Desrtopa said:

while anthropogenic global warming doesn't yet have the same sort of degree of evidence as, say, evolution, I think that an assignment of about 70% probability represents either critical underconfidence or astonishingly low levels of familiarity with the data.

ArisKatsaris said:

I suspect that people displaying >95% certainty about AGW aren't much more "familiar with the data" than the people who display less certainty

The problem with these arguments is that you need to 1. know the data 2. know how other people would interpret it , because with just 1. you'll end up comparing your probability assignments with others', and might perhaps mistake into thinking that their deviation from your estimation is due to lack of access to the data and/or understanding over it...... ........unless you're comparing it to what your idea of some consensus is.

...Meanwhile I don't know either so just making a superficial observation, while not knowing which one of you knows which things here.