They just made up the number--it was not calculated.
And it is absurdly low--the real number is around 100 percent--they were little boys trying to sound scientifically sophisticated, unaware that 95 percent implies a real possibility that physics is just a hoax.
I should ask them if they want to buy some alchemy equipment from me.
They should all go peer review themselves, or whatever else they do wasting taxpayer money.
OMG Learn to read and work on improving your comprehension!! It says that 95% of the IPCC participants are convinced that humans are at least 51% or more responsible for GW. I think most 12 year old's could understand this BTW this has nothing to do with models, it is based on real scientific evidence, including recorded real time worldwide temperatures Future predictions will be based primarily on models. Although models are subject to errors, as time goes on more and more data goes into the models and lo and behold, they are becoming more accurate
<
Because unlike Spencer and Christy, it doesn't use misleading 5 year baselines for its graphs. And unlike Roy Spencer's blog and WUWT, its audience doesn't consist almost entirely of scientifically illiterate nitwits too stupid to read and understand a graph.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/how-r...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
Sadly, Spencer has a bit of a history of meddling with his graphs: http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2013/0...
Big Gryph says models are becoming even more accurate even though they are demonstrably becoming less accurate with time. Jim Hansen's 1981 model is more accurate than the current set of models.
Because that is where the money is.
My you have drawn the ire of the greenies. When you get this much response you know you hit a nerve. Keep up the good work.
Bullshit. It is based on observational evidence that the atmosphere and oceans have warmed, that the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, that sea level has risen, and that the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.
It is explained in their damn report.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/...
You keep claiming that you read real science articles, but there is no evidence of it.
When you read the IPCC report , what did it say?
Or didnt you bother reading it - preferring to just regurgitate other peoples opinions?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/maybe-that-ipcc-95-certainty-was-correct-after-all/
So, about 95% (actually, 96.7%) of the climate models warm faster than the observations. While they said they were 95% certain that most of the warming since the 1950s was due to human greenhouse gas emissions, what they meant to say was that they are 95% sure their climate models are warming too much.
Honest mistake. Don’t you think? Maybe?
