54050
The wikipedia global warming article has this sentence.

ただし、AR4においてはそのような不確実性も考慮した上で結論を出しており、信頼性に関する情報として意見の一致度等も記載されている[11]。

My reading is thus:

However, in AR4, this uncertainty was taken into account before the
conclusions were published, and the paper describes how the opinions agree on
the information pertaining to the reliability.

Not the best translation, to be sure. But I just want to make sure I've
understood the sentence correctly. Have I got it right? Specifically, I had to
pause over 信頼性に関する情報として意見の一致度等も記載されている[11] before interpreting this part.

Edit: I'm not looking for a definitive translation, nor am I asking for
proofreading. I apologise if my poor wording suggested otherwise. I just want
to know what the sentence means exactly. (Please let me know if I've
duplicated an existing discussion or if I'm breaching the etiquette of this
forum. I'll be more careful in future if I have.) The main point I'm
struggling with is 情報として意見. It reads like opinion as information. If this is
not right, please tell me how it should read.

Thanks.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-26T01:31:27.220
54049
2017-10-26T09:55:21.930
2017-10-26T02:01:19.903
21868
21868
question
reading-comprehension
Verify meaning of sentence
意見の一致度 means "the level of agreement/concordance of opinions (from various
experts/sources)." 度 is _degree_ , _level_ , _index_ , etc. 信頼性に関する情報として ("as
information regarding reliability") adverbially modifies 記載されている. A low level
of agreement means there are different opinions and the information may be
unreliable. 意見の一致度 is often assessed quantitatively using statistical methods
(see [Inter-rater reliability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-
rater_reliability)), but AR4 is treating this idea rather qualitatively. See
page 27 of the full report available
[here](https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm):

> **Treatment of uncertainty**  
>  Where uncertainty is assessed qualitatively, it is characterised by
> providing a relative sense of the amount and quality of evidence (that is,
> information from theory, observations or models indicating whether a belief
> or proposition is true or valid) and the **degree of agreement (that is, the
> level of concurrence in the literature on a particular finding)**. This
> approach is used by WG III through a series of self-explanatory terms such
> as: _high agreement_ , _much evidence_ ; _high agreement_ , _medium
> evidence_ ; _medium agreement_ , _medium evidence_ ; etc.

I think you have correctly understood the remaining part.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-26T02:16:13.387
54050
2017-10-26T09:55:21.930
2017-10-26T09:55:21.930
5010
5010
54049
answer