Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This climate change-related article is part of WikiProject Climate Change, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wikipedia related to climate change and global warming. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. We are focusing on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

See Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/archive1 for older discussions (pre-2004).

Contents

[edit] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.

This statement seems disingenuous or at the very least needs more citation. One individual cited as a source hardly constitutes "Nation and international responses...generally regard"

207.250.16.192 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)cjbreisch

I agree...and the guy that cites "the guardian" article as a source should read it again. Maybe he didn't understand it.200.55.68.199 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)necky.

[edit] Many scientists disagree with IPCC

Please do not remove from Wikipedia any evidence which shows that scientists disagree with the IPCC. I know it is an article of faith amoung enviornmentalists that there is a "scientific consensus" as indicated in the IPCC reports, in favor of the global warming theory, but this is merely the POV of environmentalists.

Whether or not there is a scientific consensus on global warming is not for Wikipedia to say. I'm going to keep putting in information about surveys, behind-the-scens trickery and so forth. Get used to it.

My desired outcome is an article which REPORTS the points of view of both sides:

  1. environmentalists predict disaster and advocate Kyoto Protocol
  2. many or most scientists disagree with point #1

--Uncle Ed 21:34, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 08:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)) The trouble is that you take your hopelessly sketpic views to be the starting point for balance, as exemplified by your 2 points above. Lets try it a different way:
  1. skeptics and big-oil-business deny that climate change is occurring and advocate business-as-usual
  2. we can copy over your point 2 word-for-word
Wiki should indiciate what facts are available. I find your modifications to the Keith Shine bit rather telling. To you its obvious (I suppose) that he was complaining that it was too enviro. But that is not clear at all, and is in fact probably wrong. He was probably asking that scientists get to write it alone.
"Big-oil-business" is not to be trusted but big government is? What a strange world you live in William. Likwidshoe 15:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say big govt should be trusted, and I wouldn't say it. After all it was govts that did the meddling to tone down the SPM William M. Connolley 15:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll use your language here and say something very similar that you say. The trouble is that you take your hopelessly conflicted-interest views to be the starting point for balance, as exemplified by your support of the "scientific consensus" of the IPCC. Big government supports the view that the climate is being fundamentally changed by man and proposes a solution that is nothing more than business as usual - more big government.
You're quick to deny claims made by "big oil" and that's that. No need to look much further because they're tainted. One wonders how you would be reacting if these wikipages involving climate change took the same approach to the government. It would be hard to deny the conflict of interest that is often present with these government reports. What makes a scientist paid with government money so much different than a scientist paid with "big oil" money? Are the self selected IPCC members (and the resulting IPCC consensus) above the 'bought and paid for' shenanigans?
I've done a lot of reading of your comments in these various wiki climate discussion pages, William M. Connolley, and I notice that you don't apply the same standards to views that you don't hold. I believe that you have an agenda and that agenda is not always the truth. But you and a few other AGW believers here are dedicated with a zeal that turns away most people from participating. This zeal alone is neither good nor bad, it is just an observation.
But don't kid yourself William. If there were more governmental opportunities to be had in denying AGW, the UN IPCC would have found that it doesn't exist. The UN doesn't spend money to find out that it is not needed for a task. Likwidshoe 15:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I do assume that my views are correct. Most people do, of their views. You certainly do of yours. I don't assume IPCC is correct because its IPCC; or because its a govt product, but because I've read many of the papers behind it and IPCC correctly summarises them. If you think I never crit "the other side" then try http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/01/sea_level_rise.php or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/01/grumpy_review_of_an_inconvenie.php. But fortunately those views aren't in wiki. You say I believe that you have an agenda and that agenda is not always the truth. Which I deny. I say that you have read so little of the real science that you have little idea of the truth in this area. OTOH, you don't seem to have much interest in talking about the science, only in talking about what people think about it, which is less interesting to me William M. Connolley 16:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
But alas, you don't know what I have read or know about "the real science" (whatever that means). You are shooting from the hip with that comment. Furthermore, I wasn't even speaking of what other people think about the science. I was talking about the dynamics of this whole global warming debate and specifically, your role in it in these Wiki pages. If you are not interested in how the debate carries on and your role in it, then we're losing something. It's too important to not care, because it sets the tone and the debate. Likwidshoe 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm judging you by the fact that you rarely if ever talk about the science. You're not doing it here, either. Neither am I, so I'll stop William M. Connolley 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
So you make a conclusion in absence of facts. That's very telling. Likwidshoe 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, touche! Seems like the enviros vs. big business, with each camp claiming to be on the side of the angels. Anyway, I conceded that my "skeptical" views are not an acceptable "starting point for balance".

I agree that Shine seems to have been expressing the wish that what scientists wrote would have been left alone. Did I read you correctly on that point, at least? --Uncle Ed 14:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) http://nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience.asp

(William M. Connolley 15:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Pretty close. I think he was asking that sci be allowed to summarise their own work. I'm not too sure how reasonable that is. At some stage there is going to be some political input, inevitably. I *think* (but can't know) that the pol bit is limited (to the SPM) and fairly light.


I agree with Ed. ANY attempt by extremist Greens to censor criticism of the IPCC is absolutely unacceptable - just as it is unacceptable for the business community to censor the IPCC. What William doesn't seem to realize is that skepticism is not only an acceptable starting point when considering any claim that wants to be taken as fact, it is an absolutely necessity. Without skepticism, science cannot be scientific, it becomes religion. I love watching the enviro-loonies lapse into foaming paroxisms of rage when their "revealed truth" as handed down on the IPCC's stone tablets is questioned. Their zeaotry is revealed for all (but them) to see.--JonGwynne 01:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


(William M. Connolley 11:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) It seems ironic that in a section entitled "many scientists..." we're discussing JG stuffing the article with skeptic POV from Lord Lawson.
I suggest you find a dictionary and look up the word "irony", you're not using it properly. Here is an example of correct usage: I find it most ironic that someone who claims to be a scientist should denounce skepticism as "POV". <VBG> --JonGwynne 12:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marco Krohn wrote: "rv to last version by 67.163.128.97 - reason: Timo Hämeranta has almost no scientific reputation (otherwise please give references and reduce length of critics"

Timo Hämeranta is not a scientist - so his reputation in the area is irrelevant. He is, so I believe, a lawyer. He was, however quoting scientists and their quotes as well as the conclusions drawn from those quote are perfectly on point. There is no reason to "reduce length of critics". In fact, the criticism section should be expanded and I mean to do so. The IPCC is not immune to criticism.--JonGwynne 21:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Indeed. But the criticism should in proportion. Scientific and political criticism should be clearly separated.

This is a stupid numbers game. I don't think there is an issue that everyone agrees on, that does not mean there are necessarily two even sides. Things are not as simple as finding particulars to disrupt universals. TheTyrant 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)TheTyrant

Here, here.Qualheim 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stott; + 2 oC

(William M. Connolley 22:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I added: Stott says it was warmer by +2 oC, but this is not supported by any record. JG added, but these records are unreliable. But in that case... where are Stotts numbers coming from? Does he have some secret, reliable record that he won't show anyone?

[edit] IPCC author selection

I pulled this paragraph here for discussion.

Authors for the IPCC reports are restricted to experts chosen from a preselected list of "appropriate" experts, which is prepared by "governments and participating organisations". [1]

Seems a relevant point to include, but in its brief form it just looks like an attempt at discrediting the report. I would think that this could be expanded to be more informative about the process. Feel free to expand toward being informative rather than depreciative POV. -Vsmith 02:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's essentially all the information provided by the IPCC about the author selection list in the reference (included), where they provide it. If you can find more information somewhere else, then by all means add it. Until then, it's important to clarify who is being chosen to write this consensus, and how they're being chosen. Perhaps you would find it less POV without the word "appropriate" in there, but that is the word the IPCC chooses to use to clarify which ones are chosen, so I included it. Perhaps it "looks like an attempt at discrediting the report" because that information does at least redefine what the report represents. A report is not necessarilly a reflection of scientific consensus if the authors are chosen by politicians. Like it or not, that fact certainly needs to be brought to light. If the authors were not chosen by politicians, then please find information which contradicts the IPCC process description and include it. — Cortonin | Talk 06:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)) C seems to have done his best to phrase it in POV fashion. I've reworded it while leaving the information intact.

[edit] Undocumented POV

Compare and Contrast. Do we really need to fill out the 't' too, or are you going to conform to your own standards? — Cortonin | Talk 22:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VSmith, rewording the paragraph to call the respect self-evident does not change the situation much. What is even the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia calling the IPCC respected? Zero. It's just POV pushing. Compare it to another organization, for example, the American Physical Society, a much larger and more influential organization. Try to find the word "respected" on that page. You won't find it, because no one is interested in pushing any POV there, they're just describing what the organization is. We should be doing the same here. — Cortonin | Talk 02:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... maybe the American Physical Society article should say something about respect? However, there is a crucial difference, the APS has not been subject to negative propaganda from those who dislike the conclusions for political or economic reasons. And the comparison is rather irrelevant since the IPCC and APS are totally different critters. Vsmith 15:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your questionable use of the nebulous encyclopedic value as a means of justifying your POV is rather tiresome. Vsmith 15:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we've hit on the critical point, when you said that you think, "there is a crucial difference, the APS has not been subject to negative propaganda from those who dislike the conclusions". Now, if you look at the IPCC article here, you'll see that there is no such negative propaganda in the opening paragraphs. However, despite its absence, you have PREEMPTIVELY defended the IPCC against such propaganda by pushing the POV that it is respectable. If you preemptively support an organization against a POV that dislikes it, then you are pushing and endorsing a POV in support of that organization. Do you see this? The opening paragraphs have a special position of defining the topic of the article, and you have chosen to define the IPCC as respected, which endorses the view of the IPCC. The neutral point of view, in comparison, would simply describe the IPCC, how it was formed, what it produces, and the comments and opinions of other prominent people or groups who have discussed the IPCC, and it would do that without making a judgment about the IPCC and without endorsing or dismissing the IPCC. — Cortonin | Talk 18:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. Thus I have removed the editorializing in the opening paragraph. The extent to which the IPCC is "respected" or "influential" is a matter of opinion. Even if it could be objectively measured, it isn't relevant.--JonGwynne 18:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
WMC rv'ed it back in. I removed one adjective indicating a measurement of respect. Also note that even if the scientific respect section is removed, it does seem to be a fact that the IPCC reports have been influential politically. Hardly surprising, as the IPCC's role is to produce supporting documents for the political UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol. (SEWilco 18:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC))
(William M. Connolley 18:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Calling the black helicopters... the respect of the IPCC is evident from their frequent citation in the scientific press; by various learned societies; and even by the fact that they are the benchmark against which even septics measure themselves. Many septics puff up their credentials by claiming the status of "ipcc expert reviewer".
You know, it's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you repeatedly call people "septics". It certainly doesn't shine forth as an example of clear and unprejudiced thinking. — Cortonin | Talk 22:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Your inability to answer my points is noted, as is (just below) what looks like JG falling back on excuse #2 now that excuse #1 is blown. Cortonin, are you really happy being JG's "brother" in his POV-pushing? Don't you have any self-respect?
Your insults and incivil behavior are a violantion of wikipedia policy. --JonGwynne 14:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not the IPCC is respected is irrelevant for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. This isn't the editorial page in a newspaper. What is relevant here are objective facts. Opinions about the subject are simply inappropriate. As are comments about "black helicopters" --JonGwynne 00:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If it were irrelevant then why so much effort to cut it. Clearly some wish to dispute their scientific credentials. Do you?Dejvid 01:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why so much effort to cut it? Because it is irrelevant. Editorializing has no place here. --JonGwynne 03:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... again, seems our local skeptics feel strongly that respect is a no-no in their full fledged battle to discredit the organization. Vsmith 04:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GAH! Maybe if you stopped viewing everything as "us vs. them" you'd learn a thing or two about NPOV. Look at this edit. If this were on a climate change article you would jump in and say I was defending Pat Robertson. This would be ludicrous, as I have no desire to defend Pat Robertson about anything, as my personal opinions are very much not in his favor. However, I still removed a piece of undocumented POV, not because it threatened my POV, but because it was not NPOV to have it there. I also removed the line from that article which stated that his father had "close ties to banking interests", because this was also undocumented and just there to push an anti-Pat-Robertson POV. Even if I disagree strongly with Pat Robertson's views, which I do, I still think POV pushing like that should be removed from the article so that the article can be NPOV, as per the goals of the Wikipedia project. You, and many of the other environmental advocates here, seem to have no conception of this principle. Removing that has nothing to do with trying to discredit the organization, it has to do with making the article read like a neutral encyclopedia, rather than a group-edited advocacy blog. — Cortonin | Talk 04:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Amen Brother! (lol) Sorry, I couldn't resist. Seriously, why do you think that certain individuals seem to feel that this is an "us against them" sort of battle as if those who criticize the Revealed Word are heretics to be silenced and punished? I was a journalist for a time and had a number of teachers/mentors who impressed upon me the importance of distinguishing between news and editorializing. I wish some of them could be here today to share their wisdom with some of the folk here who seem to have forgotten that an encyclopedia isn't a bully-pulpit but rather a neutral and objective reporting of facts in which the personal views of the writer have NO PLACE!--JonGwynne 04:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow - all that over one word. Quite a sermon. Hilarious but irrelevant. The respect is there, it is real and factual, and it is not POV editing to mention it. Vsmith 05:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The respect is subjective at best. Even if every single person on earth respected the IPCC, and that is clearly not the case (since not everyone on earth has even heard of the IPCC), the respect would still be subjective. Whether or not the IPCC is respected is irrelevant to the discussion of who they are and what they do. It is absolutely POV to inject subjective commentary into a factual description. Such POV is inappropriate for wiki articles. And I quote from the style manual "...use neutral or nonjudgemental language. Journalists view non-neutral words and unattributed statements of opinion as "editorializing" or failures of objectivity". In other words, whether or not the IPCC is respected is not only non-neutral and a statement of opinion, unless you're saying specifically who respects them, it is unattributed as well". Strike three. --JonGwynne 05:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Vsmith, read these two paragraphs. If the respect is "real and factual", then describe it the way policy dictates, by citing it. Just saying it's respected because you and those you talk to respect it, that's just POV pushing. Now if you can find a quote that says some scientific society has said, "We respect the IPCC, its work, and its conclusions," then that might be something encyclopedic worth including, since it establishes a relationship and gives information, rather than pushing the validity of a perspective. NPOV does not mean "that which you think is true", so POV pushing is not okay just because you think it's true. Document. — Cortonin | Talk 06:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone demonstrate any reason to include the opinion that the IPCC is "respected" and show any support for this claim? If not, it stays out.--JonGwynne 16:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean other than the fact that the IPCC report is cited in just aboiut every scientific paper dealing with climate change? Guettarda 16:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the IPCC report is often cited. That's why the paragraph says, "IPCC reports are often cited as supporting material." This is perfectly acceptable NPOV. Where it loses NPOV is when phrases like, "is ample evidence of the respect they have earned," or "they are the baseline for the debate," are added. Those are not NPOV. — Cortonin | Talk 23:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political Science

Influence upon politics is not an indicator of scientific respect. George W. Bush has political influence, so does he have scientific respect? Al Gore had political influence and published a book about climate, does he have scientific respect? (SEWilco 18:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Onward, cited references...

When considering citations, keep in mind that citations in "climate effect" studies do not support climate change itself. Studies on the effects of climate change are only examining what may happen, and do not deal with the science of climate change itself. (SEWilco 18:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Lindzen quote

I'v just done what is in effect a revert but hav left the Lindzen quote but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it. For one thing Lindzen is already quoted - how much space does he need? Secondly it seems to me intentionally misleading spin. To quote#: "The public is being confused by not being permitted to distinguish between changing temp, which always occurs, and about which there is agreement, and man’s role in it, which is extremely uncertain and which there is very little agreement on." It is certainly true that that in the wider political debate both sides grossly oversimplify and imply that all tempreture change is down to humans or it is all natural. What is totally untrue is that the IPCC is to blame for this. That sentence is very cleverly worded so it is at the same time true yet , because of the context he surrounds it with, givs an impression that is 180 degrees from the truth.

[edit] Implied criticism

"Rv to WMC. The Hansen text is grossly cherry picked to imply a criticism that doesn't exist." [2]

  • It would help to state what you think is implied, and why the implied criticism in your head justifies removing a list of individual comments. The sourced articles do contain the information listed, and this article is about the IPCC and not the global warming topics of the articles. Can we not use information about the polar aurora which is within articles about the magnetosphere? (SEWilco 21:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC))
(William M. Connolley 22:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I find this comment rather disappointing, coming from you. If it was from Cortonin, or JG, then it would be nothing surprising. Can you really not see any cherry picking in the selected text?
You're not answering. (SEWilco 02:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))
(William M. Connolley 14:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Nor are you. The answer, which you really ought to be able to see for yourself, is that the section is doing its best to make Hansen appear opposed to the IPCC, whereas he is in fact a supporter.
The topic is the IPCC, not Hansen. Hansen merely has some specific comments about some IPCC topics. (SEWilco 16:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] NPOV Dispute

Why did you revert out the NPOV tag here and here? That is inappropriate to do. — Cortonin | Talk 00:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slapping an NPOV tag on an article without specific explanation and discussion of the reasons is inappropriate. SEW added the tag @ 19:55 and has yet to amplify or explain his specific charges. Without that explicit explanation the NPOV tag is bogus. Vsmith 00:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? No. Have you never read through Wikipedia policy? Read Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, and find me the part that says an NPOV tag is invalid if the reason isn't given right after giving it. Instead, it says the NPOV tag allows someone to register their concern to allow a cooling off period. Removing someone's NPOV tag in the midst of a NPOV conflict is a special kind of low. It tries to cover up the fact that there's even an NPOV dispute to begin with, which obviously there is here. — Cortonin | Talk 04:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In addition, acting like you don't know which things are in NPOV dispute is just silly. Let me write it out for you. — Cortonin | Talk 04:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Things in Dispute

  • Wikipedia endorsing the IPCC as respected violates NPOV. A sourced reference to a person or organization describing their respect for the IPCC would be acceptable, but without a source, Wikipedia is endorsing the level of respect of the IPCC, and that violates NPOV. -- Cortonin
(William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Oh goody, because there are links to the statments by a pile of national academies showing their respect for the IPCC, so you can withdraw this one.
Then you can list which ones have specifically said they repect the IPCC, rather than ambiguously calling it respected. That's what sourcing means. — Cortonin | Talk 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Your modus operandi is becoming too transparent: call for refs, and when they are provided quibble.
--D. Franklin 04:14, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) To Cortonin: This is symptomatic of a common Wikipedia problem: logorreah. There is absolutely no need to clutter an article with a list of names of supporters simply regarding the claim that a UN scientific council is respected. In fact, for a UN body, "respect" is irrelevent. Either way, Cortonin: your comments are totally unecessary.

Sourcing means more than just providing a reference, it means attributing things TO a reference. You can't just say, "this is an objective fact." [reference]. You have to say, "This referenced group says this." That's not some policy of mine, that's explicitely what Wikipedia's NPOV policy states. Please follow it. — Cortonin | Talk 04:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • A Wikipedia article calling the expertise of Stott "dubious" specifically endorses a perspective against him. This is by definition not NPOV, as it endorses a single perspective. -- Cortonin
(William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) You have a problem with facts. Stott makes incorrect statements regarding the T history, which the article correctly notes. This along makes him dubious, as does the very following sentence which is sourced.
You have a problem with contradicting perspectives. I haven't seen you say anything respectful about a single prominent individual who disagrees with your perspectives. Instead, you've systematically called them all dubious. So no, I don't take that as "fact". And yes, the line that he "does not appear to have had a single paper published in a scientific journal in the fields in which he most frequently applies this 'expertise', e.g. climate change or tropical ecology" is definitely sourced (to an environmental advocacy watchdog site), but it's still inappropriate content. In just 2003 and 2004, Stott published NINETEEN papers on climate change or tropical ecology, most of which are frequently cited. And it's not like this is some new trend for him, as if you check the literature, he's been publishing on climate change since the 90's. The only thing dubious here is that you're using a lie to call him "dubious", when an encyclopedia should never be calling a researcher dubious in the first place. — Cortonin | Talk 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I rather doubt Stott has published papers on Cl Ch: do provide some refs to repsectable journals.
I guess all these are part of that body of research you like to pretend doesn't exist. — Cortonin | Talk 04:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wu PL, Wood R, Stott P, "Human influence on increasing Arctic river discharges", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 32 (2): Art. No. L02703 JAN 21 2005
  • Stott PA, Stone DA, Allen MR, "Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003", NATURE 432 (7017): 610-614 DEC 2 2004
  • Hegerl GC, Zwiers FW, Stott PA, et al., "Detectability of anthropogenic changes in annual temperature and precipitation extremes", JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 17 (19): 3683-3700 OCT 2004
  • Gregory JM, Banks HT, Stott PA, et al., "Simulated and observed decadal variability in ocean heat content", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (15): Art. No. L15312 AUG 14 2004
  • Marshall GJ, Stott PA, Turner J, et al., "Causes of exceptional atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (14): Art. No. L14205 JUL 30 2004
  • Braganza K, Karoly DJ, Hirst AC, Stott P, Stouffer RJ, Tett SFB, "Simple indices of global climate variability and change - Part II: attribution of climate change during the twentieth century", CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 823-838 JUL 2004
  • Lambert FH, Stott PA, Allen MR, et al., "Detection and attribution of changes in 20th century land precipitation", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (10): Art. No. L10203 MAY 20 2004
  • Gregory JM, Ingram WJ, Palmer MA, Jones GS, Stott PA, Thorpe RB, Lowe JA, Johns TC, Williams KD, "A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (3): Art. No. L03205 FEB 11 2004
  • Wu PL, Wood R, Stott P, "Does the recent freshening trend in the North Atlantic indicate a weakening thermohaline circulation?", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (2): Art. No. L02301 JAN 20 2004
  • Thorne PW, Jones PD, Tett SFB, Allen MR, Parker DE, Stott PA, Jones GS, Osborn TJ, Davies TD, "Probable causes of late twentieth century tropospheric temperature trends", CLIMATE DYNAMICS 21 (7-8): 573-591 DEC 2003
  • Stott PA, Jones GS, Mitchell JFB, "Do models underestimate the solar contribution to recent climate change?", JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 16 (24): 4079-4093 DEC 2003
  • Karoly DJ, Braganza K, Stott PA, et al., "Detection of a human influence on North American climate", SCIENCE 302 (5648): 1200-1203 NOV 14 2003
  • Allen MR, Stott PA, "Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting, part I: theory", CLIMATE DYNAMICS 21 (5-6): 477-491 NOV 2003
  • Stott PA, Allen MR, Jones GS, "Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting. Part II: application to general circulation models", CLIMATE DYNAMICS 21 (5-6): 493-500 NOV 2003
  • Stott P, "You can't control the climate", NEW SCIENTIST 179 (2413): 25-25 SEP 20 2003
  • Stott PA, "Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 30 (14): Art. No. 1728 JUL 16 2003
  • Braganza K, Karoly DJ, Hirst AC, Mann ME, Stott P, Stouffer RJ, Tett SFB, "Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part I - variability and correlation structure", CLIMATE DYNAMICS 20 (5): 491-502 MAR 2003
  • Jones GS, Tett SFB, Stott PA, "Causes of atmospheric temperature change 1960-2000: A combined attribution analysis", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 30 (5): Art. No. 1228 MAR 11 2003
  • Gillett NP, Zwiers FW, Weaver AJ, Stott PA, "Detection of human influence on sea-level pressure", NATURE 422 (6929): 292-294 MAR 20 2003

This man's credibility as a scientist should absolutely not be called "dubious", and flat out fabricated lies about him never publishing should be immediately removed. You can't just close your eyes and wish away all the research and scientists which contradict you. — Cortonin | Talk 04:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Oh dear oh dear oh dear All your refs (with the possible exception of New Scientist, which is of course not a journal) are to *Peter* Stott - not Philip Stott: this appears to be a perfect example of it being useful to be familiar with the literature. For example: [3] or [4].
We're talking about a Philip?
(William M. Connolley 20:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Yes, thats why that piece of the article specifically says, for all to read, Philip Stott.
I was only familiar with the Peter Stott from the literature. Who would have thought that there would be two prominent P.A. Stott's in climate change.
(William M. Connolley 20:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Someone who knew what they were talking about, perhaps?
You can kindly store your condescending misplaced arrogance where the sun doesn't shine. — Cortonin | Talk 03:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Peter Stott HAS published critiques of the climate models used by the IPCC reports, stating that they underestimate the solar contribution.
(William M. Connolley 20:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) At the time he wrote those, he was a climate modeller working for the Hadley Centre. He didn't publish critiques of the IPCC models, but he did publish comments on them.
Philip Stott has published in scientific journals, but it appears most of the climate change articles are editorials, such as "Biogeography and ecology in crisis", Journal of Biogeography, 1998. (Which is an interesting read, since it discusses the effects of rhetoric on cognition in ecology, and how that affects climate change research.) — Cortonin | Talk 20:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Indeed: just like the article says: he doesn't publish science on what he sounds out about.
That said, the quote from the lobby site can then stay, but it needs to be properly attributed to the people saying it in the text, as "LobbyWatch states", and the phrase "expertise is dubious" needs to be removed since it is still endorsing an evaluation of an individual, rather than simply reporting it. And the temperature dispute is still incorrect. It attempts to dispute a statement about Europe by saying the pattern did not apply to the world. How does this make sense?? — Cortonin | Talk 20:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) The T records don't show that. Why not try to find one that does?
Read here [5]. But one does not need to be found in order to remove an incorrect criticism. The criticism needs to be documented to be there, and it can't be phrased as a criticism (but simply a dispute) if there are other sources which support those numbers, which I have already provided. And only a dispute if there are prominent temperature measurements of Europe from that time period which dispute the MWP. — Cortonin | Talk 03:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Shortening Lindzen's quote to "picking holes in the IPCC is crucial" is so laughably out of context that it makes him look like someone who disagrees with the IPCC out of obsession, which is clearly not his motivation when you look at the larger context. -- Cortonin
(William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) But that *is* exactly L's view.
That's your narrow perspective of him, but that's not what Lindzen says his view is, so it's an NPOV violation to twist his quote from his perspective into yours by cutting it off in the middle. — Cortonin | Talk 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Calling John Maddox (or anyone, for that matter) "highly-respect" violates NPOV because it endorses him as correct. If you'll note, Maddox is criticizing the IPCC, and I STILL think it's improper to call him highly-respected. -- Cortonin
(William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Your view of NPOV is just wrong.
Gee, that's funny. Then I guess Wikipedia's view of NPOV is wrong too. From NPOV: — Cortonin | Talk 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What we mean isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood. There are many other valid interpretations of "unbiased," and "neutral". The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.
First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.
As you can see, we are not supposed to assert views, and we are not supposed to say the popular view is correct, and we are not supposed to say anyone won a debate after describing the components of it. I think, my dear WMC, it is your view of NPOV which fails to match up to the Wikipedia one. — Cortonin | Talk 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I assume the above edits are Cortonin - if so , please sign them.

(William M. Connolley 21:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Cortonin has just reverted a whole pile of text, *plus* adding the NPOV header. I'm baffled: given all the stuff you've added, what is left to NPOV complain about?

So why did you make changes if everything was NPOV? (SEWilco 03:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] SEW's addition: Inhofe, Christy: now Gray etc etc

(William M. Connolley 08:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) SEWs recent additions are, IMHO, quite inappropriate. I would remove them, but can't at the moment. I've moved Inhofe down into "non-science" since thats what he is. Why is the Inhofe stuff inappropriate? Because its tired old nonsense. It could all be summarised by the one sentence "Inhofe doesn't like the IPCC". Just one example:

The first IPCC Assessment Report in 1990 found that the climate record of the past century was "broadly consistent" with the changes in Earth's surface temperature, as calculated by climate models that incorporated the observed increase in greenhouse gases. This conclusion, however, appears suspect considering the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975, just as industrial activity grew rapidly after World War II. It has been difficult to reconcile this cooling with the observed increase in greenhouse gases.

This is nonsense. There is no problem at all addressing the small cooling phase: its sulphates, mostly: see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm. Inhofe has deliberately avoided using the TAR. His comments are either ignorant or deliberately misleading. Now, there is nothing wrong with reporting that he doesn't like the IPCC, but there is no point repeating verbatim incorrect arguments.

I've removed:

  • The IPCC report was replete with caveats and qualifications, providing little evidence to support anthropogenic theories of global warming. The preceding paragraph in which the "balance of evidence" quote appears makes exactly that point.
    It reads: "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long-term variability and the time evolving pattern of forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and land surface changes."
    Moreover, the IPCC report was quite explicit about the uncertainties surrounding a link between human actions and global warming. "Although these global mean results suggest that there is some anthropogenic component in the observed temperature record, they cannot be considered compelling evidence of a clear cause-and-effect link between anthropogenic forcing and changes in the Earth's surface temperature."
    Remember, the IPCC provides the scientific basis for the alarmists' conclusions about global warming. But even the IPCC is saying that their own science cannot be considered compelling evidence.

Because it was inserted into a criticism of IPCC section. I can't any of that as critical of the IPCC.

  • Why can't you remove now? (SEWilco 20:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  • The 1990 IPCC report did lose its historical context. Restored paragraph preceding it in source. (SEWilco 20:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  • The above points supporting Inhofe's description better describe his statement than does WMC's summary. (SEWilco 20:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 19:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) SEWs recent additions to the page are absurdly unbalanced. I assume they are a fit of pique over Hansen, but they are rather unlikely to survive, or to help his cause.

  • WMC is editing again based on telepathy. Needs more practice. Or needs more practice on the concepts of correlation and causation. (SEWilco 20:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Read

Read the changes you are making each time you revert, or don't edit. In order to make Wikipedia work, you need to in good faith consider all edits on their merits. You're not contributing in a positive way if you don't read the edits. A good indicator that you aren't reading and fairly considering edits is when you find yourself repeatedly reverting highlighted spelling errors back into an article. How many times are we going to criticize the IPCC for not having ass cement before someone bothers to read what they're editing? Yes, that means you WMC and Marco Krohn. Together you've reverted at least five times in two days [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] without reading what you were reverting. — Cortonin | Talk 01:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another unread edit, courtesy of Vsmith [11]. Please pay attention to the talk page... — Cortonin | Talk 02:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK - will put those 4 s's back in next time, missed 'em in all that voluminous badmouthing :-). Vsmith 03:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SEW's version: IPCC is "BAD"

It seems the version being pushed by SEW is almost all criticism of IPCC, maybe it should be moved to The IPCC is evil and keep this as an article defining the IPCC, the work the scientists are doing, and the published results. It is inteesting and quite funny that each time he reverts to "his" version he adds the NPOV tag. And I agree, "his" version is definetly NPOV. Vsmith 01:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting coming from someone who keeps insisting on editorializing about the respect you believe the IPCC has. If the IPCC was so respected, wouldn't it go without saying? Why does this have to be turned into a PR puff-piece for the organization? Can't we stick to talking about what it is and what it does without having to explain how great it is? Or do you think readers have to be told that it is respected because you don't trust them to make up their own mind? --JonGwynne 02:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The NPOV dispute tag was on both major versions. Some people can't admit there is a dispute. (SEWilco 03:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Aren't we already defining the IPCC, their work, and their results? (SEWilco 03:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Seems the work and results are getting buried amidst all the bad-mouthing. Criticism is valid, but don't think we need volumes of quotes from "cherry picked" articles and non-scientists - seems a bit much isn't it. If we quote everything said bad and good this article will never end. Vsmith 03:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We could, as a random idea, try obeying policy and not attempt to make a conclusion about whether the IPCC is good or bad, important or not important, central or not central, etc, etc. To do that, we need to make some significant changes. We need to stop calling people or groups "respected" in order to establish or enforce their authority, we need to stop calling people "experts", we need to stop calling people "dubious", we need to stop evaluating where the "baseline" is, and we need to stop self-referential statements (against policy) like "no-one can find ... to add here". In the process of this, we could also digest the views of Singer, the SEPP, Schneider, Hansen, Gray, Christy, Lindzen, Inhofe, and such into summary sections describing the views of each, rather than as list form. — Cortonin | Talk 03:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You mean simply report facts as facts and views as views instead of trying to muddle the two and editorializing all over the place? What a concept!--JonGwynne 04:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Writing an article is more than reporting facts. Please read the policies, in particular NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial, which clearly states that "different views don't all deserve equal space". Thus allowing 50% of the article to be criticism of the IPCC is not an option. -- mkrohn 13:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, if someone were writing a PR puff-piece on the IPCC then maybe that would be true. The reality is that the IPCC is a controversial organization and has been widely criticized. If there is criticism that is redundant or factually inaccurate, then removing that criticism should be discussed. But the purpose of wikipedia isn't to present only the views of IPCC supporters but the whole picture and that includes IPCC critics.--JonGwynne 19:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Vsmith. This is the article about IPCC and not termed "critics of IPCC". Don't get me wrong: the article should and must contain criticism about the IPCC, but 50% of the article full of quotes of non-scientists is surely much too much. -- mkrohn 13:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was just reading about bad examples of using percentages for measuring things. There's another good bad example. (SEWilco 15:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Sure, it is a first order approximation, but condemning a metric because of being first order and not offering anything better is not too helpful. Please do not hesitate to bring up a better measure.
But this is not the important point in this discussion. The real problem is that the text of criticisms is too long, according to the NPOV policy I cited above. So let us not lose our time on a side-show (discussing text metrics), but focus on shortening these statements (and by that stop this endless revert war). -- mkrohn 16:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So shortening what you don't like is your only option? The article otherwise is complete and you have nothing more to contribute here? (SEWilco 04:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC))
This is not what I wrote. The arguments need to be balanced. This is a requirement of NPOV policy which we have to follow. 50% of the text being criticism is not balanced. -- mkrohn 08:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you have nothing more to add then perhaps you should stop interfering with progress. There are gardeners at work while you're measuring timber on growing trees, and cutting off branches because they're not part of a telephone pole. And is 50% of the text not being criticism also balanced, or must there be a perfect balance? (SEWilco 15:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC))
The problem comes when people try to interpret the "proportional representation" clause of NPOV policy. A lot of people seem to come at it from the perspective that representation in an article should be proportional to their own beliefs, but this is of course completely not the point. While I will reemphasize that NPOV policy states that regardless of the space given to a view, no view should ever be presented as objectively true, the proportional representation clause states the allocation of space as, If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. Now, lets keep in mind that on a page called IPCC, it doesn't make much sense to use "experts on the subject", since the subject is an organization, and experts about an organization would just be people who have looked at the details of that organization or written about it. So what that means, is that representation should be proportional to concerned parties. In that case, it seems that it is somewhere on the order of 50/50, since it seems that around half of the people concerned with the IPCC are critical of it. — Cortonin | Talk 18:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good joke Cortonin :-) Seriously: I will reconsider my position if you show me one (non-stub) WP article which deals with a person or an organization which has an equally high reputation and where the criticism is as long as the one you proposed. -- mkrohn 19:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's easy. SEPP. — Cortonin | Talk 19:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Again you are joking, Cortonin :-) I wrote of "equal reputation" and surely you don't seriously want to compare SEPP to IPCC. I would be willing to accept something on the level of NASA (~1/8 is criticism), UN (~1/6). I am quite sure that such an article in Wikipedia exists, I'm just interested how long you need to find one :-) -- mkrohn 19:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Now, lets keep in mind that on a page called IPCC, it doesn't make much sense to use "experts on the subject". I disagree. It is about every expert in the field, and there is no mention of taking a biased sample. Thus we should have something like 90:10.
Hahahah. Are you joking yourself? I wouldn't put the IPCC in the same ballpark as NASA. The IPCC reminds me more of the people who loudly proclaimed that the moon mission would fail because it would sink into the dust. That's why we call that "point of view", because everyone has a different one. Notice how your question begins with the presumption of respect, or good reputation, which is a perspective. You say "of equal reputation", which realistically means, an organization that you think as highly about. What you fail to understand is that this is not relevant to the question. What IS important is that of concerned parties, a large and significant portion what is said about the IPCC is criticism, and the page DOES need to reflect that, regardless of what repute you personally give the organization. The SEPP is the perfect parallel to the IPCC in this case of describing the controversy, it just happens to be on the opposite side of the controversy. Please try to look at the higher level of abstraction of describing the controversy in as much depth as possible, as opposed to the lower level of abstraction of choosing a side and presenting it. — Cortonin | Talk 00:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And it's not appropriate to only describe the IPCC in terms of what IPCC members think. Organizations don't get to be described exclusively by their members or associated individuals. We're not going to describe the KKK exclusively by the opinions of expert KKK members, or by the accumulated opinions of former slave owners. Only scientific information and mechanisms get to be described in proportion to the reports of experts in those fields and the evidence accumulated by those experts (which leaves the problem of assessing who the experts are, which is often a controversy unto itself). Organizations and political controversies, even scientific organizations and scientific political controversies, are described in proportion to the concerned parties. Take human cloning for example. When describing the science of human cloning, such as how mammal cloning is done, the description needs to match proportionally to how the experts think it is done. When discussing the controversy around human cloning, it is NOT NPOV to describe the views proportionally to experts in cloning. Most of the experts in human cloning are going to be much more in favor of continuing research in this topic than other concerned parties. It's a larger controversy, and it needs to be described in proportion to concerned parties. — Cortonin | Talk 00:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cortonin, by writing: "And it's not appropriate to only describe the IPCC in terms of what IPCC members think." you allege that this is my position, which is neither what I said nor what I implied. I never wrote that I want to ban all criticism from the IPCC article (even if I could I would not do it). However, the NPOV policy says clearly that the different opinions should be represented in proportion to the opinions of the experts (all experts not a biased sample!) in the field.

The KKK example is difficult in the sense that it is not so easy to define what "experts" on the field means while this is much clearer in the case of "IPCC". The cloning example is better and I agree with you that it is not sufficient to take into account the experts in cloning (as biochemistrical technique) only. This would be fine if the article would only deal with the technique and not with ethical values and the impact on the society. If the article takes into account more than just the technique (health, ethical values and so on) we of course have to extend the definition of "expert in the field". In these cases it is for instance appropriate to include the views of experts on ethics etc., too.

As I pointed out all experts in a field form the sample and not only a part. Thus is not acceptable to argue with a biased sample and to conclude from that that 50% of the article should be criticism. I know we completely disagree thus thanks for reading so far :-)

-- mkrohn 08:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding cloning, it is not just sufficient to include "experts on ethics", since NPOV policy also instructs us to give proportional weighting to all concerned parties. And this definitely extends to descriptions of a United Nations organization, where there are far more concerned parties than just climatologists. — Cortonin | Talk 23:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The concerned parties are more than adequately represented on the various climate pages, don't need a total rehash here on an article about a specific organization. It should focus on the scientists involved, their work, and the publications of the organization. Then a brief discussion of criticism w/ references to the specific topics. The IPCC and the various issues of climate change are not the same thing. The purported KKK analogy is absurd and the cloning analogy also misses (is there an IPCloning org?). Also IPCC is far more akin to NASA than to SEPP (that was another absurd response.) Vsmith 00:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The IPCC was an organization formed by a political body out of approved researchers who supported the desired view, with a mission to form a conclusion that would be directed by government oversight, review, and correction of the summaries. So how is this at all similar to NASA? — Cortonin | Talk 01:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
NASA selected experts who supported the desired view of improving aerospace understanding and technology, with a mission to reach the Moon, directed by government oversight, review, and correction of the problems? (SEWilco 03:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC))
If we're going to have a standard of criticism dominating for the SEPP, then we're not going to censor out most of the criticism here, just because you happen to like the IPCC more. We're going to have a neutral standard, or we're going to fight about it until the end of time. Until it's neutral, people will keep coming along again and again to fight about it. And neutral does NOT mean the article says what you think is true. — Cortonin | Talk 01:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The relative number of expert that criticise the SEPP is much higher than the relative number of experts that criticise the IPCC. By looking at the number of citations in established peer-reviewed journals it is obvious that the reputation of the IPCC is much higher than the one of the SEPP. Thus it is clear why the relative length of criticism of the two organizations differs, but I tend to agree that the criticism part in the SEPP article could be a bit shorter. -- mkrohn 21:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're certainly free to draw this inference and I'm not saying you're wrong, but what *is* wrong is reporting opinion (e.g. how "respected" an organization is) as fact in an encyclopedia.--JonGwynne 23:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Marco, why do you ignore the part which says, "concerned parties"? — Cortonin | Talk 01:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] twoversions reversions

There has been a revert war taking place. I added the Twoversions notice to the detailed version. (SEWilco 17:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Detailed version

  • One version contains details of issues and an NPOV notice created by its authors in recognition that editors of the other version claim there are NPOV problems. This version has the Twoversions notice.[12]

[edit] Expurgated version

  • One version omits details and has had its NPOV notice removed and omits many details, such as blandly stating that the SEPP conducted a survey, totally omitting a description of the results.[13]


[edit] The "respect" of the IPCC - read this before you revert back to a version that mentions respect for organizations or individuals

Let's be clear... whether or not the IPCC (or any other individual/organization) is respected is a matter of subjective opinion and placing it here violates any number of wikipedia policies - most notably the NPOV policy. Those who are new to wikipedia, please be careful about reverting as the old version may contain this inapporpriate content. Those who have been here long enough to know better... your attempts to revert current content in order to reinsert blatantly POV information can and should be classified as a rude and hostile act. It may not be formally defined as vandalism, but in many ways it is far worse. Shame on you for doing it. If you refuse to accept/follow NPOV policy then you have no business editing these pages.--JonGwynne 23:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read it - reverted. Respect is valid and referenced. Don't need the absurd blathering preaching above, especially considering the source :-) -Vsmith 00:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see you have nothing substantive to say since you can't seem to rise above insults. How sad for you.--JonGwynne 03:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Try this. Give a reasoned argument for why labeling certain individuals and organizations as "respected" and other ones as "dubious" is at all within NPOV. If you can't give a good reasoned argument which adheres to Wikipedia policy, then don't revert. — Cortonin | Talk 01:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe he just can't help himself. You see the hostility he shows for people who have the temerity to question his deeply held (though apparently indefensible) views. What right do we have to expect reasoned argument from someone who has so cheerfully renounced it?--JonGwynne 03:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Firebug edit.

Lobbywatch.org is not "many scientists in the field of climate change". When you attribute quotes, attribute them correctly. In addition, your edit does not remedy the fact that Stott's claim about European temperatures is not disputed by a graph showing a global or northern hemisphere trend. When people here settle on someone they want to discredit, it seems like simple things like this just get ignored in the name of discrediting the person. I think this is one of the sadest parts of the entire Wikipedia climate change article process. — Cortonin | Talk 12:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV dispute

POV notice has been placed on a version of the article which omits a lot of material. (SEWilco 18:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC))

  • The POV notice was on WMC's version...but WMC already deleted the POV notice. As he usually does. [14] (SEWilco 01:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC))
  • The more detailed version is at [15], with a diff being [16] (that diff does not include some recent changes which WMC also reverted). (SEWilco 04:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC))
(William M. Connolley 17:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) I don't understand you. This [17] is the diff between the one you put a POV notice on and the last WMC before it.
No, this [18] is the diff of my adding the POV notice. The changes to fix the "Aims" section are separate, and were applied to both the censored and detailed versions. (SEWilco 19:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC))
(William M. Connolley 17:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) As for POV, cam you explain why you keep changing "few" scientists to "some" scientists? Of the 120 lead authors, 2 are known to have complained. That sounds like "few" to me, or perhaps "very few". Why do you think "some" is more accurate?
The "few" and "some" are part of someone else's changes which were reverted along with mine. (SEWilco 19:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC))
It does not say "few of the lead authors" or "some of the lead authors". It says "few of the scientists whose work is summarized" and "some of the scientists whose work is summarized." The most neutral choice is "some" here because some is an unspecified quantity (applying no judgment to the actual amount), while few carries the connotation of smallness, implying a dismissive perspective on a quantity that is not presented exactly. The word "some" is usually more neutral than "few", especially when no exact roll call is given by either side. — Cortonin | Talk 19:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 16:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)) "some" implies a reasonable number; "few" is clearly more accurate, though obviously "very few" would be better. This discussion is typical of the pointless timewasting that you skeptics engage in.
Did that comment sound at all polite to you while you were typing it? — Cortonin | Talk 19:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
If it is 2 of 120 lead authors then maybe we can assume a similar ratio of the scientists in general (unless you have other numbers), and that ratio of 60:1 would indicate that few is appropriate. Vsmith 19:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
If you can demonstrate that the set of "IPCC lead authors" is a statistically random sample of the set of scientists in general, then sure, that would be a good assumption. Otherwise, no, it's not. — Cortonin | Talk 23:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 16:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)) This has echoes of the pointlessness of the "climate models show warming" nonsense you indulged in a few months back.
Whether or not the IPCC authors are representative of the set of scientists is a critical issue in assessing whether they speak for the consensus. Have you never considered this? Read Sampling (statistics) for more info. — Cortonin | Talk 19:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Look through the diff [19] and you'll see there are three sets of "few": (SEWilco 03:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC))
  1. Few scientists whose work was source material for reports. (technically, the work which was chosen for use)
  2. Few lead authors (120) of TAR WG I. (not changed in diff)
  3. Few scientists have complained publicly about AR 1998.
Information about some relevant scientists is in scientific opinion on climate change. Some recent information has been removed so you might check this diff: [20] (SEWilco 03:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC))
So when the topic is scientists who disagree, WMC claims there obviously should be very few described. When the topic is describing scientists who disagree, the claim is there obviously are too many. (SEWilco 18:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Temporary injunction

Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:

Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] by William M. Connolley [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

--mav 22:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] van D

(William M. Connolley 13:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) JG inserted van D into the crit of IPCC section. I can't see anything crit of IPCC there, hence removed.

[edit] Operations

O added [31] which I cut down to:

The supreme body of the IPCC is the general assembly, where every member country has one vote. The general assembly sets the working programme of the IPCC, and it is the assembly that approves the "assessment reports".

and then cut out. Because I don't see where it comes from. AFAIK the "supreme" body is the panel. Saying "one vote" is misleading, because it works by consensus. And its misleading to say that it (the panel) approves the reports, because [32] appears to tell a rather more complex story. William M. Connolley.

[edit] rm xs Landsea: why

Anon 158.147.53.100, who has taken to pushing POV into GW, inserted [33] an excessive amount of Landsea into this article. Landsea is already mentioned; moreover he is a faded argument largely forgotten and of little importance. So I removed the xs. William M. Connolley 09:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Rob Dorland quote on the Mann review

I took the liberty of removing the quote by Rob van Dorland from KNMI ("It is strange that the climate reconstruction of Mann has passed both peer review rounds of" ...) until it can be sufficiently sourced and documented that it is indeed his take on IPCC. I could only find references to this quote on POV sites, and it does not seem to me his reasoned opinion. On the KNMI site he has an 2005 article where he discusses the Mann curve and the McKitrick critique of the Mann article. In this he defends the IPCC review process and the Mann article in particular. Here is the link to the article (in Dutch http://www.knmi.nl/VinkCMS/news_detail.jsp?id=19760 Jens Nielsen 16:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving content on IPCC assessment reports to separate articles?

The article is getting quite long. I notice that articles on the individual assessment reports have existed for a while, and with the good amounts of content for the individual assessment reports, i suggest to migrate the content from here to the individual pages, with some brief summary kept here. At the moment, the individual articles have less content than the present article. I also suggest to add here some of the other special reports, such as the one on Carbon Capture and Storage, LULUCF, and others. Jens Nielsen 15:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeeeeessss... this is something to think about. William M. Connolley 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus in reports

I removed this:

[edit] Consensus in reports

IPCC Reports attempt to present a scientific consensus view. The general approach of identifying consensus among a group of climate scientists means that areas where there remains considerable uncertainty tend to be automatically deemphasized or simply omitted [34]. Another means of handling consensus problems was used in the SRES scenarios, where due to a lack of consensus there were many variations included with no indication of which are more probable DOI:10.1038/35075167.

"Firstly, the Panel as a whole must always respect and consider the specific perspectives of each member. But, more importantly, each member must respect and consider the perspectives of the entire Panel. Consensus is not something that happens by itself. It is an outcome that has to be shaped, and the only basis for shaping it is to follow the two cardinal rules that I have just mentioned" — Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC[35].

This is an SEWilco-ism; it doesn't seem appropriate to me. The quote re omitting stuff is deeply misleading; there is, for example, no consensus on the solar forcing, yet it is discussed in detail William M. Connolley 09:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen has criticized the IPCC process and method of "summarizing" the conclusions of climate scientists. Doesn't his opinion belong somewhere in this article, especially since it claims the IPCC is under "strong scientific scrutiny" while Lindzen clearly disputes this? http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.183.61.38 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Talk:Summary for policymakers

People may be interested in the mini-edit-war at the SPM page; see Talk:Summary for policymakers William M. Connolley 13:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Right-wing, Pro-corporate Bias Under-stating Dangers" should be moved, no?

This should be moved to a subcategory, "criticisms of criticisms". This is compltely out of place where it is. Also, shouldn't this at least be changed to "Accusations of right-wing..." as this is supposedly a fair, non-biased encyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.178.66.32 (talk • contribs) 11:20, January 7, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Right-wing..Bias Under-stating Dangers" (slighly revised) section should stay

Dear anonymous: This is not a "Criticism of criticism" It contains statements about the IPCC (not about criticisms of the IPCC) and evidence as well -- including as of 2/1/07, a major study published in none other than Science, comparing actual IPCC predictions in 2001 and what actually happened. See what is currently the second bullet.

The word accusation is not one I have a problem with, and it could, potentially, make the case sound even stronger in this encyclopedia entry. However I have not included it in the recent title as:

1. The word "accusation" is not present" in the "skeptics" cricisms

and more importantly

2. This is not an accusation, it's a scientific peer-reviewed study. And other evidence listed.

I've cleaned up the Bush Admin language re Pachauri to more encyclopedia-eske tone. If there's another area, please bring it to my attention. As for the overall section (barring small tweaks like the above which as I say I'm more than open minded about improving the language/tone of) but the overall section -- is not only not "weasel word" but is far more strongly documented than any of the "IPCC is exaggerating" oft-repeated but inaccurate claims.

That's because I dont' just quote one disgruntled scientist, I quote facts, peer reviewed scientific journals, the history of the IPCC and the conservatives quoted (not hippys but conservatives under conservative US administrations) whose who promoted the structure of IPCC as conservative, and who later promoted Pachauri as the most conservative leader they could find, and other parts of the actual, historical record, in addition, as noted, to scientific findings proving IPCC under-stated. Wikipedia's entries integrity and accuracy require that the all too familiar but inaccurate claims of the opposite bias are addressed -- with full documentation, as done in this section. Harel 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The section as it stands, is horrible. It over-uses a 2007 paper William M. Connolley 10:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As it now stands about 5 points are made on certain biases of IPCC towards under-statement and right-wing influence over it, in the secion in question. Of those, one point mentions that 2007 paper, and that point cites it just once. Surely that does not constitute "over-use". Perhaps you misreaad, or read another version or another section? --Harel 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC) in question

[edit] Imprisonments and fines

Can there be retroactive imprisonments and fines placed upon those found expressing the wrong ideas about global climate change; where the intent supported religious or financial gains to specific groups of power? Tradeskillsllc 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There should be harsh punishment.70.176.5.79 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPCC Processes

Paragraph "Bias might also be inherently present in that as of the mid-1980s, the scientific community had largely accepted the concept of Global Warming as more than merely a regular climatic shift; while the scientists on the IPCC may well be of internation acclaim, there are many who argue against the idea who would also be of international acclaim but for the heavy bias of the scientific community itself." hides bias in neutral sounding words. and should be removed. Distil it down to its basics and it amounts to "by [date] the scientific community had largely accepted concept X...(for which additional evidence came out later, strengthening the earlier 'by and large' acceptance) therefore that's bias" That's not bias, that's a case scientists being (tentatively but largely) convinced by the evidnece that X is the case, and later far more evidence comes out that X is indeed the case. That does not match any reasonable definition of "bias" in any sense of the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.238.94.175 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I note with interest that I did not insert "weasel" into the paragraph in question in the PICC Processes section, until after putting in the above in this "Talk" area to explain. I note also that someone removed that designation without responding in this section. I'ts been redesignated as such and, unless I hear a sensible reason to the contrary, the illogicality about 1980s "bias" will be removed in my next visit...that paragraph makes so little sense I wonder if enough people noticed and read it..--Harel 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] number of people working with/in the IPCC?

does anyone have any solid figures of the number of people working in the IPCC? how many people work on each report? how mnay of them are climate scientists? how many are bureaucrats who get in the way of the science? this stuff is really important to know, and doesn't really get a mention anywhere in the article... --naught101 12:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

added a couple of figures from the ipcc website/4armedia release. pretty vague still. what kind of scientists? what kind of government officials? what kind of input? --naught101 03:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, what's the process for becoming involved in the IPCC's scientific process? I assume you have to be a scientist atleast, but do you have to be a respected scientist? peer reviewed publications and the like?--210.14.99.47 01:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

--Harel 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "History and studies suggesting a conservative bias, under-stating dangers" ....

This section's rationale is clearly flawed in that it confuses the word "conservative" with the meaning of "cautious", which is obviously what a preliminary scientific statement must be (and is accordingly described as such by all sources) with the politically-charged word "conservative". Just because a scientist is eventually overcautious and may understate his predictions so that they are not hijacked by scaremongers and susceptible laymen (including journalists), it doesn't mean that he is, politically speaking, a "conservative" or just too business-friendly. It means he is doing his job well and responsibly, that is, with caution. These two concepts of being "conservative" are conflated here into one single line of criticism, which is obviously absurd and simply reflects the rampant POV of this section - as if relying on commondreams.org as an "encyclopedic" source wasn't POV enough...201.37.64.107 12:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

agree, in general, although it may be fair to say that some of the bureaucratic wrangling over the wording of the documents has a conservative element. happy for you to change it. --naught101 13:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no confusion of the two types of "conservative" Let's be clear:

The articles cited show not the "conservative" in the sense of "healthy caution" but in the sense of "under-estimating" and the Feb 1, 2007 article which was removed and which will be put back in shows, in hard data numbers, that IPCC's bias is to under-state the dangers. To under-state the dangers consistantly is not the same thing as to have "healthy caution" in science, those are very different. The healthy caution in science is to be careful to avoid going too far in either direction and if there was no bias the actual data would be about in the middle of the range. The study found that the actual seal level rise and temp rise was at or above the top of the range given by the 2001 IPCC report. So if they were doing their job right, as you say, it would not be too far in the over-estimate NOR in the under-estimate area...that is not the case here, as the facts and study now show about IPCC's 2001 report, and other reviews show likewise.

In addition, the right-wing bias (that sense of the word "conservative") is clear when right-wing Bush administration pushed by ExxonMobil lobbied hard to get Pachauri to head IPCC, thinking (rightly at the time, though that's changed, to their dismay) that Pachauri's language would suit the rightwing Bush/ and corporate Exxon point of view. That is now documented (ExxonMobil memo to Bush White House and the ousting of the former IPCC head) so yes, "conservative" in the sense of right-wing bias, is there by means of external manipulation over which of several competing leaders get to head the IPCC.

P.S. As a little aside, our Citations of reports and peer reviewed scientific articles are from sources like BBC, not commondreams, by the way. The only link to CommonDreams was a CommonDreams repreting of an article from the respected Guardian of London..but even that's not the full picture: that was the "Backup" link with additional background, it was the second of two back to back links I gave; the first of the two back to back links was from a science magazine (New Scientist) which makes it a large misrepresentation, to put it mildly, to refer to this pair of background links as "CommonDreams" --68.238.94.175 05:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but you still didn't get it. The current version of this section is just totally confusing. Even if we assume that the other sense of "conservative" here is of "underestimating", this is different from the political meaning of "conservative". That is why I think we should split this section into one subsection mentioning criticism of the panel for "underestimating" its predictions, be it on political, public relations or scientific grounds, and another subsection mentioning criticism of specifically political "Conservative" pressures. 201.37.64.107 13:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what you "still don't get" is that the two are connected. How can you split up a section when one kind of bias (under-stating dangers) is tied to another one (right-wing Reagan support for the *structure* of IPCC that leads, at least partially, to the first kind of conservatism ; and second example: Bush Jr's rightwing conservatism leading to change of head of IPCC (at ExxonMobil behest) which leads to even more "overconservative" meaning, consistent built-intendency to under-estimate the dangers. So long as the facts are not deleted, I'm still open to splitting into two sections, but you'd have to address the above issue. One possible compromise: use one section but two sub-sections within. -Harel (on someone else's computer, not logged in)

As I had said above, it is pretty obvious that not ALL scientists underestimate certain scenarios JUST because they have a "right-wing bias", as you seem to suggest; that is clearly your POV, and nothing more. Several factors from overcautious handling of PR to conflicting data to deeply ingrained beliefs to sheer incompetence, etc., also contribute to this alleged bias. We should not conflate all these factors. And, yes, I agree, there should be a simple split into two subsections within the same section. BTW, that is exactly what I had suggested, if you read my previous post more carefully. Cheers,201.37.64.107 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the beliefs you seem to think I have (if I don't believe in X, then, a fortiori, I'm not putting X in as my POV) but somehow you seem to have read that. I am NOT suggesting that the scientists themselves have right wing bias as individuals. Where did you think you read that? Please re-read the section and cite. None of the analyses or papers I cite have anything to do with personal bias of scientists (not even the case of Pachauri, as should be pretty clear it's about style of communication..and none of the other non-Pachauri points are about the individual scientists at all...so no, I'm not trying to say anything whatsoever about the personal biases of the scientists) As for sub-sections, please re-read what I wrote: I said subsections as compromise, IF you can address the issue of overlap I just gave, which I'll repeat now:

"the two are connected. How can you split up a section when one kind of bias (under-stating dangers) is tied to another one (right-wing Reagan support for the *structure* of IPCC that leads, at least partially, to the first kind of conservatism ; and second example: Bush Jr's rightwing conservatism leading to change of head of IPCC (at ExxonMobil behest) which leads to even more "overconservative" meaning, consistent built-intendency to under-estimate the dangers."

so the two are tied together like to intertwining threads. So, subsections if and only if one can suggest out to do this without distoring the reality that, indeed, the two senses of "conservative" are tied together (in this particular case). Maybe a better suggestion than separate subsections would be adding in a precise but concise way, clarification of which of the two senses of the word is operational where. I do this in the latest version for one of the last points, "...A "conservative" bias in the sense of right-wing..." and I could add similar short, 1-6 word clarifiers ("in the sense of consistent understatement" or "in the sense of under-estimating the dangers" or "in the sense of right-wing" to explain what each "conservative" instance refers to). By the way, I think it's entirely reasonable to supplement the items I have documented carefully in this section, with a phrase, even undocumented, or else with footnote, that, yes, one of the many variables is yes, "handlign PR" as you said. It's the inclusion of these other, well documented, but seldom reported other dimensions of bias, leanings, and under-statement, that I've worked to ensure. Adding about PR considerations, etc as well, is certainly reasonable too AFAIC. --Harel 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Core data of 2001 IPCC report manipulated

I took out this whole section, it being a disaster area and a re-fight of the old fights. Here it is, as taken out:

The Telegraph [36] [37] is heavily critical of the way temperature data in the IPCC's 2001 Second Assessment Report removed all trace of the Mediaeval Warm Period and the "Little Ice Age".

In February 2005 the German television channel Das Erste interviewed Ulrich Cubasch, a climatologist, who said that he had been unable to reproduce the Mann et al. “hockey-stick” graph, whereupon he – “… discussed the objections with his colleagues, and sought to work them through. … Bit by bit, it became as clear to his colleagues as it had to him: the two Canadians were right. … Between 1400 and 1600, the temperature shift was considerably higher than, for example, in the previous century. With that, the core conclusion, and also that of the entire IPCC 2001 Report, was completely undermined.”

....

The US National Academy of Sciences has since issued a statement that the “hockey-stick” graph was defective. Significantly, however, the UN has issued no statement of apology or correction. It continues to use the “hockey-stick” in its publications.

In Nov 2006 a panel set up to investigate gave some conditional support to Mann's study as well as critising his methods and conclusions:


As reported by the New York Times on June 22, 2006, [38]

WASHINGTON, June 22 — An influential and controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed Thursday, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.

The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the 1990's were probably the warmest decade in a millennium.

Firstly, this could be briefly mentioned, but save the detail for hockey stick controversy. Secondly, it could do with a less POV title. Thirdly, quotes should be sourced and please don't use the Torygraph. Fourth, whether you like the HS reconstruction or not, you ought to realise that in 2001 none of these criticisms had surfaced William M. Connolley 20:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)



OK briefer, less POV, fine. However, I dont accept a ban on linking Telegraph articles because you find it Tory. While that may be true it is not a valid reason. That comes down to political censorship. I have no idea of the political bent of NYT either, it seemed to cover the study report fairly. (If it makes you happier, I have never bought the Telegraph, I just found the article relevant).

The fact that none of this came to light by 2001 I fully realise, that was a large part of the critisism of the IPCC the this sub topic refers to.

Link to HS entry for more detail. Done.

[edit] "Dr. Timothy Bell, who is the first Canadian to earn a PhD in Climatology" is a statement which is false

I have had some difficulty in editing this statement to reflect the fact that Dr. Timothy Bell is not the first Canadian to earn a PHD in Climatology. In fact, Dr. Bell's PhD is in Historical Geography (1983), and the following (very incomplete) list of scientists have all earned PhD's in Climatology prior to Dr. Bell's.

Leonard A. Barrie: 1970 B.Sc. Queens University, Kingston, ON Engineering Physics 1972 M.Sc. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Physics, Meteorology, Cloud Physics 1975 Ph.D. Johann Wolfgang v. Goethe University, Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics, Frankfurt Atmospheric Science

George J. Boer: B.Sc. University of British Columbia, 1963. Honours Mathematics and Physics M.A., University of Toronto, 1965. Department of Physics (Subject: Meteorology) Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1970. Department of Meteorology

Garry Clarke: B.Sc. (1963), University of Alberta M.A. (1964), University of Toronto Ph.D. (1967), University of Toronto

The statement that Dr. Timothy Bell is the first Canadian to earn a PhD in Climatology is outright false, and quite insulting to the many respected Canadian scientists who have been working in this field for decades.

[edit] Redirect pages

I'm not familiar with all Wikipedia policies/guidelines, but I don't know any relevant ones here. What do we need IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), etc. for? Brian Jason Drake 07:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding in Key Conclusions

In the following statement under key conclusions of the 4th Assesment Report, the word alone is in boldface, a bias I feel was probably not in the original document. I have therefore removed it. "The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%" askewchan 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resignations

A number of leading scientists have resigned from the IPCC in protest at what they see as their unscientific method. I added this and I think that is important.SmokeyTheCat 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if "1" is included in your numbers... William M. Connolley 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Several. I will find a source soon. SmokeyTheCat 07:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AR4 name

The name of the AR4 report is... AR4. Not FAR, which would conflict with "First" as well as a potential "Fifth" William M. Connolley 14:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey Stick Criticisms section

William, I know that you disagree with criticisms of the IPCC from the skeptic camp. But they are legion and all over the internet, and the hockey stick plays a central role in them.

I think if you take a step back, you'll see that you have replaced language used by both the IPCC report, and the actual criticisms of the IPCC with POV language that mischaracterizes the nature of the criticisms themselves.

I suppose that I'm trying to establish that this section is intended to communicate the content of hockey stick based criticisms of the IPCC, and make sure that you agree with that premise before we start discussing the details.


As to the title:

As you recently pointed out when you deleted the section containing the hockey stick, this section is not intended for generic criticism of the hockey stick, but for the IPCC's role in the propagation of the hockey stick.

A central element of that role (handled graphically by the McKitrick reference that I added and you removed) is the decision to place a great deal of emphasis on the graph.

If the IPCC had given the graph as much space as they allocated to the other temperature graphs in this and previous reports, we might not be having this discussion.

Therefore, I think the issue is not so much the use of the graph, but the decision to make it the central exhibit. Accordingly, the title ought to be emphasis of the graph and the fact that the graph was displayed prominently should be mentioned (and the McKitrick conference paper illustrating this cited). 24.128.51.0 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EIntergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change_851e.html"