Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoRight (talk | contribs) at 01:54, 30 December 2009 (→Including criticism from NIPCC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 31, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

International relations: United Nations B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Environment B‑class

This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Histinfo

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

Bias to overstate "dangers" and to ignore science

Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol assert that most scientists involved in climate research believe that the IPCC reports accurately summarize the state of knowledge, but several scientists have objected publicly to this assertion: Keith Shine, Frederick Seitz, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, etc.

But the current version of the article passes on this assertion as if it were a fact - rather than attributing this POV to its advocates. --Uncle Ed 10:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ed, You can easily agree with the IPCC report - and still disagree whether the Kyoto protocol is appropriate or not. They are two different kinds of animals - one is a scientific assessment of current knowledge - and the other is a particular political implementation of what some feel is the consequence of the scientific knowledge. One belongs in the scientific sphere - and the other is entirely in the political arena. --Kim D. Petersen 11:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, You are missing the point of what Ed means. Regarding Kyoto, he wasn't commenting on its appropriateness or validity. Rephrasing Ed's point: There are scientists who disagree with the IPCC's report, even some of those who were part of the research team. Supporters of Kyoto say all scientists agree. By the way temp rose first, then CO2. 68.180.38.31 (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of your premises are wrong to an extent. There are very few scientists who disagree with the IPCC report, and even fewer disagree that are part of it (to my knowledge one to two). As for supporters of the Kyoto protocol claiming that all scientists agree is completely wrong. They don't. They claim a consensus (which is entirely correct), but a scientific consensus does not mean unanimity. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The view the IPCC is biased towards alarmism is well-established in WP:RS literature. It is the reason the NIPCC was formed. I have included a short paragraph on the IPCC's bias towards alarmism, including criticisms by Pielke and the Holland peer-reviewed paper in Energy and Environment. What I have written could be improved because many scientists have complained about the alarmism. The fact the article has nothing on this before I got here is evidence the editors of the article are not being NPOV. RonCram (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Theres just a couple of problems with your response. A) NIPCC is not peer-reviewed and not a WP:RS. B) E&E is not a WP:RS and finally C) using Pielke in the way you do is WP:UNDUE towards a single point of view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All that is true, but there is another problem: Rons sources don't support his assertions. There is nothing in the Holland quote to support alarmism (the Holland quote *is* a stupid strawman: I fully support the idea that the IPCC isn't a monopoly authority: the papers it refs exist, after all). Neother does the first Peilke ref; I didn't bother check the rest (blog postings saying "you should have cited *my* paper, waaaah, aren't useful sources for anything, really) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

Key issues

• Short dot points need to be incorporated into a main body of prose which flows better. Some short sections should be merged
• References are missing in places
• Full ref info is not filled in some places and not consistently after the punctuation mark. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• • since there has not been much work on this article in the past 9 days, I have failed its GAC. All the best with further imporvements. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the section Debate over Climate Change 1995 you provided biased and incomplete presentation of facts. You omitted link towards Seitz' article in WSJ http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm. Further, it would be interesting to insert some of the sentences from the original report and deletions and corrections made by Santer in the final version. Reading current version of this section one hardly can imagine what was the real big deal with that report? Here you can find pretty extensive list of Santer's deletions and correction: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/reply_to_john_houghton.pdf.

Probably it would be most informative to say that following scientific sentences agreed upon previously by scientists were omitted from the final version by Santer:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases"

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part to anthropogenic causes."

"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

--Djovani 11:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The two references you cite cannot be considered reliable sources by even the wildest exercise of imagination. Raymond Arritt 12:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

IPCC Lead authors

The Category:IPCC lead authors is used to identify the lead authors of the IPCC reports but is currently being considered for deletion at: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 8. The discussion is still open for comments and hasn't been decided yet, but should this come to pass, I was wondering whether this information should be held as a list on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report or could it fit on its own list page, rather like: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Preferences? (Please reply at Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) Ephebi 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

These articles related to global change are a mess

The section title says it all. When one reads articles related to global change on Misplaced Pages he finds a redundant mess of opinions which leaves the reader confused, and witha slight sensation that the issue is not a scientific, but a political one. Which is exactly what DETRACTORS of the issue want: to degrade it from a risk worth to be studied and tackled till there's time to avoid disaster to a Communist mental jerkoff, forgive the profanity.

Instead of reporting any single word from anyone connected, those who carry the burden of editing these articles should carefully concentrate on solid facts. I'm not a stupd and know even too well that often science becomes matter of opinion or dogma (see the Big Bang and black holes mantra in cosmology, which is actually influenced by a Western monotheistic religious view), but this issue has to do with human basic survival. Global warming is only a piece of a more genral debate about a simple concept: we have only one Earth and cannot waste it. Resources are not infinite, and they'll soon finish if we go along this way still for some DECADES. And that's all. That's not ideology. That's mathematics.

User:Basil II 12:59, 12 October 2007 (CET)

I have to agree. Work needs to be done on these articles.141.155.133.231 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Basil have you considered the simplest solution? Maybe this mess is exactly what looks like? Have you considered the possibility that this article is entirely accurate when describing a redundant, non-scientific political mess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.232.174 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. And I concluded as above, that SOMEONE wants the matter to appear in that (dim) light. I'm not THAT stupid, and do not believe anything that is said easily, even in regards to global warming.

User:Basil II 12:59, 12 October 2007 (CET)

"this issue has to do with human basic survival..." This is not a place for world crusades whereupon you manipulate these articles to influence people with your opinions. This is an encyclopedia that ideally should state facts from a neutral standpoint. The one place where a reader can trust the source to have a neutral viewpoint (non-argumentative or opinionated bias). You clearly have a viewpoint, and your intent for editing these article is not for improvement content/quality of the article itself but rather for what you perceive to be "human basic survival". Please do not edit this article with such intentions in mind. --99.253.227.126 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Category

Is there a policy (or convention) on adding organizations as Category:Nobel Peace Prize laureates? That should be added when someone gets around to cleaning up the article. tdmg 19:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have added it to the category. And... CONGRATULATIONS IGPCC. On the other hand, this would be a featured article.--HybridBoy 05:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

better definition of 'conservative'?

The article currrently states: ' A "conservative" bias in the sense of right-wing, pro-corporate leanings and influences has been documented by the release of a famous memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration ' ... which causes more problems than it solves. In today's world, being a right wing organisation/political party, or being a corporation, or being a Conservative (with a capital C) can still be compatible with supporting the IPCC and taking action against climate change. Anyone suggestions for some better wording? Ephebi 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded and given it a POV-ectomy (that section in general is not particularly well written). An important principle of clear writing is not to use the same word in two different senses, so let's restrict "conservative" to the meaning of scientifically conservative; i.e., non-speculative. Raymond Arritt 16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

More on History

The article is lacking much about the Panel history. For example, who was the Chair back in 1988?--Connection 09:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

House of Lords report

The section on 'Criticisms of the IPCC' and 'IPCC process' contains a quote from a report described as "UK House of Lords Science and Economic Analysis and Report on IPCC for the G-8 Summit". Where does this name come from? According to the PDF, the report was produced by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee, and is called 'The Economics of Climate Change'. I read the report some time ago, but I can't remember the 2005 G-8 summit being mentioned.Enescot 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Go for the title in the report itself William M. Connolley 09:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral???

The language of the opening sentance reeks of bias:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a puppet body for Green campaigners, masquerading as a group tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity."

Shouldn't this be edited into more neutral language? 63.70.91.229 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I took out:

Roger A. Pielke Sr. also suggests that the IPCC process, under its current structure, constitutes a conflict of interest : "The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow. (...) Assessment Committees should not be an opportunity for members to highlight their own research and that which supports their personal scientific conclusions without properly placing into perspective the diversity found in the peer literature."

because (a) its nonsense and (b) as it itself admits, this is a very minority POV. Its nonsense because everyone else recognises the obvious - that you can't possibly have people making the report who don't know whats going on; and those are the people doing the research William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What you say may be true, but that does not mean that there is no conflict of interest worthy of note. Pielke also suggests solutions to this. As for the notability issue, I find what you say interesting since Real Climate itself discussed the matter, according to Mr. Pielke :

"Real Climate has sought to argue that the IPCC process is transparent (see). They clearly contradict themselves in their post, however, where they write

Who is Mr Pielke? But RP Sr isn't beyond misrepresenting people, so you need to find and verify the RC discussion before relying on it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

“The authors of the report used the input from the reviewers to improve the report. In some cases, the authors may disagree with the comments - after all, it is them who are the authors of the report; not the reviewers.”

Oh you have, good. Don't see the promised COI stuff though William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This means that the authors are gatekeepers who can prevent alternative perspectives from being presented. They did exercise that power in preparing the 2007 (and earlier) IPCC Reports. The conflcit of interest reported on in the current Climate Science weblog can be shown clearly in this admission from Real Climate."

Of course the authors have to judge the comments. Who else could? RP is just pushing his POV here, and trying/failing to enlist RC William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No matter what RC said; I am not sure that I agree with how RP interprets RC's comments about this. But the main point is that you seem to strongly believe that because it is the authors' necessary role to review comments they are therefore exempt from any COI situation, whereas this is fallacious. The fact that this is their role does not mean that they are not in a COI at the same time. I think RP has a point regarding this situation. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, only pointing out that this is a minority RP view that this is something to be complained of, and his quote admits it. It needs to be a more general complaint to be notable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote, you are "discussed" on Pielke's site today (about the 2003 heat wave)... --Childhood's End (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeees I know, see above William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry about it - hoped the two sides could agree for once... :) --Childhood's End (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Conservative?

Oops, I rolledbacks Mirkin Mans change - apologies, wrong button. But I meant to revert it - it needs some word, like conservative, to indicate the direction William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Objectivity" or "Objectivity and bias"? Thus criticisms that it either underestimates, or overestimates, effects can both be recorded under this heading. Ephebi (talk) (Though many articles group all such things under the single heading of "Criticism") 08:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

2500 Scientists

Does anyone have a list of the 2500 scientists mentioned in the IPCC report? Vegasprof (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For the AR4, Working Group I contributors are here; Working Group II contributors are here; and Worjing Group III contributors are here. I don't have lists of contributors for previous reports handy, but they doubtless exist somewhere. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should check if the names are legit. Would you volunteer? ;) Brusegadi (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot of names. But I don't see any list with close to 2500 names. This is my first look at any details of the IPCC report, so I haven't figured out the structure yet. Is there some sort of overview that explains how it was put together? Vegasprof (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The main IPCC site is http://www.ipcc.ch. Look around until you find what you need. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The most relevant thing I could find is here, though that is probably not what you're looking for. (P.S. the number of contributors listed probably around 1,500-2,000 based on rough extrapolation.) ~ UBeR (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Amount of Scientists

I thought that most of those 3,000 weren't scientists. Also it should be mentioned that only 52 of the IPCC scientists decided that Global Warming was likely to be caused by us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.152.172 (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

History

Might I suggest a "History" section to this article?12.26.68.146 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Brusegadi (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Alarmist bias of IPCC reports

A glaring weakness of the article at present is the absence of any discussion of the alarmist bias of the IPCC reports. The alarmism has been criticized by a large number of scientists, yet the article reads as if the only criticism is that the IPCC has been too conservative in its estimates. Below is a paragraph I contributed that introduces the topic. It is far from perfect and statements by many other scientists could be added to this paragraph. But we need to discuss this on the Talk page has my contribution has been deleted without any effort to make it better.

===Alarmist bias of IPCC reports===

Several climatologists have criticized the IPCC for bias. Roger Pielke has been critical of the IPCC's selection of scientific papers,, specifically regarding its assessment of near surface temperature trends. Pielke has also been critical of the conflict of interest in the IPCC assessment process.

In a peer-reviewed paper, David Holland "concluded that the IPCC has neither the structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science. Suggestions are made as to how the IPCC could improve its procedures towards producing reports and recommendations that are more scientifically sound.

References

Please discuss this below and make suggestions regarding other scientists who agree. For example, Christopher Landsea should probably be in this section rather than having his own section. I'm sure there are others.RonCram (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with your section is that its basically a synthesis/original research of unrelated critique, that has a heavy emphasis on a specific scientist - who is basically saying: "They should have used my research". And finally of course that you use un-reliable sources such as the E&E paper. (which according to WMC - you've also misinterpreted (see top discussion)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that your many references to Pielke, doesn't in any way or form support the wording "alarmist". Which makes it WP:POV on top of all the other things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron - I'm sure you didn't like the answers you got above, but you won't get away with just ignoring them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim, Roger Pielke and Dallas Staley are not one person. They have more specifics on IPCC bias than most of the items I have seen written. I do not see how ignoring them helps the article. It seems to me the best way to address any concerns regarding WP:UNDUE is to include crticisms from a greater number of scientists and by adding the Christopher Landsea section into this section. Pielke and Staley are not writing just about the Pielke articles that have been ignored by the IPCC. If you actually read the links, you will see articles by a number of other scientists were ignored because the articles did not reinforce the alarmist conclusions of the IPCC. You claim E&E is not a reliable source, but that is wishful thinking on your part. E&E is a peer-reviewed journal. Saying it is not peer-reviewed or not reliable could put Misplaced Pages in danger of a lawsuit. William, you may not like the Holland quote but his criticism is there because the IPCC is drawing conclusions that are not supported by the science. Other scientists can be added to this list and given time they will be. Ignoring the criticism of IPCC alarmism will not make it go away. RonCram (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron, you're not listening. Let me try again: even in the unlikely event of anyone accepting E&E as an RS, you quote still doesn't support alarmism. Its about IPCC processes. It could just as easily support the idea that IPCC is too conservative. On the other topic, your assertion that E&E is peer reviewed is unsupported. I don't believe it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron, we are all in danger of a lawsuit for everything we do or don't. That shouldn't keep us from telling the truth. E&E is not a reliable source, and its not peer-reviewed as that term in normally understood. The editor in chief has admitted that she is "following political agenda -- a bit, anyway" - a statement that I can only shake my head at. Pielke (jr.) has publicly stated that had he regretted publishing there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

William, E&E is peer-reviewed. I have exchanged emails with the editor. Whether you believe it or not does not really matter. The journal claims to be peer-reviewed and there is no evidence to the contrary. Regarding Holland, perhaps you have not read him. He is complaining about processes because the IPCC is only summarizing the alarmist literature. Your comment is nothing but a stalling tactic. Stephan, I agree that her statement was not wise but that does not change the fact it is peer-reviewed. It seems to me her greatest fault may be that she seeks out reviewers who may be favorable to a particular article. That is not uncommon in climate science. RonCram (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Holland paper is available here in its enttirety. RonCram (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

More evidence of IPCC alarmism

The Washington Times has an interesting commentary piece regarding IPCC alarmism. The author comments on the "Hockey Stick" controversy and the forecasting practices of the IPCC. J. Scott Armstrong is a leading thinker in scientific forecasting and his review of IPCC practices shows they violated many forecasting principles. RonCram (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

JSA is a self-publicist, for sure. The article is the same old recycled junk William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

JSA is a leading thinker in this field, involved with several scientific journals on forecasting. The fact the IPCC did not even review the principles they used to determine if they were doing it right is reminiscent of Michael Mann innovating statistical methods without checking with any statisticians to see if he was correct. He wasn't. Whether you like the writings of JSA or not is really not the point. The point is the IPCC has violated these forecasting principles to further their alarmism. RonCram (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron, you're frothing again. Calm down William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

William, you are being insulting again. Try to deal with the facts rather than making personal attacks. RonCram (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nir Shaviv writes an interesting piece on IPCC bias regarding climate sensitivity here. RonCram (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fred Singer has a presentation in which he claims "the IPCC fails to consider important scientific issues - any one of which would upset its major conclusion that 'most' warming is 'very likely' human caused." It is very clear that Singer believes the IPCC is ignoring evidence so it can be alarmist. RonCram (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The BBC defends the IPCC against the charge of bias

Here is another interesting article. The author, Richard Black, concludes that the charge of bias against the IPCC is unwarranted, however, the article proves that the charge of bias is commonly known. Black ignores the blog postings of Pielke, the audit by Armstrong, the resignation of Landsea and many other facts in evidence. But at least Black proves the charge of bias is commonly expressed by skeptics. RonCram (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep he says that its the "vociferous community of climate sceptics". And he also shows us that most of the claims are unfounded. But you still haven't shown us how its not undue weight to the opinion of a small group, which do not even agree on what the bias is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim, he does not show the claims of Pielke, Armstrong, Landsea and others are unfounded. He just does not deal with them. He dismisses the claim of Reid Bryson saying only that Bryson did not have the documents needed to investigate further. I do not understand how you can consider these scientists as WP:FRINGE. It is a ridiculous position. Pielke is an ISI highly cited researcher. Bryson is the father of modern climatology. What makes you think they have to "agree" on the exact bias? The IPCC is capable of having many biases. Experts are more likely to see and care about biases more closely related to their expertise. For example, Landsea is going to care about hurricanes more than Armstrong does.RonCram (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron, the trouble is that you are trying to synthesize individual opinions, into something that isn't supported. Bryson and Pielke do not agree on this. Landsea complained not about the IPCC - but about Trenberth, and guess which POV was the dominating one in the AR4 - Trenberth's or Landsea's? Hint: it wasn't Trenberth. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim, do you really want to have a separate section for each scientist's criticism? That does not make any sense to me. Regarding Trenberth and Landsea, Landsea resigned from the IPCC because of Trenberth. Trenberth continued to hold his position with the IPCC. It is possible the IPCC toned down their alarmism on this point, (after all, the science was on Landsea's side) but that hardly precludes criticism of the IPCC. It is rather a good illustration of how far the IPCC will go to support their agenda even when it goes against the science. The article is lacking when it comes to this point. It reads as if it was written by a PR firm instead of being an objective account. RonCram (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Republicans charge the IPCC with bias

I realize this is a political document and not the work of scientists but I think it makes some good points. One of the interesting sources this document references is an opinion piece by Ian Castles titled "The role of the IPCC is to assess climate change not advocate Kyoto." Castles writes: "The IPCC's failure to consider the Hansen "alternative scenario" and its dismissal of the Castles and Henderson critique are disturbing signs that the Panel's role in the assessment of the science of climate change has now become subservient to its role in supporting a specific policy agenda." In most cases, that policy agenda means they the IPCC has to hype the science and threat of warming in order to spur people and governments to action. RonCram (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Pielke's charge of IPCC bias

Based on the comments of William Connolley and Kim above, they obviously would like readers to believe Pielke's criticism of the IPCC was because the IPCC did not promote their scientific articles. Not true. Pielke and Dallas Staley published a list of scientific papers which would have toned down the IPCC alarmism if they had been considered. Some of the papers were authored by Pielke, but others were authored by JE Gonzalez, RC Hale, JF He, CR Holder, KG Hubbard, YK Lim, R Mahmood, and RS Vose - among others. Connolley's comments were apparently intended to mislead. Pielke was not just complaining about his papers being ignored. He was complaining about papers being ignored about two issues: land use/land cover changes being a big driver of recent warming and problems with the surface temperature record. If the IPCC had honestly surveyed the scientific literature, the forecast of future warming would have been less and the uncertainty would have been greater. It is important for editors to read the linked web postings and read it for themselves rather than take Connolley's word on anything. RonCram (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Pielke has repeatedly criticized the IPCC for concentrating on global causes and effects, and to pay too little attention to local ones. As far as I know, he has never claimed the IPCC overestimates global effects. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, it is quite clear Pielke believes the surface temp record has a strong warming bias that exaggerates the climate trend. AFAIK, Pielke has not attempted to quantify the non-climatic warming in the temp record, but it is very clear he believes it is present. This is why Pielke supports the work of Anthony Watts, so the artificial warming can be quantified. Pielke also attributes much of the warming to land use/ land cover changes instead of rising CO2. Land use/ land cover changes do not have a "tipping point," one of the favorite excuses of the IPCC for their alarmist forecasts. Without positive feedbacks leading to a "tipping point," most mainstream scientists would put climate sensitivity at about 1 degree C for double CO2. One degree would certainly not cause melting of the polar ice caps or catastrophic sea level rise. RonCram (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is biased

One of the best examples of the bias of this article is the section "Outdatedness of reports." While this is certainly an important issue, as it stands the article makes it sound as though the IPCC forecasts are too conservative and action needs to be taken more quickly. Not true. Because the cutoff for WG1 was in July 2006, the IPCC was not able to consider a number of important peer-reviewed articles published in 2007. These include the article by Roy Spencer on the negative feedback he and his team observed over the tropics that confirmed the "Infrared Iris Hyopthesis" of Richard Lindzen. It also includes the paper by Petr Chylek showing that climate sensitivity to aerosols and CO2 were dramatically overestimated in the past. Most importantly, the paper by Stephen E. Schwartz showing the climate sensitivity to CO2 was only about 1/3 of that estimated by the IPCC. Schwartz is still concerned about global warming but admits "we have time now." Instead of discussing these scientific papers, the article discusses the lack of polar ice. The article does not point out that this has happened twice before - in 1905 and 1944 - and that the ice came back promptly both times. Neither does the article point out that the ice has reformed (just like it did in 1906 and 1945). Instead the article quotes Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, making another alarmist statement that promotes policy - something that is strictly contrary to the charter of the IPCC. RonCram (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron, you're soapboxing again. The Schwartz paper is wrong and so is the rest of your stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not soapboxing, I am pointing out the bias of this article. Schwartz is not wrong, Annan is wrong. The work of Schwartz has been partially confirmed by the Chylek paper which shows both aerosols and CO2 have been given too much credit. Annan is still using assumptions that have been proven wrong. The main point is that observers on both sides are unhappy with the fact IPCC cutoff date was July 2006. Skeptics will point out that the majority of peer-reviewed science since then supports the skeptics. That is why Fred Singer started the NIPCC. But this article does not mention the NIPCC or the fact scientists are upset by the exaggerated alarmism of the IPCC. RonCram (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No-one, not even you, is interested in the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, as is evidenced by the state of its text William M. Connolley (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I spend quite a bit of time on the text prior to it being merged into the Singer page. At the time it was merged, it was a pretty decent article - much different than the article most of the people voted against. Someday I will find some time to improve this article and others. But the telling point here is that no one of the usual editors of this article is doing anything to make this article less biased. RonCram (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Earth

Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --Iwilleditu —Preceding comment was added at 15:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a format quibble

As I understand it, reverse chronological order is not the desired format on Misplaced Pages. Wouldn't changing the order of the sections to cover the events in the order they happened be best? -RunningOnBrains 13:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I do not see a reason at all to use this reverse order. Velle (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

IPCC is a political body that advocates political change

I edited the lead sentence to reflect IPCC's political nature. The language I used was very moderate and retained the focus that IPCC's work arises out of the evaluation of science. No matter - It was reverted without any discussion. I'd like to ask for that discussion now.

My change read, "The 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change' ('IPCC') is a political body tasked with the scientific issue of evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity." Stephan Shulz reverted to the previous sentence: "The 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change' ('IPCC') is a scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity."

That IPCC is a political body is evident from the sentences in the next paragraph that say, "The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol." --Steve (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. However, the IPCC is a scientific, not a political body. It does not perform its own original research, but then very few scientific organizations do - individual scientists and institutes do. The IPCC does perform a comprehensive survey, evaluation and integration of the published research. It is composed of scientists, not politicians, and it works on scientific principles. And it defines itself as a scientific body: "The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The IPCC is a scientific body: the information it provides with its reports is based on scientific evidence and reflects existing viewpoints within the scientific community.". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't my opinion, or anyone's opinion - it's simple fact. Yes, it performs scientific functions, but for political purposes as an arm of a political entity. Treaties are political results, brought into existence by political bodies. I'm not saying IPCC doesn't work to organize scientific research, or to summarize it, but that there are also political people as well as scientists. It gives a false impression to call it ONLY a scientific body since the scientific efforts are to address political purposes. --Steve (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

First, your edit did not reflect this more nuanced position. But secondly, it still misrepresents the IPCC. The reports are produced by scientists. They are accepted by governments and hence politicians, but not created by them. Check the IPCC mandate: "IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio-economic factors." Every bit of information can be used or abused for a political point - that does not make the originator of that information political. The IPCC contributors are not paid by the IPCC or the UN, nor, normally, directly by governments (in fact, they are usually not paid at all specifically for their work for the IPCC, but perform it as part of their normal academic duties). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "scientific intergovernmental body". I know that's using intergovernmental a bit repetitively, and it's the same words used by the IPCC (Right under "Who we are" on this page), but I think it gets the points across quite clearly. The IPCC is not just a scientific body, it's also related to governments (like national academies are not just scientific bodies; they are also advisory bodies). I agree that "political" isn't quite right, because it's a very general term. Also, the IPCC says that it's supposed to be "neutral with respect to policy", so, as long as that's actually true (which, as far as I can tell, it is), then the IPCC doesn't make treaties; it just provides reviews for an international political process to use to make policies. The IPCC itself does not make or support specific policies, which is implied by the term "political". - Enuja (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

From the IPCC's own website. "Its constituency is made of : The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved.".

Governments are political, are they not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.98.17 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Er no. The UN is not a government - instead national governments of all persuasions give a mandate for the various bodies to operate. FYI the IPCC is a subsidiary body to these, just as the UNFCCC is a treaty, serviced by a secretariat. Ephebi (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

New criticism of the IPCC

New York University Law School blog claims the IPCC fails to meet the standards of the Global Administrative Law project. As an agency of the UN that advises governments on environmental regulations and treaties, the work of the IPCC falls into area of global administrative law. While the criticism of the IPCC is obviously relevant and well-sourced, the entry I wrote is admittedly rushed. Here is the entry as I originally wrote it. If you can make it better, please do.RonCram (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Failure to meet standards of Global Administrative Law project

A blog posting published by the Institute for International Law and Justice at New York University School of Law called attention to several failures of the IPCC to uphold standards of the Global Administrative Law project. The author claims the IPCC reports failed on the standards in three major areas: transparency (the IPCC has not enforced its own rules regarding the sharing of research data, methods and results), participation (IPCC scientists did not consult with proper statistical experts) and review (standard academic review process is inadequate when massive amounts of public monies and lives are at stake).

...and I've reverted this. This is a blog post, it is factually wrong, and it just recapitulates (without actually supporting) a small part of the Wegeman report. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

...I am the author of the blog post in question, and have to say that I think it entirely correct that the reference to my post has been removed. As rightly pointed out, I seek neither to formulate new criticisms of the IPCC, nor to endorse any of the existing ones; rather, it was to illustrate the increasing demand for administrative law-type mechanisms and safeguards (transparency, participation, review) throughout global governance (a recurring theme in almost all of the other posts on the blog). In this regard, I certainly did not mean to endorse the Wegeman report - and I apologise if I didn't make that clear enough - but rather to reframe its recommendations in the light of the project with which I am involved, on the emergence of global administrative law.

The key thing to realise here is that this project is about identifying the emergence of something that can be called global administrative law, proposing this as a new field for theory and practice. It is still - very much - in its infancy, and so it would be wrong to conclude, on the basis of the Wegeman report, that the IPCC did not comply with the standards of global administrative law. Rather, I sought to present the report as evidence that demand for such a law was increasing; nothing more. I will put up another post clarifying this today.

Mr. Schulz, if you'd be good enough to point out the factual inaccuracies in the post, I'd be delighted to correct them immediately. Euan MacDonald

Sure. The one thing that stuck out to me immediately was the claim that the Wegeman study was commissioned by the US Congress, when it was actually commissioned by Joe Barton. While it is unclear in which capacity he acted, he certainly did not represent Congress, and, as far as I can tell, not even his committee. And "Stephan" is fine ("Mr. Schulz", on the other hand, is another error ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, as someone who does not live in the US, you may not be familiar with our terminology. Joe Barton was chairman of the Congressional Committee which commissioned the Wegman Report. Congress gives committee chairman the power and budget to commission these studies. In common usage, when the chairman of a committee, acting on his authority as chairman, commissions a study - it is said to be done by Congress. Since Wegman was not paid out of Barton's personal check book, it would be a mistake to say Joe Barton commissioned the study. This is not an error. RonCram (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ron, as far as I can make out, Barton did not act in his role as committee chairman, and he certainly did not use congress funds. See : "committee staff informally sought advice from independent statisticians" and "Dr. Edward Wegman agreed to independently assess the data on a pro bono basis" (my emphasis). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is indeed wrong - and contradicted by the Wegman report itself - lets quote (page 7, 2nd paragraph, last sentence):

The Committee was organized with our own initiative as a pro bono committee.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected - to a point. Usually a congressional committee will commission a study and pay out of its own budget. Why that was not done in this case, I do not know. Perhaps Wegman wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety and refused money for that reason. The pdf linked by Kim shows the Wegman Report was a pro bono study. On that point I stand corrected. However, it is clear that Joe Barton acted in his role as committee chairman and Wegman clearly states the study was requested by the "Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations." (see page 2) These men were not acting as private citizens but in their role as committee chairmen. Also, Wegman states:To this end, Committee staff asked for advice as to the validity of the complaints of McIntyre and McKitrick and related implications. (see page 7). Congressional committee staff would not be acting unless it was on behalf of the committee's work. Indeed, Wegman testified before the committee as well as providing this report. There is really no doubt about the fact the US Congress requested this study. RonCram (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is no reason to assume that the study was commissioned "by Congress". The "informally" even in Barton's own description should be a strong hint. How Wegeman describes Barton has no bearing on how he was recruited. There are many possible reasons why Barton would prefer an informal approach. A formal commissioning would require at least a discussion and very possibly a majority in the committee. It would also possibly limit Barton's choice of reviewer. It's quite possible that the committee would have rejected a further study, as congress had already commissioned the much more comprehensive (and competent) US National Academy/NCR study on essentially the same topic. Also, if you leave a paper trail, its much harder to ignore unfavorable results. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, hogwash. Your statement is so full of inaccuracies it is difficult to know where to begin. Barton may have chosen the word "informally" for a great many reasons, perhaps just to refer to the fact Wegman had refused compensation. You have built an entire straw man out of your misunderstanding of this one word you describe as a "hint." You use the term "Barton's choice of reviewer" as if the choice was Barton's alone and as if Wegman is not up to the task. Not true. Congressional committee staff located Wegman (see page 7 of Wegman's Report). Edward Wegman is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association and chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. He is one of the preeminent statisticians in this country. Wegman's Report was co-authored by David Scott of Rice University and Yasmin Said of Johns Hopkins University. You only embarrass yourself when you try to denigrate the credentials of these authors. I do not understand why defenders of Mann want to bring up the NAS Report. People who have actually read the NAS report know that it does not help Mann at all. The NAS panel had some good scientists on it, but the statisticians (while competent) were not of the same reputation as Wegman. For example, I believe the NAS panel looked to William "Matt" Briggs and one other statistician to assess the statistical elements in MBH9x. While Matt Briggs is very bright (far out of my league), he is much younger than Wegman and has not developed the sterling national reputation in statistics that Ed Wegman has. Also, the NAS panel was looking at a variety of issues and not just statistical ones. For that reason the NAS panel did not look into McIntyre's claim that Mann's method created a hockey stick from trendless red noise. Wegman did look into this issue and agreed with McIntyre (as Von Storch and Zorita did later). Wegman was asked to look only at the statistical issues and the NAS panel looked at other issues including the use of strip bark bristlecone pine trees. The NAS panel agreed with McIntyre that these trees are not temperature proxies and should not have been used. The NAS study was much more polite to Mann than Wegman but Gerry North is on record saying the NAS panel essentially agreed with the Wegman report. RonCram (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. MacDonald, I appreciate the fact the concept of Global Administrative Law is new. In the entry, I refer to it as a "project." I also agree that the IPCC's work would fall under the GAL concept because it advises governments on environmental regulations and treaties. Your criticisms of the IPCC are not new, nor is their accuracy in doubt. What is new is the application to Global Administrative Law, a concept I - and I think many Misplaced Pages readers - would find interesting. The entry in this article regarding your blog posting would only draw more attention to the work of the project, so I am uncertain why you do not want to see this. Your criticism has obvious relevance to this article. RonCram (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for these responses. Stephan, I'll look into that issue and make the necessary changes. As to the other issue, while I think the issue of how administrative law mechanisms have been - and should be - applied to global bodies such as the IPCC is of real interest, and I very much appreciate the effort to bring the Project to a wider public, my concern in having my post included here would be that it might be misleading: I have not done the research necessary to know whether the IPCC meets its own (or any desired) level of transparency and review, and including my post here might suggest that I was endorsing these criticisms when all I have sought to do is frame them in terms of an emerging demand for a global administrative law. In this sense, the accuracy of the Report's criticisms was not important in my post - simply the fact that the application of administrative law mechanisms to a global body was being proposed. I hope that this clarifies the matter.128.122.192.126 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Euan MacDonald

NOBEL PRIZE

As per the templates provided by wikipedia, the icon next to the panel's name should not be there! If you try to argue that some other Nobel Peace Laureates have one, yes i know but all of the other nobel laureates do not have this icon next to the name instead the icon should be placed under the Awards section of the infobox as per wikipedia templates. Encyclopedias need consistency. The removal of the icon should not be considered VANDALISM.
Someone111111 (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As said to you before - there is consistency on Nobel Peace prize recipients. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - it shouldn't be reverted as VANDALISM or even as vandalism, and it wasn't. It was reverted, by me, for being an unexplained and unnecessary change. If you want to provide a cogent reason for it to be removed, please do. Something about templates is unlikely to impress, though William M. Connolley (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that there isn't such a "requirement" on template:infobox organization. It seems that the requirement only exists on template:infobox scientist, and recent discussions on the talk page there, as well as on MoS do not indicate that there is such a requirement or consensus.

I first thought it might have been a problem with the h-card generation, but this seems not to be the case. So why the scientist template has that restriction is a mystery. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming and the Second Law

As a thermographer who has been interested in the dynamics of Radiative Forcing as a model for anthropogenic changes in the Earth's climate, I have, needless to say, had a lot of questions concerning this model and its application. On the Global Warming discussion page I had posted thermographs which seemed to me to dispute the whole concept of forcing as a power to affect the climate. They were erased by the editors of that page.

I have reviewed the latest report, in specific, the chapter on Radiative Forcing several times and have found no reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics within this publication or its appendices.

It would seem to me that a model used to construct a theoretical description of the mechanism which is inherent to the theory of Global Warming would have to have some mention of the Law since the effects of this Law on the atmosphere as well as on Radiative Forcing are so multifaceted. These are:

1) The Second law governs the "homogenization" of constituent gases. Because the gases are mixed they will have the same relative temperature.

2) The Second Law states that as pressure on a gas falls so will temperature. Therefore as altitude is increased the temperature falls and as it falls it would run into the last effect.

3) The Second Law states that heat will radiate from warm to cold. Always

I still believe that I have given more data with one thermograph than is quantifiable from the so called Radiative Forcing model. What I see in my thermal camera is not what the model would propose, but what I see in my thermal camera follows the Second Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotflashhome (talk • contribs) 17:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1. ^ MacDonald, Euan (2008), GAL and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |publication= ignored (help)
2. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
3. http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html

Your misunderstanding of the Second Law has been several time refuted by now. In short, you are wrong. Your thermographs themselves are proof of energy radiating from a colder atmosphere to a warmer camera. "Radiative forcing" is not a mechanism, but rather a way of describing the difference between in- and outgoing radiation. The mechanism responsible for the greenhouse effect is absorption and random re-radiation of infrared emissions. This is not remotely controversial. This is also the wrong article - if anywhere, I would recommend greenhouse effect, but please get informed first. Simply reading that whole article for understanding would help. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your concise answer but I want to be sure I understand. I have a thermograph posted on my discussion page taken two weeks ago which shows the temperature of the sky at -26 degrees Celsius but the sky is warming my camera up when it is at the temperature of the ground which is +24 degrees celsius? The radiating absorber in the sky is heating my camera? Is that correct?

It is warming your camera relative to no sky at all, yes. There is no net transfer of energy from the sky to your camera, of course, but every photon that reached your infrared camera transfered energy from the cold sky to your warm camera. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What your camera pictures, is the amount of IR that reaches it from objects. If your interpretation of the 2nd law had been correct - then every object colder than the area around you, would be black. (since it then wouldn't radiate anything towards you). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have published an article which was accepted last year which, in part, discussed the Radiating Environment and how it affects heat losses. Part of that disussion was about the huge Radiating Heat Absorber called the Sky.

Hotflashhome (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for understanding that there is no Net transfer of energy from the sky to my camera in that thermograph or for any thermograph that I have shown. My camera was at 24 degrees Celsius at the time the thermograph was taken. The ground was radiating at over 40 degrees Celsius in spots and about 35 degrees Celsius as an average. There you have also said that there is no net radiation radiating at the ground to heat it up. That would be true since the sky was at - 26 Celsius. If there is no Net transfer there can be no Radiative Forcing and that is my argument all along. From the Misplaced Pages article In climate science, radiative forcing is (loosely) defined as the change in net irradiance at the tropopause

As for your assertion that the Second Law has no place in this discussion I guess you will have to have the curriculum of Grade 5 Geography changed. They still have the notion that for every thousand feet of altitude the air loses an average of three degrees Fahrenheit due to pressure drop.

I think I will have to go back and repeat Grade 5 Geography for me to learn the Politically Correct Second Law.Hotflashhome (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well repeating something perhaps. I don't know how old grade 5 is in the US but I'd recommend completing your education. Anyway "Every thousand feet of altitude the air loses an average of three degrees Fahrenheit" is roughly true, "due to pressure drop" is a bit confused. The rest of this looks like false inference. And certainly "If there is no Net transfer there can be no Radiative Forcing" as has been clearly said is, I am afraid, rubbish. --BozMo talk 06:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:UNFCCC Logo.svg

The image Image:UNFCCC Logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --23:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Scientific" Body?

If there were a UN sponsored body that studied homosexual issues, would that body be called a homosexual body? A body is scientific if it engaves in science - scientific research, experiment, the publication of peer reviewed articles, etc. This body explicitly does not do these things. To describe it as a scientific body is inaccurate, and unsupported by reference. zOne might as well call it a political body, which would be much more accurate. But such a claim would be unnecessary, as it amounts to editorial comment and undue weight. Their is no justification for this unsuppoted editorializing and the comment cannot stand without a reference to support it.Kjaer (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I could support the designation "concerned with the scientific task" or the like.Kjaer (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you, as does the IPCC itself The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing is easy to do, and I could call myself a "Scientific body" but that wouldn't make me one. It doesn't do science. It does no reseach or experimentation - it advises. It should be called an "advisory body" or " a "political advisory body" or just a body.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveWolfer (talk • contribs)

Indeed. But the IPCC is called a scientific body by reliable sources. It does not do primary research, but it does provide integration and synthesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The question is if IPCC itself is a scientific body or not - i.e if it is an animal that falls under the definition or not. This is a logical question and has to do with judgement, not with reliabillity of sources.--85.165.109.227 (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but that cannot be our judgement. It must (and is) be the weighted judgement of reliable sources, and these state that it is a scientific body. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the simple absurdity of calling "scientific" an advisory panel which "does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena", if this were actually a scientific entity, would it not have shared a nobel prize for chemistry or some scientific achievement? Mr. Wolfer's suggestion that it be characterized as an advisory body seems eminintly reasonable. And unless those who want to call it a scientific body can provide a reference, the claim is OR POV and simply cannot be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs) 23:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Whats the point of talking if you don't listen? I've already given you a reference William M. Connolley (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference needs to be in the article, then, not in my ear. Add the reference in the disputed part of the article and the claim will be supported. Kjaer (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Great style. Really. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from comments on me personally, and especially from reporting the sounds of your bodily functions in your edit summaries. As to the reference that has been provided, the term scientific body is simply not used. The verb "assesses" is used, and that would support Wolfer's "advisory" formulation. I would request that you cite the specific phrase in the RS report to which you are referring in the reference here if you thimnk I have missed it. I will otherwise change it to advisoray and quote the assess description in the reference myself.Kjaer (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• people in possession of a dictionary should be able to deduce that the description is valid : scientific = body =

people capable of typing "scientific body ipcc" who ignore the blogs will also see reputable sources describing it thus: Ephebi (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The online dictionary used above has this: "Science noun - the systematic observation and classification of natural phenomena in order to learn about them and bring them under general principles and laws." This is clear. To be scientific requires observation, classification, experimentation - that isn't the same as advising. --Steve (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, so "scientific facts" do perform observation, classification, experimentation? As do "scientific principles", "scientific theories", "scientific publications" (and "- publishers")? Anyways, I've added the full quote for people who replace reading with syntactic matching. Ephebi has found a second source listed above. I'll take both the Royal Society and the BBC over your original research. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• The dictionary reference I gave pointed to the adjective "scientific", not the noun "science". It read: "1: referring or relating to, or used in, science. 2 based on science. 3 displaying the kind of principled approach characteristic of science." These meanings are more comprehensive and more precise than the speculation above. Ephebi (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete Information

In January 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying that he viewed the process "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound" because of Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to recent hurricane activity.

This statement doesn't fully explain Landsea's resignation. Landsea resigned not because Trenberth connected global warming to hurricanes, but because he did so without scientific evidence or research. Suggest it should read as follows: "...recent hurricane activity despite a lack of scientific evidence to support that statement." or something like that.138.67.4.215 (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't state that its despite lack of scientific evidence (or research) - since there is such evidence, what Landsea is talking about is the balance of evidence, which doesn't support it. Which the IPCC report also ended up reporting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism/Praise

Section 7 of this article is "Criticism of IPCC". For the sake of balance, shouldn't there also be a section on praise? Numerous scientific bodies have praised, applauded, and endorsed the IPCC's work. If others think it would be appropriate, I'll add a section documenting the scientific community's praise and endorsement of the IPCC.--CurtisSwain (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit IPCC infobox / template

Does anyone know how to edit the IPCC infobox / template for inclusion of AR5 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPCC Assessment Reports First (1990) 1992 supplementary report Second (1995) Third (2001) Fourth (2007) Fifth (2014) Sixth (2022)
IPCC Special Reports Emissions Scenarios (2000) Renewable energy sources (2012) Extreme events and disasters (2012) Global Warming of 1.5 °C (2018) Climate Change & Land (2019) Ocean & Cryosphere (2019)
UNFCCC WMO UNEP

--Theo Pardilla (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Landsea section?

Why is there a section about Christopher Landsea resigning? Why is he more notable that all the other hundreds of scientists who have joined and are continuing to participate? This is clearly WP:UNDUE. --Skyemoor (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Debate over value of a statistical life

I have some trouble with this section:

The Second Assessment Report was the first and last to include a chapter on the economic impacts of climate change, of which impacts on human mortality are an important part. As is customary in environmental economics, health impacts of climate change are valued on the basis of willingness to pay for risk reduction. The advantage of this method is that health risks of climate change are treated like any other health risk. The disadvantage of this method is that health risks in different parts of the world are valued differently. Specifically, the value of a statistical life is much higher in rich countries than in poor countries. The chapter authored by David Pearce, Amrita Achanta, Bill Cline, Sam Fankhauser, Rajendra Pachauri, Richard Tol, and Pier Vellinga faithfully reflected the state of the art of the literature, but the chapter was attacked: the IPCC was accused of blasphemy and David Pearce's offices were occupied. This chapter is the only instance in which the authors of the chapter officially denounced the policy makers' summary for inaccuracy.

My specific concerns are listed below:

As is customary in environmental economics, health impacts of climate change are valued on the basis of willingness to pay for risk reduction. The advantage of this method is that health risks of climate change are treated like any other health risk. The disadvantage of this method is that health risks in different parts of the world are valued differently.

I'd prefer to have a source provided for this information.

the IPCC was accused of blasphemy and David Pearce's offices were occupied.

Several references are given for this statement but none appear to be freely available. I would appreciate more information if anyone has it. I'm concerned about the style of the sentence – which source does the word 'blasphemy' come from? shouldn't it be given in quotes? What does this part mean – 'David Pearce's offices were occupied'?

This chapter is the only instance in which the authors of the chapter officially denounced the policy makers' summary for inaccuracy.

I have skimmed the reference given for this statement. From my reading, it only appears to be the thoughts of one author, David Pearce. Shouldn't the sentence be revised to reflect this? I think the above sentence is written in poor style as is the sentence below:

The chapter authored by David Pearce, Amrita Achanta, Bill Cline, Sam Fankhauser, Rajendra Pachauri, Richard Tol, and Pier Vellinga faithfully reflected the state of the art of the literature, but the chapter was attacked:

This doesn't appear to be written from a neutral-point-of-view.

I think the article would benefit from other viewpoints on this issue. From what I understand, there isn't unanimity amongst economists on how on non-market impacts of climate change should be valued. The revision does not mention this.

I've put together a possible revision below:

The Second Assessment Report was controversial in its treatment of the economic valuation of human life. Jacoby has commented on the difficulties in valuing non-market climate change impacts such as human mortality . As is customary in environmental economics, health impacts of climate change are valued on the basis of willingness to pay for risk reduction. The advantage of this method is that health risks of climate change are treated like any other health risk. The disadvantage of this method is that health risks in different parts of the world are valued differently. Specifically, the value of a statistical life is much higher in rich countries than in poor countries.

This information was presented in the full IPCC report, however, governments decided to reject the cost-benefit valuation of human life. Their rejection was implied in the summary (called the Summary for Policymakers) of the full IPCC report. David Pearce, the IPCC convening lead author who oversaw the economics chapter of the Report, officially dissented on this summary.According to Grubb, the confrontation between Pearce and the governments 'came closer than anything else to wrecking the IPCC' .

'Informing Climate Policy Given Incommensurable Benefits Estimates', Henry D. Jacoby, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 107, February 2004. http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt107.pdf

Michael Grubb (1 September 2005). "Stick to the Target" (PDF). http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/grubb/publications/GA09.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-01-24. Enescot (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts over "scientific" body

Please see the above section. Reliable sources like the Royal Society and the BBC call it a "scientific body". We could overreference this to death, but there really is no need beyond the one reference given. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC journalists are not matter experts and thus don't count. I don't see a link to the specific Royal Society endorsement of IPCC's scientific claims. --Unconcerned (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is a WP:RS and very much counts. See for the Royal Society: "authoritative scientific organisations, such as the IPCC". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest you include the RS document as your external ref for the "scientific" claim in the first paragraph instead of IPCC's self description. The BBC news feature still doesn't count, sorry, I doubt Mr Roger Harrabin employs elements of the scientific method on a daily basis. And by the way threatening with a block or simply "being bored" with me will never count as solid arguments. --Unconcerned (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you doubt that the BBC is a RS, I suggest you take it up with WP:RSN. Of course a reporter is not a subject matter expert, but he is (supposed to be) an expert in getting the facts right. The IPCC itself is a reliable source, also for it's own description - after all, it has an international and public mandate, and a transparent process. That's why we deem that source sufficient. And I did not "threaten" you with a block, I gave you what I consider a polite form of a standard WP:3RR warning, as you seem to be unaware of that rule. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What Stephan said. Unconcerned's edits are meritless, disruptive, and contribute nothing to this article. Raul654 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care about the entire battery of acronyms nor the fact that some or all of the reverters are admins. I have exposed my rationale from the first edit and have the expectation to be met with the same courtesy. Disagreement is natural and unless you have the patience to provide sensible arguments, a simple revert is an act of vandalism. --Unconcerned (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If your point is that since the IPCC doesn't do research per se, it isn't scientific, it's clearly an obscurantist one. Not all scientific documents highlight new findings. There are many scientific journals which deal solely in reviews of the literature (i.e. no new science), and the IPCC's reports can be viewed as representing a (much) more tailored or specialised version of these. On top of that, the IPCC is drawn from the scientists that are doing the underlying work. Essentially, the IPCC is jobbing scientists summarising "proper" (in your sense) science (plus, of course, creating more simplified forms for political/general consumption). To remove "scientific" from descriptions of the IPCC will serve only to muddy the waters. Or is that what you're after? --PLUMBAGO 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientific reviews will necessarily cover the entire range of research, not just "papers that agree with me and my buddies". I don't see that range in IPCC's work. Nowhere else in Science do scientists form a political body to "interpret" the "proper" science in a "simpler" form for "political/general consumption". While they laudably admit to not doing own research, they wander in your muddy waters with other claims. Telling the story of one's research inquiry is not science per se. Long story short, I am only crossing t's and dotting i's in an attempt to clear your muddy water. Honesty will always weigh more than any unsubstantiated claim. Cheers--Unconcerned (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And you sure have a long list of peer-reviewed papers relevant to the topic but ignored by the IPCC? Do you know that all comments to the IPCC drafts are out in the open, with replies on how and why they were incorporated or discarded? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the red herring. Of course I don't have the complete, long list of ignored papers. This however does not make IPCC's work any more scientific. Have a good day. --Unconcerned (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(Decrease indent) Hmmmm, "papers that agree with me and my buddies"? Consult any issue of any major science journal and you'll see paper after paper that supports the IPCC and their buddies (directly or indirectly). In fact, you'll even find papers that say that the IPCC are dangerously conservative in their acceptance of evidence (as there have been over its predictions for sea-level rise). Were there any evidence against the broad case presented by the IPCC then scientists would be crushed in the rush to claim the fame and kudos from publishing such evidence. There are few things more tempting to a scientist than an apple-cart waiting to be upset. To suggest otherwise, to imply that the case made by the IPCC is a conspiracy of vested interests, is simply absurd, and overlooks both the accumulated scientific evidence and the plain self-interest of individual scientists. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several, very prominent climate scientists who are frequently publishing results that are not in line with the "consensus", yet --as someone put it-- their work gets discarded by this political body. I assume you have studied both sides of the "consensus" and already know who I'm talking about. A honest scientific intepretation of climate data will show what some well trained researchers call error bars, or confidence intervals. For some reason any attempt at putting IPCC's decrees in the perspective of actual uncertainty in data acquisition, data reconstruction and model extrapolation is discarded and never even mentioned in the final documents. The hockey stick controversy would never have become a controversy if actual science were used in composing that diagram. By not following simple science protocol, the messages our reputable climate scientists are trying to convey becomes simple political slogans. --Unconcerned (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources, anecdotal evidence, and common-sense arguments have all been put forward supporting the use of the adjective "scientific", with little more than a single editor's personal feelings against it. There is no need for this thread to continue. -RunningOnBrains 01:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no original research, nor personal feeling, in observing that not doing science is not science. I do however accept the Royal Society as a reliable source even if I personally disagree with their "scientific" qualifier. However, if you followed closely the editing dispute, that reference was missing.--Unconcerned (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Problem solved, ref fixed, case closed.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced text in 'Physical modeling debate' section

I've noticed that the section 'Physical modeling debate' seems to contain original research (in bold):

MIT professor Richard Lindzen, one of the scientists in IPCC Working Group I, has expressed disagreement with the IPCC reports. He expressed his unhappiness about those portions in the Executive Summary based on his contributions in May 2001 before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation:

The summary does not reflect the full document... For example, I worked on Chapter 7, Physical Processes. This chapter dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments – including those of clouds and water vapor. The chapter was summarized with the following sentence: 'Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapor, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport.'

The Summary for Policymakers of the WG1 reports does include caveats on model treatments: Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales.

These statements are in turn supported by the executive summary of chapter 8 of the report, which includes:

* Coupled models can provide credible simulations of both the present annual mean climate and the climatological seasonal cycle over broad continental scales for most variables of interest for climate change. Clouds and humidity remain sources of significant uncertainty but there have been incremental improvements in simulations of these quantities.

* Confidence in the ability of models to project future climates is increased by the ability of several models to reproduce the warming trend in 20th century surface air temperature when driven by radiative forcing due to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. However, only idealised scenarios of only sulphate aerosols have been used.

In my view, this is an unsourced commentary on Lindzen's viewpoint, and should be deleted. If someone wants to comment on Lindzen's viewpoint, then they should provide a source. For example, Sir John Houghton has given evidence to the House of Lords on Lindzen's views. Alternatively, you could simply refer to supporters of the IPCC, e.g., other climate scientists, statements made by national science academies, etc. and let readers make up their own mind.Enescot (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Looks like somebody has taken care of the problem by removing the lengthy excerpts and just using a quote from Sir John. Definitely an improvement. Thanks.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken Ref

Link 98 "NRC Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions p. 11" is broken202.78.240.67 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Please add new topics at the end (you can use the "New section" button). Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We need discussion & resolution of the self described "Scientific" vs. "Advocacy" characterization

The problem relates to the first sentence of the article as it appears as of 12-12-09 emphasis added:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity.

Should the term scientific be used to describe the IPCC, notwithstanding the fact that the IPCC itself goes to great length to characterize themselves as such: "The IPCC is a scientific body." But we find what appears contradictory in the same article:

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change.

and

The IPCC is only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP.

It doesn't seem right to call the IPCC, a United Nations body, a self described intergovernmental body, as a scientific body. It also seems wrong to deny the central purpose of the UN, influencing policy and conduct of its member nations. Let's consider by analogy, the publishing arm of University is not a scientific body. The credit union which provides banking services to members of a University is not a scientific body. Perhaps they are regulators, or a policy think tank. I don't dispute that they are commenting on the scientific reports and data of some scientists, academics, & researches. Clearly the operation of the IPCC has had affects on politics, policy, and perhaps legislation around the globe. I would like to suggest that the word scientific be removed and inserting "policy influencing" or "advocacy" at the same location. Obviously this particular issue has had some attention with less than a perfect record of civil discourse. So Please let's discuss this in a civil manner. The issue to discuss in this role is not Global Warming, but how to accurately characterize the IPCC. These are two separate questions one for the deletion of an adjective, one for the inclusion of an adjective. 1) Is it a scientific body? 2) Is it a body for policy influence or advocacy? This article needs some sort of organized resolution of these two questions perhaps with the assistance of some experienced editors / administrators. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes. 2. It is a body whose results are used for political purposes, just like lots of other scientific research, but which is itself largely non-political William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, since it's composed of scientists. There are interests behind almost every scientific study. They're payed for by governments, companies and advocacy groups. They will always get their money from a particular group of people with particular interests. That doesn't mean they won't follow scientific principles and methods. 2. It's a scientific body whose results are used for policy influence.--camr 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Sure. Al-Jazeera, Sydney Morning Herald, BBC, Guardian, Royal Society, ... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. No. Some of the lead authors are economists, not scientists e.g. Kenneth Arrow. 2. Judging by the contents of its public reports, it is focussed on advocacy - note for instance http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/10th-anniversary/anniversary-brochure.pdf - the summary of each IPCC report has a followup section advertising what impact that report had on the government COP meetings that followed. The IPCC clearly measures its performance against its influence on those meetings. Cadae (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So, economy is not a science? Also, any scientific body that discovers that X is bad, would not cease to be scientific if they actually say "hey, X is bad". If doctors discover that smoking is bad for your health and recommend their patients to stop, then their licences should be revoked?--camr 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct - economy is not a science. Scientific bodies don't use the word or concept of 'bad' as that is a value judgement which is distinctly not science. 'bad' is, however, liberally used in the realms of politics and advocacy. Cadae (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, you've said it all.--camr 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Himalaya Glaciers

Discussion on this can be found here: Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report#The veracity of this report has been called into question.... The current insertion seems to be a spillover. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the reliability of the entire IPCC report is in question, evidence that the report was written in a biased or sloppy way is extremely relevant to this page. Vegasprof (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that the "reliability of the entire IPCC report is in question" is your personal opinion (which you are free to have as long as you do not project it into Misplaced Pages). But here we are talking about an error in one paragraph in chapter 10 (of 20) section 6 subsection 2 in the WGII report which is 1 of 3 main reports in the AR4 (which is the 4th report) from the IPCC - and that is grossly WP:UNDUE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the IPCC's scaremongering about Himalayan glaciers has permeated the collective unconscious of society then I find this to be very relevant. When I first added it you people didn't like the sources, so I changed them, and now you are inventing a new reason to limit the spread of information - the only way to destroy the urban legend that they invented. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Which again seems to be your personal opinion ("scaremongering", "permeated","urban legend"...). And again you are free to have that opinion - as long as you do not project it into Misplaced Pages articles. And i'm not "inventing" anything - please read and understand WP:UNDUE (which is a part of our WP:NPOV policy). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to pretend with me Kim. I know your record and that of your friends. Sorry, but my sources show that it is a plain fact that the IPCC was drastically wrong about the melting glaciers - the fact that such a myth has spread so far and wide is evidence of how significant their propaganda has been. If I actually saw you apply policy in a way that didn't massage the AGW perspective then I might be more inclined to respect your opinion. I couldn't live with myself if I behaved in the same way. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and ] doesn't apply. We aren't talking about "viewpoints" here - we are talking about verifiable fact. And the fact of the matter is that the IPCC broke their own publishing rules by not using peer-reviewed literature which resulted in them making a glaring error about melting glaciers. Again, those are facts, not viewpoints - come up with a new excuse. Third times a charm right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE relates to all content - not just viewpoints. Simplified: Proportion of content must be in relative proportion to prominence in literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, so the question becomes whether this mistake (if it is indeed a mistake) is sourced as being of significant importance to the panel, its mission, its public perception, etc. Becoming a hot item among climate change skeptics and anti-environmental operatives is not in itself worthy of note, but if their agitation reaches the point where it is part of the story of the organization, perhaps. Also, if there is a child article relating to the report or to some scandal (or to the glacier in question, perhaps), the information is probably better centralized there. Also, to reiterate Scjessey's point below, please don't use article talk pages to criticize other editors, or any page to make simple personal attacks like the above. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I suggest you actually read the policies you love to cite as excuses to keep out information. It plainly states that WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints. I'm inserting facts and attempting to do so without bias. Facts are not "viewpoints." Here is an idea for you Kim, and I know it is radical, but consider this, encycopedias are like people - they are improved by knowledge - not ignorance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

More sources that confirm my edits and show how their importantance - - plus the sources I've already quoted. Is it your contention that these facts are unimportant? Is this not enough? Tell me this - what, in your mind, and be specific, would be enough, or the right kind, of evidence for you to concede that this information is important and should be in this article? TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The date error (2035 vs 2350) from a trusted source - the IPCC - has caused a fairly significant myth to be created. For instance, a Google search on the keywords "Himalayan glaciers melt 2035" gives 48,200 hits, whereas the number of hits for the correct date - "Himalayan glaciers melt 2350" gives 6,460 hits. Reliance on the veracity of the IPCC has been responsible for propagating seriously incorrect information. Here's an example of what can happen when one disputes the IPCC: http://www.france24.com/en/node/4921700. This is an important aspect of the IPCC and merits coverage on the wikipedia entry about the IPCC. Cadae (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that the entire section is just deleted, the entire reasoning given for this change in the edit summary being "per Kim"; as if said user somehow is the final authority on this subject, and that if he says so then that's the end of that and no further discussion is needed. The second edit summary has even less details, merely stating "no". I don't see how undue weight is an argument here, there's no denying that the melting of glaciers is a key example used to demonstrate the reality / severity of climate change, and grossly inaccurate reporting on it by an authoritative agency I think is certainly worth mentioning, especially considering (as demonstrated above) the fact this error hasn't gone unnoticed in the media and has even resulted in criticism from India's environment minister (see BBC ref. in deleted content). It's not like it's just a minor typo without real consequence. But I guess mentioning it would make the statement written just a little lower - "We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes" - seem rather silly. Infact that entire section seems rather silly, I don't see UNICEF getting a praise section for their work. I could obviously restore the section, but there's no doubt in my mind it'd be deleted again. BabyNuke (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As has alrady been pointed out, this stuff refers to one section of one report. Hence "The IPCC's 4th report has been criticized by..." is clearly too broad-brush. At the very least you need to re-phrase it to make it clear (assuming you know, of course) which report, and which bit. Even then the question of due weight still applies. I don't see how undue weight is an argument here - this may be a flaw in your understanding, rather than in the reasoning. Is melting of Himalayan glaciers presented as key evidence by the IPCC? I rather doubt it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

The ongoing edit war here has been mentioned on this thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and at this thread on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Could I suggest a bit more decorum and, at the very least, discussion on this subject, and less edit warring? --TS 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussions as far as i'm aware have been ongoing over the whole period - it started at the 4AR article (see above). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I could care less where it started, and I didn't even know it "started" at that article, but the fact of the matter is that your friend is using the EXACT same excuses to keep it out of that article too. The evidence demonstrates that you and your friends don't want this information in any articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

These assumptions of bad faith ("you and your friends," et al) are unacceptable. Please comment on the content, not the editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It a verifiable fact that they are friends from looking at their facebook pages - linked from their own profiles. It is also a verifiable fact that they've been citing every wiki-policy they can think of, for 6+ years, to "maintain the integrity of wikipedia." Of course, you automatically assume that I'm assuming bad faith - are these facts so damning that their revelation can only be "assuming bad faith?"

I'm glad you think so. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen has been repeatedly deleting the contribution from TheGoodLocust, citing WP:UNDUE. An article about the IPCC ought to cover the major aspects and characteristics of the IPCC. One of the most significant aspects of the IPCC is its accuracy. When that accuracy is called into question with good evidence to demonstrate a lack of accuracy, then that evidence is significant to the character of the IPCC, and WP:UNDUE does not apply - indeed the very opposite applies - this is signficant information about the character of the IPCC that needs greater weight than mere appendage to the section "Criticism of IPCC". Cadae (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this edit war still ongoing when there is a discussion here? The sources are well founded and the additions are pertinant to the article. I fail to see why there is a problem with this inclusion. mark nutley (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The point seems to be to make edits so difficult that they can only be accomplished with much hassle and outside mediation - I think it drives a lot of people away from wikipedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of Non-Peer Reviewed Sources and the Himalayan Glaciers

Here is the section that I wrote up to be included in the criticisms of the IPCC:

--- Use of Non-Peer-reviewed Literature and the Himalayan Glaciers

The IPCC's 4th report has been criticized by Professor J Graham Cogley for using three reports, by the World Wildlife Fund, UNESCO, and the magazine New Scientist, none of which were peer-reviewed, to make the case that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035. When the original source was tracked down he found that they had misstated both the year and the effect - the original source, by a M. Kuhn, states that the year was actually 2350, and that the Himalayan glaciers would be intact at that time. IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt, but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate.

The IPCC's assessment of melting Himalayan glaciers has also been criticized as being "horribly wrong," according to John Shroder a Himalayan glacier specialist at the University of Nebraska. According to Shroder, the IPCC jumped to conclusions based on insufficient data. Additionally, Donald Alford, a hydrologist, asserts that his water study for the World Bank demonstrates that the Ganges River only gets 3-4% of its water from glacial sources - casting doubt on the claim that the river would dry up since its primary source of water comes from rainfall. Finally, Michael Zemp, from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, has stated that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" on the subject, that, under IPCC rules they shouldn't have published their statements, and that he knows of no scientific references that would've confirmed their claims. ---

I encourage anyone who reads this to appropriately add the section if you think more people would benefit from knowledge than from ignorance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is still WP:UNDUE, you are still focusing on one bad information from a report that contains several thousands of such. There is no doubt that it is wrong - but it is a factoid projected far beyond its prominence. It could be mentioned in the article on Retreat of glaciers since 1850 where it would be on-topic and due. But certainly not in its current form which is extremely one-sided. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim is correct: both that the substance (2035/2350) is correct and that this is UNDUE. Also, the bit about the Ganges is not very relevant here. And you've been rather partial with your quotation from Zemp. Incidentally, the bit about not using PR papers is funny, given the spetic desire to re-instate fig 7.1c from the '90 report William M. Connolley (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry kim and will, this is not one sided, it is fact. Encyclopaedias deal in facts. There is a section in the article which praises this report, so were is the undue weight in a section which has found flaws in said report? It is called balance. Also undue weight is about viewpoints, not facts. This addition is well sourced and pertinant to the article. Once again you are letting your personal points of view get in the way. mark nutley (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia deals in pertinent facts, this is not such - it is not an indiscriminate collection random factoids. This is a cherry-pick blown out of proportion. And that is exactly what our policy on neutral point of view (the undue part) is about. Now there (as i said) may be articles where this is within due weight, but a general article on the IPCC (or the AR4) is not the place. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The pertinent fact at issue is the reliability of the IPCC and its reports. The incorrect dates indicate that the IPCC reports cannot be given the weight attributed to them. They must be viewed with some suspicion as the IPCC have not adhered to their own stated policy. This is pertinent to the characterisation of the IPCC, and WP:UNDUE doesn't apply. Defending the IPCC in the face of this error is not WP:NPOV. Cadae (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but an error in one paragraph is an extremely large report (several thousand pages) does not merit weight to this, nor does it merit that we "view some suspicion", especially not since we have most of the worlds scientific bodies backing up the reports (with none saying otherwise) What seems more the case here is that some are willing to "make a feather into 5 hens" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC have failed to adhere to their own policy, leading to an error of fact. This has significance beyond a simple factual error - it indicates poor management and a lack of process control - thus affecting the veracity of their reports. The very existence of this process break-down and factual error may well cause the "worlds scientific bodies" to reconsider their support of the IPCC reports. Your appeal to the authority of the "worlds scientific bodies" backing the reports is a self-serving argument - you've assumed your own conclusion that they won't give this error any weight Cadae (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, review failed for one paragraph of a several thousand pages document, that happens, so what? And i do get that you apparently have very strong feelings on the subject - but that doesn't make it more important. If the worlds scientific bodies reconsider their support - then we most certainly will report it (even if one scientific academy does), since that would be a pertinent fact - as opposed to this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The consequences of that review failure extend beyond 'one paragraph of several thousand'. The assumption is that the IPCC reports are highly accurate. This event calls into question that accuracy. Your claim of WP:UNDUE is like claiming we can ignore a murderer's single act of murder, simply because he has murdered only on one day of the thousands he has been alive. That one act of murder (or in the IPCC's case - failure to adhere to policy) characterises the murderer. We rightly highlight that one failure of character of the murderer in the courts, the press and wikipedia - similarly we need to highlight that failure of character of the IPCC in Misplaced Pages.Cadae (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A mountain out of a molehill. Sorry but the murder analogy is rather bad. It is a single mistake taken out of a context of tens of thousands points of data/facts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your 'mountain out of a molehill' doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The 'molehill' is far from a 'molehill'- it is nothing less than a question of the character of the IPCC as an unblemished reliable source, upon whose reports the world's economies will be spending trillions of dollars. There were several failures of policy and procedure involved. If this were a pharmaceutical report, the authors would be arrested and tried for fraud. Cadae (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly made your personal POV clear, and also why you want to include something that is rather clearly WP:UNDUE. Try with reliable sources instead of original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to my reasons for showing why WP:UNDUE doesn't apply, you ignore my reasoning and blandly repeat your WP:UNDUE claim without responding to my points. Your POV is also clear, but is backed only by the claim that it is only "one paragraph among thousands". I have repeatedly addressed this, but you continue to fail to engage with the points raised. It gives the distinct impression that the deletion of the section about the IPCC error is motivated by bias. Cadae (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So can Retreat of glaciers since 1850 be changed to reflect this new information? Is the WWF Report a RS since it was not peer reviewed? If it is not an RS, much of the Asia section under Retreat of glaciers since 1850 needs to be rewritten. Schonchin (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don`t see how the wwf could ever be counted as a reliable source for anything. So yes the Retreat of glaciers since 1850 should most certainly be reviewed. mark nutley (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A hierarchical approach probably makes sense

The recent edit war was over whether to report on an error found in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in this article. A similar discussion is taking place on the AR4 talk page to see if the error should be reported in that article.

It seems to me that, if we can't agree to include a mention of the error in the AR4 article, we're unlikely to reach agreement on whether to mention it in this more general article. I would suggest therefore that it makes sense for us to all concentrate, at Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, on whether to discuss the matter as part of that article. If we decide not to go ahead with that, it seems to me, then it seems very unlikely that we would want to include it here. On the other hand, if we decide to include it in the AR4 article, the case to include it here will be a little stronger. So I advise a hierarchical approach. Discuss it at the AR4 article and take it from there. --TS 17:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The AR4 article focuses on the contents of AR4 and does not speak to the nature and characteristics of the IPCC. The error introduced in the AR4 report has significance beyond IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). As an indicator of a failure of IPCC policy and procedure it has significance independent of the error itself, as it speaks to the reliablity of the IPCC. It is thus less important as an item in the AR4 article than as an item about the IPCC itself. Creating a dependency between its presence in IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) to its presence here is a mistake. It can and should be considered differently in each context. Cadae (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point of view (though I don't agree with it). But I don't think you can make an argument that will convince people who are already dubious about the notion of discussing the matter at all even in the AR4 article. --TS 11:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this article not mention that the IPCC is not allowed to assess the "for and against" of global warming since it is signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which states that global warming is real and dangerous

Therefore they will only ever find global warming or they will al be out of work? mark nutley (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't because it is incorrect. You seem not to have read the report(s)? Take a peek, they are quite interesting and contain quite a lot that various people assert that they do not. (for instance about solar or natural variations, discussions of Svensmarks cosmic ray hypothesis, discussions of benefits of warming etc etc etc) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to TS - I'm not sure which POV you understand - the POV that the AR4 article and IPCC article shouldn't be dependent on each other, or the POV that the error is more significant in the IPCC article than the AR4 article ? If you comprehend my point, you will see that you have the dependency around the wrong way - the date error is less significant in the AR4 article than in the IPCC article. Even if it is not in AR4, it has more significance to the IPCC article, and exclusion of it in AR4 is no justification for excluding it from IPCC. Cadae (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble here is that I cannot begin to address your argument because I cannot make any sense of it. The error is in the AR4, so under what circumstances could it possibly be appropriate to mention it in this article but not in the article on AR4? --TS 15:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll restate the argument and try to make it clearer. AR4 is all about the AR4 report - it is not about the IPCC. Information about the IPCC itself is in the IPCC article i.e. information about the IPCC's characteristics, history, successes and failures. The date error (2035 vs 2350) is a significant failure of the IPCC to adhere to its policy and processes - this is of greatest import to the article about the IPCC itself, not the article about AR4. The significance of the failure is dependent on its context - it's even more significant in the IPCC article than in the AR4 article. Cadae (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is scientific accuracy relevant?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The IPCC, against its own rules, published inaccurate scientific information in their report(s). There seems to be a slight consensus to include this information, but the opposition believes it is WP:UNDUE. It has been proposed to add the following section to the "criticism" section of the IPCC article (click to see if you are at RfC):TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of Non-Peer-reviewed Literature and the Himalayan Glaciers

The IPCC's 4th report has been criticized by Professor J Graham Cogley for using three reports, by the World Wildlife Fund, UNESCO, and the magazine New Scientist, none of which were peer-reviewed, to make the case that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035. When the original source was tracked down he found that they had misstated both the year and the effect - the original source, by a M. Kuhn, states that the year was actually 2350, and that the Himalayan glaciers would be intact at that time. IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt, but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate.

The IPCC's assessment of melting Himalayan glaciers has also been criticized as being "horribly wrong," according to John Shroder a Himalayan glacier specialist at the University of Nebraska. According to Shroder, the IPCC jumped to conclusions based on insufficient data. Additionally, Donald Alford, a hydrologist, asserts that his water study for the World Bank demonstrates that the Ganges River only gets 3-4% of its water from glacial sources - casting doubt on the claim that the river would dry up since its primary source of water comes from rainfall. Finally, Dr. Michael Zemp , from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, has stated that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" on the subject, that, under IPCC rules they shouldn't have published their statements, and that he knows of no scientific references that would've confirmed their claims.

Arguments for inclusion (feel free to add more, but try to keep it brief):

1. WP:UNDUE Specifically is stated to apply to viewpoints - the proposed section contains facts.

2. The IPCC's inaccuracies have been significant due to their cultural impact

3. These specific criticisms are significant due to the coverage they've received (google "IPCC 2035 2350")

4. The IPCC's inaccuracies have negatively affected other wikipedia articles (e.g. glaciers after 1850)

5. Dr. Michael Zemp, from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, said the IPCC has caused "major confusion" - refuting the claim of WP:UNDUE

Arguments against inclusion (feel free to add more, but try to keep it brief):

1. Inclusion would be WP:UNDUE

Users who wanted inclusion:

1. Vegasprof
2. TheGoodLocust
3. Cadae
4. Babynuke
5. Mark nutley
6. WVBluefield —Preceding unsigned comment added by WVBluefield (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Users who were against inclusion

1. William Connolley
2. Kim Dabelstein Petersen
3. Scjessey

(I went by talk page comments so feel free to add yourself if I missed you)

Section for Comments by users previously unassociated with this field of articles:

• Include - The IPCC is not immune from controversy or criticism. The sources provided are clearly reliable for this material. --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Disclosure: I am not sure what "field of articles" refers to but in this case I am suitably independent of this article and it's talk page. My only contributions to this page were to place a {{fact}} on the claim that the IPCC is a scientific organization, to correct a broken reference, and to add a link to the see also section. I have now become an active participant.

General Discussion (was under previous section earlier):

1 It's an extreme case of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. The cause is one error in the WG2 report. The effect is (nearly) as long as the whole section on the AR4 so far. Moreover, it mixes criticism of process with criticism of results, and significant parts of the later seem to be unsourced. And on the Meta-level: The RfC is horribly spun. You are supposed to at least try to make it look neutral. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Google glacial melt 2035 and see how many hits you get. Look above for the rest of my arguments mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You are hardly uninvolved with this article Stephen. Oh, and TS, why'd you remove the list of those for/against? Was it because the talk pages show a clear case for inclusion? You also removed my editting to make my post look ugly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, you are quoting WP:COATRACK which is NOT wikipedia policy, and indeed, the talk pages show the vast majority of involved wikipedians voted AGAINST making it policy due to, among other things, its potential abuse for keeping relevent info out of articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As for "spin" I can only present the counterarguments that your side has made - like your quoting of non-policy. It isn't my fault that it looks bad. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't use votes for this kind of thing (hence I guess people are commenting not voting) we use arguments here WP:UNDUE is a heavy argument against including this, given how much coverage IPCC gets and how little this one has got. OTOH is is hardly something to get worked up about. --BozMo talk 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And again, not only has this gotten a lot of coverage, but an expert on the subject, as quoted and sourced in the inclusion, has said that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" - if it is "major" then it certainly isn't undue. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Expert meaning the red link above? Do we know anything about him? --BozMo talk 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He works for the World Glacier Monitoring service and is a doctor - here is a list of his publications. He is certainly far better qualified to determine how important this is than any of us. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This mistake was still being cited by the ipcc on on third of november.

(Jean-Pascal van Ypersele IPCC Vice-chair, said at UNFCCC, Barcelona, on 3 November, 2009):

ImpactsGlacial retreat in the Himalaya

receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming; in addition, high population density near these glaciers and consequent deforestation and land-use changeshave adversely affected these glaciers

the total glacial area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2(or disappear entirely) by the year 2035

Bearing in mind if the himalayan glaciers melt to 100k`s2 then it actually no loss at all is that is their current estimated size :) So it`s impact is still ongoing, google glacial melt and you would think that this was an accurate date.mark nutley (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark, Please assume that some of us are actually trying to understand you in good faith and don't use all these shorthands. --BozMo talk 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry bozmo, what do you mean by shorthands? mark nutley (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The last couple of paras here is written assuming the reader is deep in conversation with you and knows what you are talking about. What in this last couple of paragraphs is the quote and how does it fit with the point you are making (which is that some IPCC data used was not peer reviewed prior to use, I think)? Whose figures are which etc. What's the significance of the date you would think was accurate by googling glacial melt etc. All this is on the road to proving sufficient weight for inclusion I take it?--BozMo talk 20:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya sorry about that, the last part is a copy and paste. the google search is to show just how far this mistake has reached. mark nutley (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Grossly biased

This RFC is so grossly biased that it will inevitably accomplish nothing. The first argument "WP:UNDUE Specifically is stated to apply to viewpoints - the proposed section contains facts." is so amusingly incorrect that it makes the cases against the authors viewpoint quite effectively. This discussion should be at the AR4 page - as TS has said. The text is clearly UNDUE; it is inaccurate (it speaks of the report instead of one of several); I don't believe the 3 sources stuff; etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is well aware of your bias Connolley. If there are any facts that need correcting then you are free to point them out. Anyway, you are welcome not to "believe" anything you like, but the sources we have say otherwise. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just my 2c: The error isn't a mere typo, it's a gross error on a topic that's used as one of the main examples of climate change in the media. If it was a mere typo, I'd agree, it'd just be nitpicking. But there is more going on here, it's a mistake that's the result of sloppy work done by the IPCC and it also happens to have been reproduced frequently in the media; both the number being used incorrectly (as is mentioned above) as well as by media pointing out the mistake. The FIRST hit I get on google is a big player, CNN: "The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report." and another editor mentioned a BBC article that pointed out the error, so it's not just obscure climate change bloggers writing about these things. So yeah, this perhaps little mistake has had considerable consequence and has been picked up by the big players in the media, so it's well worth including. Considering the article even has a praise section for the IPCC, I think it's not throwing the article off from a NPOV either.BabyNuke (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You are aware that all that this shows is confirmation bias - right? If you look for something that you know is there, then when you find it, it shouldn't come as a surprise.... Yes, it is an error - No, it isn't important in this context. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed per undue wt. and full of errors. Should be in AR4 if anywhere. Vsmith (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are errors then list them and source them. The undue weight complaints are completely without merit. Also, the cry to put some information into satellite articles, where less people are likely to see the information and even fewer people are likely to discuss it seems like a tactic to keep it out of the encyclopedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying it should be in the ar4 article is pointless as those who oppose it here also oppose it`s inclusion there mark nutley (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets take it again this is: one error in one paragraph in chapter 10 (of 20) section 6 subsection 2 in the WGII report which is 1 of 3 main reports in the AR4 (which is the 4th report) from the IPCC - the proposed text presented above is larger than the paragraph with the error. => Grossly undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. The weight comes not from the number of words in the paragraph but in where the paragraph resides and the significance that it carries. The mere fact that it is an error in the IPCC report gives it far more than enough weight for inclusion. --GoRight (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Refuting errors often takes more work than simply making them - in the same way that deletion/destruction is easier than the creative impulse (the difference between destroying books and writing them). Also, the section explains the impact as well - and there are many areas on wikipedia that expand. Additionally, their error has been cited so many times in the mainstream media which increases its "size." TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and those warring to include can't even take time to correct obvious errors in the proposed text. Vsmith (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked you to tell me what the errors are and to source them - be specific. You can't just say there are errors without explaining yourself. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm by no means convinced that we yet have consensus or policy reasons sufficient for giving this proposed addition the kind of prominence it gets here. I have reverted pending a justification for the amount of weight, and the presentation. What happened to the idea of seeing if it can go into AR4? --TS 23:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

They won`t have it there either. @Kim, it does not matter if it is one small part of the main report. They used non peer reviewed papers and made statements based on them. Sorry but if a group like the IPCC make statements like "all glaciers will be gone in 2035" in will cause widespread alarm. This should be in here, they messed up and you guys seem to want to hide it mark nutley (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This article gets more traffic, and therefore more outside opinions (as shown by the number of people who keep restoring the section). Anyway, we don't need policy to keep it in, we need policy to keep it out - and a reliable source has stated that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" - obviously it can't be undue if an outside expert thinks it is important (plus the other reasons against the UNDUE charge). TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, you're wrong there. We do need to establish whether there is consensus and policy support. I don't think the case has been adequately made yet. Edit warring to get it in won't work unless we establish consensus. --TS 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

From a dictionary

con⋅sen⋅sus  

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Currently the majority want this in, therefore a consensus has been reached. mark nutley (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The policy support is trivial. Please review WP:V and WP:RS. --GoRight (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We probably don't have consensus, else you wouldn't be having such a devil of a time getting it to stay. Vsmith, I, Kim, William, and Stephan have removed it. Some of those inserting it are scibaby socks (certainly Jong-C having now been permanently blocked as a scibaby sock). So it doesn't look like consensus at all. --TS 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet there are still more just on this talk page who want inclusion - and even more, obviously not socks, who've restored the text, but not gotten involved in the talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Who? I see Nutley, Bluefield and Goodlocust doing the reverts. All voted above. Please name the (non-sock) others and be very careful with such claims. There is such a thing as reputation. --BozMo talk 08:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The main case against inclusion of the error has been assertion of UNDUE. The main proof presented that the error is UNDUE is that the amount of text it takes up in AR4 is relatively small! This is not a logical argument for exclusion. There are multiple reasons highlighted on this talk page why the error is important, none of which have had reasonable counter arguments presented. A majority of the editors want it in. Those opposed have used a set of technical tools to thwart its inclusion - and it's getting rather tiresome. Cadae (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I do think errata that have been published and criticised by acknowledged experts should probably be included in relevant articles. The problem I have here is that those people editing the article on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)--the report which contains these apparent errata--don't yet seem to have reached consensus to mention it at all there, and we have no consensus to do so here. I'd like to see editors make an honest case to include a description of their errata and their significance in the AR4 article, rather than this tiresome edit warring.

Another problem I have here is that the question of the significance of the errata doesn't seem to be treat seriously. Do these items mean global warming isn't happening? Obviously not, because the report in question is by Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability). Perhaps the errata mean that we don't have to worry about the Himalayan glaciers melting in our lifetime, or perhaps they mean something different. We need to approach this correctly or it just looks like we're saying "this paragraph on page X is wrong" and the next question is "so what?" We need to make sure the answer is clearly given from reliable sources.

But as I have said, I think the correct place, in the first instance, is the talk page of the AR4 article. That's where one might at least find people have more than a cursory acquaintance with the material.

Now I won't edit war on this because if we continued along that path we could easily end up making the atmosphere here very bad. Please respect this. Let's discuss the possibility of adding the item to AR4, at the relevant talk page. --TS 03:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is similar to Tony Sidaway's. If the appropriate way to describe this error (in whatever level of detail) has not been established at our article on the report which contains it, it seems a bit excessive to include a detailed description in this much broader, higher-level article. Specific errata (particularly if they represent very small portions of the report in question) don't warrant extensive, detailed description in this overview.

The bulk of the criticisms included in this article seem to focus on more general, structural concerns (plus the ever-popular and very high-profile hockey stick controversy). The glacier error doesn't appear to be anywhere near that high in profile, and certainly shouldn't make up a large part of an article on the IPCC as a whole. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh. This bit is a clear example of a breach in the much ballyhooed IPCC process. As such it is appropriate to list it here rather than bury it in the report. The weight of the issue comes from this fact alone. It derives it's weight from the weight of the IPCC process and the importance and the claims thereof. --GoRight (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Shall we produce a tally from the opinions above to make an orderly assessment of the state of consensus? Or will that be viewed as pointy and controversial? --GoRight (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thing is we don't decide things by vote. Anyway, didn't you do that further up the page, but not including ones who made a change either way with edit comments? If you do a list please exclude socks, include article editors and mark me down clearly as "unable to generate a flicker of interest from anywhere deep within my soul on this issue". And if you get anything other than "no consensus" stand in the corner until you can recount straight. :-) --BozMo talk 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries on consensus

Please could everyone stop claiming "consensus at talk" in edit summaries when it is clear that no consensus exists. Adding up opinions above (and counting me as "don't care"; I haven't read and don't think I edited this page unless on a vandal revert) I make it 6-6 on opinions expressed. Anyone who reverts without adding value (e.g. by proposing a compromise text) is in danger of an Edit Warring sanction. This page is also in danger of having to be protected. So no reverts, just improvements please. --BozMo talk 08:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Including criticism from NIPCC

In 2009, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) published a report, Climate Change Reconsidered, which broadly critiques the IPCC findings. Coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers say this 880-page report "contradicts the IPCC’s central claims, that global warming is man-made and that its effects will be catastrophic". .

Connelly, please discuss why you reverted my edit and make a positive contribution towards compromise (Misplaced Pages:Revert_only_when_necessary). This change, included above for reference, is neutral, factual and verifiable. As a summary of much scientific literature critical of IPCC results, it is useful to record here to avoid clouding the criticism section with a myriad of studies references. Julien Couvreur (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

They're just these guys. You're sourcing this to their website. Can I start a club and get my stuff into Misplaced Pages? --TS 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You could try spelling my name right. If it is too difficult for you, WMC will be fine. I removed the NIPCC because it is a joke. It isn't science; it is a product of Singer and a few others. Is that in doubt? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Is that in doubt?" Yes. --GoRight (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NIPCC doesn't have a wiki page, and that for a good reason . Its views are of no interest, because they are just Singers views William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lots of things don't have a wiki page. That doesn't make them irrelevant. The contributers are sufficiently credentialed to comment in such a report. --GoRight (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors Looks like more than just singer will :) mark nutley (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm zone>Yes, and the other authors are remarkably well-known for their ... hmmm .... it should be science, shouldn't it? And they are all very respected ... hmmm .... that should have been scientists, shouldn't it? Hmmmm.... </sarcasm zone> --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm zone>Isn't the head of the IPCC a railroad engineer? Hmmm...</sarcasm zone> --GoRight (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, but he isn't an author. He is an administrator. I especially like the honored doctor in welding technology specializing in thermal cutting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is sad to see how quickly discussions fall away from wikipedia guidelines (NPOV). The unsustantiated ad-hominem attacks on Singer et al. above help in no way to build a compromise. Are you suggesting to keep the report but with a clearer attribution? Julien Couvreur (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are two independent issues: whether the criticism is correct and whether it exists. We can argue whether it is correct, which is a matter of opinion and research, but it incontestably exists. This report is valuable to wikipedia in that it summarizes existing criticisms (Or do you question the referenced studies too?). In the spirit of compromise, how about a shortened formulation such as "Climate Change Reconsidered, published in 2009, is a critical synthesis of a number of scientific studies which differ from the IPCC AR4 findings"? Julien Couvreur (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All the sources I can find suggest that "NIPCC" is just this bloke and a few of his mates. Do we have any reliable source to say otherwise? --TS 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you questioning the expertise of the authors or contributors? Which ones? Just to take one author, Fred_Singer (see credentials and expertise), as an example, why do you question his reliability, as opposed to Stefan_Rahmstorf (I took a random source already included in the page)? Julien Couvreur (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While WP:NOTABILITY generally refers to whether an article should exist, or not, allow me to borrow a brief passage from WP:FRINGE:

"A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."

Given the perspective here which is analogous to that articulated in the highlighted portion, and recognizing that a WP:NOTABILITY argument is also inherently a discussion of a topic's WP:WEIGHT, I would argue that this article more than adequately establishes the WP:WEIGHT of this topic in this context. --GoRight (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Radiative_forcing
2. F. Pearce (1995), 'Global Row over Value of Human Life', New Scientist, August 19, 7.
3. E. Masood (1995), 'Developing Countries Dispute Use of Figures on Climate Change Impact', Nature, 376, 374.
4. E. Masood and A. Ochert (1995), 'UN Climate Change Report Turns up the Heat', Nature, 378, 119.
5. A. Meyer (1995), 'Economics of Climate Change', Nature, 378, 433.
6. N. Sundaraman (1995), 'Impact of Climate Change', Nature, 377, 472.
7. T. O'Riordan (1997), 'Review of Climate Change 1995 – Economic and Social Dimension', Environment, 39 (9), 34-39.
8. National Center for Environmental Economics
9. F. Pearce (1995), 'Global Row over Value of Human Life', New Scientist, August 19, 7.
10. E. Masood (1995), 'Developing Countries Dispute Use of Figures on Climate Change Impact', Nature, 376, 374.
11. E. Masood and A. Ochert (1995), 'UN Climate Change Report Turns up the Heat', Nature, 378, 119.
12. A. Meyer (1995), 'Economics of Climate Change', Nature, 378, 433.
13. N. Sundaraman (1995), 'Impact of Climate Change', Nature, 377, 472.
14. T. O'Riordan (1997), 'Review of Climate Change 1995 – Economic and Social Dimension', Environment, 39 (9), 34-39.
15. National Center for Environmental Economics
16. Lindzen, Richard S. (May 1, 2001). "Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee". john-daly.com. Retrieved 2007-08-29.
17. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
18. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm
19. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/326/5955/924
20. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm
21. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm
22. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/326/5955/924
23. http://www.geo.uzh.ch/en/units/physical-geography-3g/about-us/staff/michael-zemp/
24. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm
25. http://www.nipccreport.org/frontmatter.html
26. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=334718758&oldid=334637743

• Former good article nominees
• B-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• B-Class United Nations articles
• WikiProject United Nations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment