re: #305 recusancy

Are you seriously arguing this because the panel put in the word “likely”. As Ludwig said, everyone knows it was because of political lobbying by the countries involved.

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

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. 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.

In IPCC statements “most “ means greater than 50%, “likely” means at least a 66% likelihood, and “very likely” means at least a 90% likelihood.

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

The IPCC also states The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%. This is highly supportive of the theory that man is causing the global warming that has been observed, it is not however 100% certainty.