Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sharnish (talk | contribs) at 19:14, 16 April 2012 (→'Global warming' gets a rebranding: Board member Ignacy Sach's 1991 paper on political motivations behind IPCC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Climate change 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Archives

Archive 1 (2007–2009) Archive 2 (2010– )

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Nobody has the right to arbitrarily remove posts from the Talk page. This is not the Article page.

Dave Souza has no right to arbitrarily remove posts from the Talk page. This is not the Article page. Steve Harnish (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Biased and selective quoting of Revkin?

StS, I don't wish to unfairly summarize Revkin's point. What nuance has been left out? I am sure that we can find a way to work it in. The main point here is that a knowledgable and unbiased observer has made the observation that in their opinion Pachauri often crosses the line from neutrality into advocacy and is hurting the IPCC by doing so. This is an important point given the charter and importance of the IPCC. Including example(s) of where Revkin believes that Pachauri has crossed that line seems pertinent to helping the reader understand his point. What else do you think needs to be included to compose a fair summary of Revkin's piece? --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

While Revkin is one of the better journalists on the topic, it's one blog and highlighting it in this way gives a degree of WP:WEIGHT that seems rather inappropriate in a WP:BLP. While Revkin's subsequent blog indicates he holds a view on these lines, it's obviously contested by the historian Spencer Weart. So, more context and a more authoritative source would be needed. . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the follow on post. Revkin represents a knowledgable voice from outside the climate science community. He is a strong supporter of the IPCC view and so his criticism can be taken as unbiased. If you feel that including only Revkin's comments is biased then let us also include Weart's point as well to provide the needed context and balance. Would this satisfy your concern? The fact that Weart responded at all points to the significance and notability of Revkin's point so I think some discussion of this is worth including in a summary form, or do you fundamentally disagree on that point? --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Revkin wrote a longish piece that mixes advice and criticism. It's clear that the "one way ticket" joke was, in fact, Branson's. You concentrate on the criticism and repeat the wrong impression about the joke. Moreover, this is one opinion piece. I tend to agree that it is hard to avoid undue weight when introducing it. I also find it confusing to have a "Controversies" section that covers his IPCC work and also add criticism to the general IPCC section. We should keep it consistent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question: What else needs to be included to compose a fair summary of Revkin's piece? It is clear that Branson originated the one way ticket joke and directed it specifically at federal housing authorities. It is also quite clear that Pachauri subsequently made the same joke but broadened the scope of those to whom it was directed to be "those who are becoming obstacles ...". So to say that the joke was purely Branson's in disengenuous and misleading. Pachauri made the joke although it is unclear exactly toward whom he was directing it at the time. Clearly Revkin and Mark Hertsgaard both felt that he was at least including climate change deniers in his phrasing. So I have not repeated the wrong impression of anything. I originally included this where I did because I don't consider this to be a "controversy" so much as a comment on his work at the IPCC. If you feel it is a controversy then fine we can included it in that section. --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of Advocacy and Activism

We need to include some discussion of the accusations of advocacy and activism which are coming from both sides of the debate:

• Andrew Revkin: Climate Panel Needs to Follow its Own Advice, New Directions for the Intergovernmental Climate Panel
• Mark Hertsgaard: New approach to climate deniers: Launch them into space!
• Don Surber: NYT global warmist: IPCC chief should quit
• Donna Laframboise: Rajendra Pachauri: Ever the Activist

This is more than sufficient material to establish weight for the topic and to provide a cross section of opinion on the matter. I don't want to misrepresent what is being said here so what specifically are the points from all this that should be included to make a fair summary of the situation?

I believe that the key points that jump out at me are:

• Revkin is a supporter of the IPCC view and he believes that Pachauri crosses the line into advocacy.
• The event that caused Revkin to speak up on this point was the one way ticket joke, among other things.
• Hertsgaard is included merely to substantiate that Pachauri actually made the joke.
• Hertsgaard can be used to include that Pachauri claims he didn't mean to include climate change deniers.
• Surber makes the point that Revkin is more politically aligned with Pachauri than the deniers and still has this opinion of the man.
• Laframboise argues that Pachauri's actions are indistinguishable from those of a green activist.

These are all sources published in the mainstream media and by people known to be knowledgable of the subject matter involved. What other points should be addressed to make a fair summary in the controversies section? --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement. Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!”

http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/06/body-blow-to-german-global-warming-movement-major-media-outlets-unload-on-co2-lies/

Excerpt: "Today, not one, but two of Germany’s most widely read news media published comprehensive skeptical climate science articles in their print and online editions, coinciding with the release of a major climate skeptical book, Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun). Germany has now plunged into raucus discord on the heated topic of climate change." Steve Harnish (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And your suggestion for improving this article is...?--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. "Bild" is roughly on a level with the National Enquirer. Next week nobody will remember what they wrote. And what they wrote is actually fairly tame to begin with. And if there is "raucus discord" here, it has carefully managed to escape my notice (as "raucus" seems to have escaped the eye of lexicographers). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Page 2:

SPIEGEL: Why are you taking on the role of the climate rebel with such passion? Where does this rage come from?

Vahrenholt: For years, I disseminated the hypotheses of the IPCC, and I feel duped. Renewable energy is near and dear to me, and I've been fighting for its expansion for more than 30 years. My concern is that if citizens discover that the people who warn of a climate disaster are only telling half the truth, they will no longer be prepared to pay higher electricity costs for wind and solar (energy). Then the conversion of our energy supply will lack the necessary acceptance. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html Steve Harnish (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly does this have to do with the article at hand? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

'Global warming' gets a rebranding

From the left-leaning Politico: "There’s been a change in climate for Washington’s greenhouse gang, and they’ve come to this conclusion: To win, they have to talk about other topics, like gas prices and kids choking on pollutants. ... the strategic shift represents a reluctant acknowledgment from environmentalists that they’ve lost ground by tackling global warming head-on. Their best bet now lies in a bit of a bait and switch: ..." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74263.html Steve Harnish (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Does it specifically discuss Pachauri? If not, it's irrelevant here, and even if it does it's doubtful if it should be given any weight at all in this article. . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely relevant. It shows the extent to which the disinformation spread by the henchman Pacuauri and the IPCC has been exposed - the global warming hoax can no longer be used to support the political causes which were the reason behind the very creation of the IPCC. haha - you can't even use "global warming" in its name, but are stuck with an absolutely meaningless reverse-euphemism such as "climate change". Steve Harnish (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Dave, you have no right to remove contributions from the talk page, only the article page. Misplaced Pages runs on consensus, not arbitrary censorship by individuals who claim ownership of articles. So I reverted your censorship. You say there's no politics associated with the IPCC - ever hear of board member Ignacy Sach? In 1991 he says it's all about politics: http://www.infowars.com/the-ultimate-euphemism-un-calls-its-blueprint-for-mass-death-a-virtuous-green-path/ Steve Harnish (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class biography articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Stub-Class Economics articles
• Unknown-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• Stub-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• Stub-Class India articles
• Unknown-importance India articles
• Stub-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
• Automatically assessed India articles
• WikiProject India articles