Claim: Claims that the IPCC does not accurately represent the views and findings of the scientists, on whose work the IPCC reports are based, are not supported by the facts.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: [...] This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: The U.S. government was the main force in forming the IPCC as an autonomous intergovernmental body in which scientists took part both as experts on the science and as official representatives of their governments, to produce reports which had the firm backing of all the leading scientists worldwide researching the topic, and which then had to gain consensus agreement from every one of the participating governments.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community: The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: The film argues that IPCC reports misrepresent the views of scientists who contribute to them through selective editorialising.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: He asserts that global warming is not supported by a significant number of climate scientists, and criticises how the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presents evidence and data, in particular citing its reliance on potentially inaccurate global climate models to make temperature projections.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: This article refers to reports produced by the IPCC.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The report endorsed findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as representing the views of the scientific community:

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The IPCC's attribution of recent global warming to human activities is a view shared by the scientific community, and is also supported by 196 other scientific organizations worldwide (see also: Scientific consensus on climate change).

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: He goes on to state that the IPCC claims were

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions: (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.