re: #356 Bagua

I

am absolutely “seriously”arguing that it is not the case that the IPCC deliberately misstated the scientific consensus to pander to politics.

Shows what you know:

climatesciencewatch.org

Before the 23-page Summary for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific assessment of climate change impacts was approved for publication on April 6, a “Final Draft” by the lead-author scientists had to be revised and approved line-by-line in negotiations with government representatives from around the world. During a lengthy and contentious session, with interventions by government representatives from the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries, numerous edits were made to the scientists’ draft prior to final joint approval by scientists and diplomats. Numerous changes appear clearly to have the effect of “toning down” the scientists’ own draft language on likely damaging impacts of climate change. Climate Science Watch has obtained a copy of the scientists’ embargoed “Confidential Draft in preparation for Final Government Review,” i.e., the unedited draft, and posts it here as a public service. (See Details)

The IPCC is very clear and very specific in defining the language they use in their report on the scientific consensus. Perhaps they will change this in the next report, but for now this is the consensus.

No it is not and no it never was. How many times do you need to be told this?

And notice that they say “very likely” which equals > 90%, they do not say the term they identify as >99%. They most definitely do not use Certain 100% as “everyone knows” that would be contrary to science.

No pontificating like you do without looking at the science is what is contrary to science.

Are you seriously arguing that when they used the term likely indicating a 66% likelihood that was also distorted by politics?

I am seriously arguing that you are being willfully ignorant. How about you take the time to address the actual science. We are certain. 100% certain that we are the primary driver, for the reasons outlined which you inexplicably refuse to acknowledge. Bringing the actual science is not a straw man, no matter how much you prevaricate and try to obfuscate.