evil weather phenomenon because of it. When that didn’t happen the predictions were fewer evil weather events but they would be more intense. If you desperately need to predict something, predict how much co2 electric cars will be emitting in 2050 because there’s going to be a shit ton of them driving around. Or maybe how much net co2 diesel trucks will be emitting with bio-diesel. ---
**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 2, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/123 "2013-09-02T18:55:06Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > It all still hinges on the soon-to-be-released IPCC report. Full stop, once again this is very ignorant of how the IPCC works, they depend on the published science and it is not really hard to see where it is going; after all, and this is also part of the ignorance, \*\*virtually all the science contributors to the IPCC come from those scientific organizations you are deriding with no evidence what so ever. \*\* The rest of your post are just straw men. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/124 "2013-09-02T19:47:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Full stop, once again this is very ignorant of how the IPCC works, they depend on the published science and it is not really hard to see where it is going; after all, and this is also part of the ignorance, \*\*virtually all the science contributors to the IPCC come from those scientific organizations you are deriding with no evidence what so ever. \*\* > > The rest of your post are just straw men. LOL. Since the IPCC report hasn’t been officially released, what are you defending? Your “hope” that the IPCC will finally be vindicated? There has been much discussion about this issue over the last 25 years. Maybe the IPCC can finally provided a comprehensive argument that will convince people to change their minds. That means, of course, that it may just convince more people that the IPCC and it’s reports and science are a hoax. ---
**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 2, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/125 "2013-09-02T19:58:20Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > LOL. Since the IPCC report hasn’t been officially released, what are you defending? Your “hope” that the IPCC will finally be vindicated? There has been much discussion about this issue over the last 25 years. Maybe the IPCC can finally provided a comprehensive argument that will convince people to change their minds. That means, of course, that it may just convince more people that the IPCC and it’s reports and science are a hoax. Doubling down on the ignorant points, it is not my problem that you want to continue to tell others that you do not know that scientists that I have linked to during the last 5 years report. Scientists that I have linked many times before like Kevin Trenberth are contributors to the IPCC, so once again you do not know what you are talking about, the IPPC depends on the published science for their reports, \*\*it is just wishful thinking to expect a wildly different report from the already published science the IPCC report will be based on. \*\* [http://www.npr.org/2013/08/23/214198814/the-consensus-view-kevin-trenberths-take-on-climate-change](http://www.npr.org/2013/08/23/214198814/the-consensus-view-kevin-trenberths-take-on-climate-change) > [@](#): > > The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest years on record. > > Trenberth says since then, the ocean has mostly been back in one of its soaking-up modes. > > “They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, **and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again**,” he says. > > You can think of it like a staircase. Temperature is flat when a natural cool spell cancels out the gradual temperature increase caused by human activity. But when there’s a natural warm spell on top of the long-term warming trend, the story is dramatically different. > > “When the natural variability or when the weather is going in the same direction as global warming, suddenly we’re breaking records, we’re going outside of the bounds of previous experience, and that is when the real damage occurs,” Trenberth says. > > Consider Hurricane Sandy. Trenberth figures the storm was maybe 5 or 10 percent more powerful as a result of global warming. And sea level is 8 inches higher than it was a century ago. That doesn’t seem that dramatic, but he argues that made a huge and costly difference. > > “I reckon that without climate change, we would not have exceeded thresholds that caused the flooding of the subways in Manhattan and the tunnels from Manhattan to New Jersey and to Brooklyn.” ---
**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 3, 2013, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/126 "2013-09-03T05:24:48Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You’re an apologist for bad predictions. You’re unwilling to deal with the reality that the ipcc predictions from 1990 were not accurate and your reasoning is that their models worked backwards therefore they’re accurate. No, the only thing that is clear is that virtually all the predictions from the contrarian sources and the few skeptical scientists are the ones that have failed, and they are much worse than the still within the envelope ones from the IPCC, I already linked to the evidence of the surface temperatures, so everyone else can see that it is really you the one that has no evidence for your post here. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/127 "2013-09-03T06:19:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, the only thing that is clear is that virtually all the predictions from the contrarian sources and the few skeptical scientists are the ones that have failed. [It’s quite clear the 1990 predictions were incorrect](http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208). ---
**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 3, 2013, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/128 "2013-09-03T06:54:56Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > [It’s quite clear the 1990 predictions were incorrect](http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208). > **[Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been...](https://skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html)** > > There is a new myth circulating in the climate contrarian blogosphere and mainstream media that a figure presented in the 'leaked' draft Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report shows that the planet has warmed less... > [@](#): > > **Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate** > > IPCC vs. Contrarians Scorecard > > Figure 1 at the top of this post 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. Note that this was not a specific prediciton made by Lindzen, but rather is our reconstruction based on his 1989 comments. All other predictions are as discussed above. > > 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. What I have seen is that the chart you link to is missing the error bars and probability envelope. Also the temperature data like the Hadcrut one is not the latest one and I already can see that Clive Best is not telling you the whole picture. And this late in the game **I’m not willing to give deniers the benefit of the doubt anymore** \*\*, Clive Best is misleading others on purpose now by not posting the provability envelope and for not posting the latest changes that show that the temperature lines should be a little bit higher than the ones he is showing there. \*\* There is no excuse on the internet to not update or modify your charts when new data is available, and this support my past observation that denier sites usually do not remove information that is superseded or erroneous, so to the dismissed file they go. > **[Fake skeptic draws fake picture of Global Temperature](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/)** > > Clearly, David Whitehouse has enough rope. To hang himself. The WUWT blog has a post by David Whitehouse (of the “Global Warming Policy Foundation”) discussing global temperature data. … > [@](#): > > Once again, observed global temperature has gone “right down the middle” of the IPCC projections. > > Yet fake skeptics like David Whitehouse are trying their best to spin the AR5 report (which isn’t even published yet) in order to discredit global warming science. David Whitehouse also chose to paint a picture of global temperature which is as fake as can be. > > That’s what fake skeptics do. ---
**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 3, 2013, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/129 "2013-09-03T07:17:57Z")
One more thing to notice: He is not adding nor averaging the actual temperature reported by other more complete data sets that report more warming that Hadcrut. I do not wonder anymore why false skeptics point to cites like that. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/130 "2013-09-03T07:39:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What I have seen is that the chart you link to is missing the error bars and probability envelope. That’s a nice way of saying they were wrong. This is our best guess RANGE and if it’s wrong well hell we’ll throw in an error rate to cover our modeling failure. Maybe they should call it Global Sorta Warming Until We Figure Out The Correct Rate. In the meantime civilization will continue to reduce co2 by the natural order of technological advances. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Also the temperature data like the Hadcrut one is not the latest one and I already can see that Clive Best is not telling you the whole picture. Ah, so the latest one is going to be accurate going forward. Got it. Humans are making it hotter at X rate except when it’s not. Then a new and improved prediction will come out. Lather rinse repeat until a prediction comes true. ---
**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 3, 2013, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/131 "2013-09-03T07:51:56Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That’s a nice way of saying they were wrong. This is our best guess RANGE and if it’s wrong well hell we’ll throw in an error rate to cover our modeling failure. Maybe they should call it Global Sorta Warming Until We Figure Out The Correct Rate. In the meantime civilization will continue to reduce co2 by the natural order of technological advances. No, the reality is that your cite was misleading, the data reported in the cite and the scientific papers support the point that I’m making, you are wrong, and you really need to check your cites; in my search it was amusing to see him going to the Met Office site to make even more denial points, not impressed at all by him. And you are wrong still. > [@Magiver](#): > > Ah, so the latest one is going to be accurate going forward. Got it. Humans are making it hotter at X rate except when it’s not. Then a new and improved prediction will come out. Lather rinse repeat until a prediction comes true. Wrong as usual. Like I pointed out in the Evolution thread: The IPCC still got some items wrong like the actual loss of ice. But it is really silly for the contrarians to expect that finding one or a few wrong items means that we should overturn all the theory and science. It does not work that way, the problem for the contrarian is that it has to also propose an alternative that works (that is, that explains all the current warming and the effects observed). Otherwise the needed changes and modifications actually tell the scientists that the overall current theory is more robust now with the slight changes that were and will be made. And that is happening with climate science. > **[10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change](https://skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html)** > > The NOAA State of the Climate 2009 report is an excellent summary of the many lines of evidence that global warming is happening. Acknowledging the fact that the planet is warming leads to the all important question - what's causing global warming?... > [@](#): > > 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change > [@](#): > > To get a closer look, click on the pic above to get a high-rez 1024x768 version (you’re all welcome to use this graphic in your Powerpoint presentations). Or to dig even deeper, here’s more info on each indicator (including links to the original data or peer-reviewed research): > > 1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let’s look at more evidence that we’re responsible for the rise in CO2 levels. > > … > > 1. If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006). > > 2. Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what’s happening (Jones 2003). > > 3. With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003). > > 4. An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006). > \*\* > Science isn’t a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it’s like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what’s driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/132 "2013-09-03T08:16:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, the reality is that your cite was misleading, the data reported in the cite and the scientific papers support the point that I’m making There’s nothing misleading at all. It was a cite of the projections made and then the actual temperatures. The projections were wrong by quite a bit. It’s not up for debate. ---
**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 3, 2013, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/133 "2013-09-03T08:37:56Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > There’s nothing misleading at all. It was a cite of the projections made and then the actual temperatures. It used a data set that has been pointed before as one that is not showing all the warming, together with the observation that the cite I made uses 4 other data sets that are more complete and shows the actual temperature as higher than the cite you used, then it is just generous to call your cite misleading. At this point one has to conclude that in reality you do not have a clue on how to identify a bad source from a bad one. > [@Magiver](#): > > The projections were wrong by quite a bit. It’s not up for debate. Nope, the fact that you used a cite that is not published on any scientific journal and it is cited by denial places is not up for debate, and it it was wrong also. And you continue to tap dance around the item that the denial predictions were wrong and much lower that reality, it demonstrates that one should be weary of the denial sources that continue to use those few skeptical scientists that remain. Because, they are the ones that tell others that the coming warming will be at the low level of \*\*their \*\*estimates. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/134 "2013-09-03T08:38:36Z")
**GIGO** , do you have a link to a similar graph with temperatures you would consider correct? Is it totally incorrect to say that since 2000, there has been no significant warming? How do those of us on the sidelines judge which graphs are right? Is there not some objective source everyone agrees upon? ---
**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 3, 2013, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/135 "2013-09-03T08:39:46Z")
For most folks, their Greatest Good is not saving the world. It isn’t fixing world hunger; preventing the Big Comet; stamping out tobacco. The average guy’s Greatest Good is living as well as possible, and possibly extending that opportunity of living well to a close circle of family and friends. AGW alarmists behave psychologically the way conspiracists behave, and that’s why GIGOBusters and others so passionately defend every nitpick. AGW may be correct, or it may prove to be yet another over-hyped-but-sincere folly, but the average man simply does not care. To the Alarmist, this lack of concern is as significant a problem as is the lack of salvation for the masses to the Evangelist. From an Alarmist perspective, it is as if there is a giant conspiracy to demean the Message: This world is heating up, it’s your fault and it’s going to Kill Us All. Yet the average guy trudges along and wonders if he’ll be having spaghetti for dinner again. The average guy does not care about AGW if the solution involves a diminution in his opportunity to live well now. Nor does he see iconic alarmists such as Al Gore living less well. The principle of the tragedy of the commons ensures that we will never collectively sacrifice for a non-immediate generalized benefit. AGW is markedly distinct from say, cleaning up our air pollution or fixing our sewage. The putative benefit is simply too far removed from Everyman’s personal life. I am amused at the passion exhibited by Alarmists who simply cannot figure out why the average guy is not alarmed to the point of Action. For the Alarmist, the Message of AGW Salvation seems never to be as impactful as it should be, even when the IPCC is 95% confident the average man is at fault for crapping up our future. ---
**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 3, 2013, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/136 "2013-09-03T08:47:39Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > **GIGO** , do you have a link to a similar graph with temperatures you would consider correct? Is it totally incorrect to say that since 2000, there has been no significant warming? How do those of us on the sidelines judge which graphs are right? Is there not some objective source everyone agrees upon? Uh, you know, I do not feel very confident when you ignore the cites I make, it is over the \*\* Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate\*\* Quote. And the way to judge the graphs it is simply the pedantic reason that they are based on science that was peer reviewed, most of the links to the science are in blue, unlike the cite with the misleading chart that it is just an opinion, as even the Physicists that is jumping to a field that he has no expertise with admits. ---
**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 3, 2013, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/137 "2013-09-03T08:56:14Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I am amused at the passion exhibited by Alarmists who simply cannot figure out why the average guy is not alarmed to the point of Action. For the Alarmist, the Message of AGW Salvation seems never to be as impactful as it should be, even when the IPCC is 95% confident the average man is at fault for crapping up our future. Continuing to be wrong is not a thing to aspire. The average guy is telling us that there is reason to do something, it is the political leadership (virtually all Republican) that denies even the concern of the people. [http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Policy-Support-April-2013](http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Policy-Support-April-2013) > [@](#): > > • A large majority of Americans (87%, down 5 percentage points since Fall 2012) say the president and the Congress should make developing sources of clean energy a “very high” (26%), “high” (32%), or medium priority (28%). Few say it should be a low priority (12%). > > • Most Americans (70%, down 7 points since Fall 2012) say global warming should be a “very high” (16%), “high” (26%), or “medium priority” (29%) for the president and Congress. Three in ten (28%) say it should be a low priority. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/138 "2013-09-03T08:57:25Z")
**GIGO** , I went to that link but didn’t see a graph. I’m asking if you can link to a graph that is basically the same as the other one, but with more accurate data. Even if it does not contain the linear projections, just one that shows average global temperature over time would suffice. **Chief Pedant** , your comment is quite insightful. I wonder if it, aside perhaps from slight quibbling over its tone, is one of the few things both sides could agree on? Maybe the full-blown deniers won’t go for it; but among those that think there is human-caused warming going on, but disagree sharply about what if anything to do about it, I suspect there might be a meeting of minds here. The main difference being whether you are describing an alarmingly tragic failing of human nature or more of an “ah well, c’est la vie”. ETA: **GIGO** , those poll numbers don’t mean much without a signal of what kind of belt-tightening the respondents are willing to do now for a benefit that is promised to accrue decades from now to their descendants. ---
**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 3, 2013, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/139 "2013-09-03T09:08:24Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > **GIGO** , I went to that link but didn’t see a graph. I’m asking if you can link to a graph that is basically the same as the other one, but with more accurate data. Even if it does not contain the linear projections, just one that shows average global temperature over time would suffice. Actually there are 3 graphs, all referring to the 1990, 1995 and 2003 reports, what is very important is to look at the red line in all the graphs, once the temperature of 5 data sets is used one can see that the actual temperature is higher than from the cite Magiver used. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > **Chief Pedant** , your comment is quite insightful. Actually it is not, if the nitpick had been about the ice loss I would be in agreement that IPCC got something wrong, showing that what the Chief said about the nitpicking to be wrong. Besides being wrong that the “average person” does not care, even his observation of why is based on ignoring that the costs are not as huge as the Chief and others want to make it if we act now. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > ETA: **GIGO** , those poll numbers don’t mean much without a signal of what kind of belt-tightening the respondents are willing to do now for a benefit that is promised to accrue decades from now to their descendants. And you say so here is even less of a signal against it, think about 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:** [September 3, 2013, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/140 "2013-09-03T09:27:47Z")
I may add that there is a very good reason why contrarians do not want to talk much about the error on the loss of ice in the poles and glaciers, **it is because it is much worse than predicted** and it follows then that the ocean rise is also higher than expected in previous reports. I do remember that the reason why that happened was because of the \*\*conservative \*\*nature of the IPCC, very little data about the acceleration of the ice loss was available on previous reports so they punted. They did report that the lower estimate of the loss of ice and the rise of the ocean was due to the lack of reliable or enough data from the filed. They did however add that the estimates should change once the actual rate of acceleration was better understood. Once again, the point here is that one can see a lack of information from denier sources about this for a few reasons: that it does not fit the denier narrative that the IPCC is alarmist; that many scientists were correct that the ice loss was going to accelerate; and finally: the last thing deniers would report to their groupies is that the situation is worse than expected by the policy organization they are criticizing. [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=6) [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=8)