Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Greenpeace International surveyed 400 climate scientists, many of whom were involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and reported the 113 responses received as of late January 1992 (just prior to one of the climate treaty negotiation sessions). Asked if there is a serious risk of a runaway greenhouse effect under continued business-as-usual policies, 15 percent said probably, 36 percent possibly, and 53 percent probably not. Other questions involved opinions on the progress of climate negotiations and whether the work of climate scientists has been taken seriously enough. (See New Scientist, p. 19, Feb. 5, 1992.) A summary is available from the Greenpeace Global Warming Dept., 1436 U St. NW, S. 300, Washington DC 20009 (202-462-1177). [1] (http://www.globalchange.org/gccd/gcc-digest/1992/d92may23.htm)

(William M. Connolley 19:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)) Having disliked that statement myself and been tempted to remove it, I shall, having read the above. Because:

The survey reported above was for 1992 - not relevant for discussing the 1995 report
The survey was about runaway greenhouse - this is irrelevant to the IPCC report which does not consider such a scenario.

BTW: I have serious doubts about the reliability of the SEPP survey too, especially after reading the above. But its still there for the moment.

Not any more. I traced it to 1991. See below. Martin 17:01, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Most scientists support 1995 report

Onwards: I've added a note to the discussion of the 1995 report to the effect that most (climate) scientists support it, but not vocally. Without that, the section is seriously biased, because it appeared to suggest that all support for IPCC came from politicians and all opposition from scientists. This is not so. The source is (a) pers comm - ie talking to scientists; and (b) the lack of complaints. A lot of peoples work went into the IPCC reports: if they felt misrepresented, they would have said so.

(SEWilco 15:28, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) I see. How many of the (a) scientists have reviewed the IPCC reports which they support? Expecting (b) complaints about IPCC reports from workers on the reports has several obvious problems, including the size of IPCC public relations and participants using IPCC publication to increase their professional value. [It doesn't seem to have stopped Lindzen. WMC].

However, the IPCC TAR itself indicates the SAR science had flaws: (here a few examples quickly found)

"Since the SAR, significant progress has been achieved in better characterising the direct radiative roles of different types of aerosols. Direct radiative forcing is estimated to be -0.4 Wm-2 for sulphate, -0.2 Wm-2 for biomass burning aerosols, -0.1 Wm-2 for fossil fuel organic carbon and +0.2 Wm-2 for fossil fuel black carbon aerosols. There is much less confidence in the ability to quantify the total aerosol direct effect, and its evolution over time, than that for the gases listed above. Aerosols also vary considerably by region and respond quickly to changes in emissions."
"Since the SAR, major improvements have occurred in the treatment of water vapour in models, although detrainment of moisture from clouds remains quite uncertain and discrepancies exist between model water vapour distributions and those observed."
"Major improvements have taken place in modelling ocean processes, in particular heat transport."
"Coupled model simulation of phenomena such as monsoons and the NAO has improved since the SAR."
"Incremental improvements in the performance of coupled models have occurred since the SAR, resulting from advances in the modelling of the oceans, atmosphere and land surface, as well as improvements in the coupling of these components."

(William M. Connolley 21:30, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Yes, the SAR had flaws. So does the TAR. So do all reports. The question is, does that completely invalidate them, or not? It depends on how big the flaws were. Noting that the TAR improves on the SAR doesn't make the SAR worthless, as you seem to be trying to suggest.

Flaws in the SAR are significant because of their use as supporting material for a little meeting in Kyoto... (SEWilco 18:22, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC))

The "Not Rocket Scientists" Defense

At the moment I can't find it... A climatologist pointed out that the field wasn't all that popular, so the brightest scientists went into physics, chemistry, and now computer science. So the opinion of climatologists is the opinion of lesser scientists, says the climatologist. :-) (SEWilco 17:20, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 21:17, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)) I think what you are looking for is "Indeed the most difficult problem of astronomy becomes simplicity itself when compared with the extraordinarily complex agents that are in operation even in the simplest meteorological phenomenon" - R S Ball, Lowndean Prof of Astronomy and Geometry, University of Cambridge (1893).

IPCC impartiality

I'm not sure who to attribute this to:

The SEPP, however, is not an impartial organisation...

(William M. Connolley 19:19, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Me

but IMHO the IPCC itself is not an impartial organization. I believe it was created solely to lobby on behalf of the global warming treaty and would never willingly report objectively on climate change or the global warming theory. --Uncle Ed 14:02, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:19, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) But thats the problem: it *is* just your O. Have you actually managed to find something that the IPCC reported non-objectively? What I've been thinking of doing, and someone else is welcome to beat me to this, is to compare IPCC and SEPP reporting of some topic: the MSU stuff would be an obvious example. Because, as you say, trading opinions back and forth isn't worth a great deal; but a decent analysis is.

(William M. Connolley 21:30, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) BTW, Ed, a question for you: you clearly think the IPCC is biased. Do you think any of the "skeptic" organisations are unbiased? Where do you go for your unbiased info, which is clearly in contradiction to IPCC, though in unspecified ways.

--D. Franklin 04:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) Uncle Ed: nice work Nancy Drew: of course the IPCC is, as you claim "biased." What would be the point of a scientific committee if it didn't take a final stance for its report?! Enough of this foolish obsession with NPOV!

SEPP problems

(William M. Connolley 19:39, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) So, to gather a few quotes from SEPP:

They aren't very up to date: their IPCC comments [2] (http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html), [3] (http://www.sepp.org/ipcccont/ipcccont.html) haven't been updated sine the 1996 SAR. And this is one of their "key issues". So key, taht haven't bothered to upgrade to the TAR... why not, one wonders?
Side issue: their take on Ozone Depletion in [4] (http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html) - always a useful sanity test.
On their key issues page they state: "Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever". This isn't true. It may have been when the page was written, but since its undated we can't know.
On page [5] (http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/gwlucency.html) SEPP sez: "It is colder now than it was 1,000 years ago.". They don't give any source. Its (probably) not true: the only records going back that far say otherwise.
Etc etc.
Another one: look at SEPPs board of advisors [6] (http://www.sepp.org/boarddir.html). One of them is Sir William Mitchell. He is DEAD [7] (http://education.guardian.co.uk/obituary/story/0,12212,838399,00.html). Is SEPP doing science by Oiuja (sp?) board?
And so is William A. Nierenberg [8] (http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/Notices/2000/2000-09-26-1.html). Good grief, being on SEPPs board looks like its bad for your health.

Needs more work...

move to talk:SEPP? Martin

IPCC climate effect damage

The IPCC concluded that 3.5 BILLION people would be affected, directly or not, by the anticipated effects of climate change. This was by sea level rise, increased disease due to rising temperature and disrupted ecosystems, extreme weather, and loss of arable agricultural land due to any of these. This should be in here somewhere. They had a nice chart showing who'd be affected, when.

(SEWilco 04:38, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) The IPCC has several projects and reports. Look at their structure and you'll see that this article could have sections for their tasks, such as risks, effects, reduction, and mitigation. The results could be summarized in there. Or just mention the types of information and people can look up the details.

Interested party source issue

There's a problem using a single source. Especially when that source is lobbying on behalf of a law or treaty involving tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. If a corporation made a statement on an issue affecting its profits, we would all look sceptically at such a statement as coming from an "interested party". Well, I maintain that the IPCC is an interested party. They are not objective. They've been caught several times twisting the facts, leaving out inconvenient data and so on. --Uncle Ed 21:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Interest of the IPCC

What is the interest of the IPCC? ExxonMobil has an obvious motive. What is the IPCC trying to do? They're a bunch of geeks who meet in hotels and have marathon literature-browsing sessions together. Maybe they're doing it for the glitz, the glamor of being in the world spot-light, but this doesn't seem especially compelling to me, since very few people have any clue who the hell any of them actually are... they've just made the acronym famous. Graft 21:12, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(SEWilco 04:15, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Don't confuse the IPCC with its participants. The IPCC is an organization with an existence which is separate from the non-employee workers on its reports. The IPCC may try to keep itself in existence. Its participants might be under a "publish or perish" situation, where their job performance is rated higher when their name is on a report.

(SEWilco 04:15, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) As for the IPCC interest: [Principles Governing IPCC Work (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/princ.pdf)] from [About IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/procd.htm)].

"2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies"

Emphasis added to focus on the primary role: The role of the IPCC is to assess ... information relevant to ... risk of human-induced climate change ... impacts and options. If there is no human-induced climate change, the existence of the IPCC is threatened. The IPCC could still do its tasks of studying impacts and options, but the interest in IPCC's results would be reduced. If that is read as "risk of climate change", then the IPCC could still produce reports about impacts and options of climate change no matter what the reason for a change, as they just have to make plans in case there is a change.

UNFCCC+IPCC+Kyoto & Money motivation

(SEWilco 16:58, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Here's another opinion about the IPCC agenda[9] (http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/IPCC_agenda.htm):

Cutting in here: it's an SEPP opinion: see that article for details on who the SEPP are. Martin 22:19, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In particular, UNEP organized the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is both a document and another UN organization. UNEP makes clear that the IPCC was organized in 1988 to provide the scientific framework for the 1992 UNFCCC. Likewise, the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report was the primary input into the 1997 Kyoto Protocol[10] (http://unfccc.int/text/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html) (to the UNFCCC). In fact, the UNFCCC says explicitly that the IPCC is its mandatory scientific source and provides the tasking for the IPCC.

Moreover, though not widely reported in the U.S., Article 4[11] (http://unfccc.int/text/resource/conv/conv_006.html) of the UNFCCC requires developed countries to pay all the developing countries' costs of mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. On paper at least, they stand to get huge sums for "capacity building" and "technology transfer", the UN jargon for developed-country climate subsidies to the third world. The developing countries are well aware of this as yet unfulfilled promise of riches.

The promised UNFCCC largesse is predicated on the principle of dangerous human influence on climate (Article 2[12] (http://unfccc.int/text/resource/conv/conv_004.html)). And UNEP has repeatedly stated its acceptance of this principle. Given this organizational (and funding) nexus, one can hardly believe that the (UN)IPCC is neutral or unbiased.

In fact, the Preface to the 1995 Second Assessment report from Working Group I ("The Science of Climate Change") is quite candid. It says that "...the underlying aim of this report is to provide objective information on which to base global change policies that will meet the ultimate aim of the FCCC - expressed in Article 2 of the Convention..." Thus, it is clear that the IPCC is never going to contradict, or even weaken, Article 2[13] (http://unfccc.int/text/resource/conv/conv_004.html) of the FCCC.

IPCC twisting the facts? Who sez so?

(William M. Connolley 21:52, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Who says IPCC is lobbying? Just you? Who says IPCC is twisting the facts? You? SEPP? Come on, provide something more solid.

(SEWilco 04:25, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) WMC, you've seen references to several people who say IPCC is twisting the facts. [I have? I've seen you, EP, SEPP and Lindzen. The only one with any credibility is L. Who are the others of the "several"? WMC] There was a reference in what you last reverted -- do others here have opinions about the issue? How many others have seen such references? (Oh, great. Another popularity contest to determine reality?)

* The IPCC Summary for Policymakers for TAR Science Working Group Chapter 7 does not agree with the report's more detailed Executive Summary. see IPCC TAR Summary Conflict.

(William M. Connolley 18:43, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) That page still needs a lot of work before it becomes meaningful and unbiased. At the moment, its impossible to separate your opinions from Lindzens opinions from anything that might be fact.

(SEWilco 16:52, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Fine, just open up windows yourself to the TAR WG1 SfP (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm) and Chapter 7 Executive Summary (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/261.htm). How do the two compare? You'll have to skip over a lot of SfP measurements and predictions to find reference to climate science...try the 3rd page.

(William M. Connolley 21:30, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) At the moment, your tar conflict page is so badly biased & laid out that I don't feel able to go in and improve it: I'd just be cutting out huge chunks. Its better left mostly unlinked, with a non-NPoV note at the top (which I see someone has added). If you care to present one or two carefully documented examples - the most important perhaps - then I'd look at that.

(SEWilco 08:16, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)) I only asked you to look at your own favorite source, the IPCC TAR.

Quantify Bogus Names

I made a few changes, some of which were necessary to present a NPOV — I fear I'm jumping into a bit of a mess with SEWilco causing trouble, but I think my changes are good (unlike his non-encyclopedic content). One thing someone might want to look into is this change I made: found that it contains a number of bogus names. I'd prefer if this was just a hard number. We should specify the number of bogus names and say what "bogus" means (people who aren't scientists, fake people, what?). I get a bit tired of all of the "some", "most", "many", "few" crap in controversial articles like this one. Daniel Quinlan 07:11, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

No, I'm just the target for trouble. Look further at my efforts and those of others. The most noise I'm getting seems to be because my stubs are bigger than others use while they're creating content. You have my history. -- SEWilco 18:54, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Aggregate external links

I should point out that we normally try to aggregate all external links in the "external links" section. Mixing external links into normal encyclopedia text should be avoided to reduce confusion.—Eloquence 11:12, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

Good idea, hadn't seen this recommendation before, but agree. Anyway, just moved the URL out of the title; it was already below. -- Viajero 13:20, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

I've seen hints at such a recommendation, but the reference pages were not clear of what is done how and when. There are other features seen casually mentioned that I can't find, so maybe I'm just not looking in an "obvious" place (no, not in Help). -- SEWilco 18:40, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

By "mixing external links", which usage are you referring to? -- SEWilco

Google (http://www.google.com/)
Google[14] (http://www.google.com/)

Bogus names

We must address the issue of how the bogus names got in there.

Sure. Not here. Martin 17:53, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Were they added by organizers, to pad the list?
Were they added by opponents:
- to show "how easy it would be" for the organizers to pad the list?
- to provide "evidence" to discredit the list?

Anyway, the whole issue of "who endorses the science", while fascinating and possibly relevant, really should take a back seat to the science itself, shouldn't it? I'm mortally tired of all the back and forth between Clinton Administration officials saying "the science is settled" and various environmentalists and organizations saying things like "this is the hottest year in recorded history, so global warming is real" and "sign the Kyoto Protocal now, before it's too late!".

What I've been hoping for, these last 2 years (!), is a neutral article on global warming -- one which would explain the ideas so clearly that a six-year-old child could understand it and make up their own mind as to who or what was right. And for 2 years, I've been consistentely disappointed.

I think that advocacy within the Wikipedian community has retarded the progress toward making a neutral article. Enough contributors, with enough time and energy, have consistently promoted the view that global warming is a clear and present danger which is certainly caused by human activities which release too much greenhouse gas. The zeal with which opposing views are removed from the relevant articles verges on censorship, and this disturbs me.

What's so fearful about letting Lindzen's views be aired? Who would be hurt by letting Balunias's research be presented? Why should SEPP's analyses, surveys and reports of dissenting voices be dismissed? Because we know global warming is real? That's not neutrality, that's advocacy.

I haven't put my foot down, for one simple reason. I am a developer-rank sysop, and I must not even appear to be "POV" in any controversy, lest I lose my "moral authority". So all I can really do is humbly beg, like anyone else, for some neutrality here.

Please, let's be neutral. --Uncle Ed 14:33, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Don't know yet

There isn't a simple explanation of "who is right" about human-caused global warming because there isn't any. We don't know enough climate science and probably don't have enough data for predictions. The pro-warming and anti-warming groups have their own agendas. The true skeptics are pointing out the bad science whereever it is and continuing to wade through the scientific method to learn what is happening. Obviously things are happening -- climate changes, as does weather (except for "ecological nostalgia" followers who think everything has always been a certain way until it was disturbed). Eventually someone might figure out why things are happening. -- SEWilco 18:35, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Theory, not fact, campaign

While some degree of scientific uncertainty surrounds the causative factors in the process of global warming, it must not be forgotten that the fossil industry has spent millions of dollars (http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/spring98/sp98a_fe.htm) to discredit global warming as "theory, not fact". This organized public relations campaign obscures and permeates all scientific discussions on the subject, and any argument needs to be tracked to its source. Public relations stunts such as the Leipzig Declaration need to be exposed as such.—Eloquence 18:43, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

Gee, you sound as if you know it is a fact. The concept of humans affecting global warming has to meet the requirements of a [[theory], such as prediction. Ignoring the other parts of the scientific method, there hasn't been time to see if predictions are true. And the computer simulations aren't good enough to demonstrate understanding through duplication of the instrument record. Changing a theory to a fact often isn't easy. SEWilco 08:37, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

external links

The Myth of Scientific Consensus on Global Warming (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA177.html) asserts that there is no consensus.
15,000 World Scientists' Call for Action (1997) (http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/page.cfm?pageID=1007) is not strictly relevant to IPCC, but is supportive of the Kyoto treaty.
17,000 signatories of the Oregon Petition Project (http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm) (states that This is the website that completely knocks the wind out of the enviro's sails) who believe there are flawed ideas in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. However, this petition has been rejected by the US National Academy of Science (http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s04201998?OpenDocument) and Scientific American found that it contains a number of bogus names.

I'm not entirely clear of the benefit of links that aren't relevant to the IPCC here. The first link has one paragraph on the IPCC, for example. The second is "not strictly relevant". The third is an entire website - I'm sure it's got something on the IPCC *somewhere* there, but it's not obvious. If I'm here, I want good quality references specifically regarding the IPCC. Any chance of that? Martin 22:16, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think you have a relevant idea there. Perhaps there should be a separate "IPCC controversy" page, and keep the IPCC page as bare facts. I started in that direction when I split the TAR and discussion about it into separate sections in this document. There certainly are a lot of issues on the page. SEWilco 18:53, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

These links are not relevant to the "IPCC controversy" as they are not relevant to the IPCC.

A seperate "controversy" page is a really bad idea, and one to be avoided at all costs. Martin 19:26, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. You want quality references, but current Wiki style prefers all external links be gathered at the bottom. Footnote-style references are not automated because Wiki does not support page-internal links, and scholarly footnote-style references are discouraged in the Wiki style pages. Wiki style wants enough text in article to not require an attribution for each phrase. All this would result in articles with only links to other Wiki articles, and someone who is trying to find a source for a piece of information will have to read all the "external links" section and figure out from the description of the link if that source might be the source for the info. As "someone" includes editors, the external links and text will get desynchronized so sources will be harder to identify. SEWilco 12:52, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

At the moment, I'll use footnote-style refs to show sources for individual facts and list in "external links" the major source documents. Such as footnote-style links to individual TAR pages, with a link to the TAR document at the bottom of the article. SEWilco 12:52, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

SEWilco 12:52, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ed touches all the bases on controversies

Martin, I think you are right about the relevancy of links.

Eloquence, I think you are right (in general!).

SEWilco, I think your attitude is helpful.

It seems to me that the whole global warming controversy is a test case for the Wikipedia's NPOV policy. How are we to report about an on-going scientific investigation? What is the relationship between 'objectivity' and 'neutrality'? Is there any way to distinguish between a truly impartial source of information and an "interested", biased source?

If there's a well-organized or well-financed public relations campaign, what does this mean in regards to the truth or falsehood of the campaign's object? Arabs spill a lot of ink and spend a lot of money convincing the world that Zionism is racism, but neither their ink nor their money can convince me that my Jewish mom or my Jewish grandad are racists. My church has spent nearly 50 years working full-time to convince people that Rev. Moon is the Messiah; does this devotion indicate a fanatic urge to prove a canard or unswerving dedication to God's truth? (Don't answer that!)

Democrats and Democrat-dominated media reported for the better part of a decade that "the science is settled", while others including "industry-supported" groups reported just the opposite.

Here's the big question: does the amount of money, time or ink spent trying to convince the public have a bearing on the truth of any matter? Is industry automatically wrong because they have an economic interest in proving their point? In the case of tobacco, I think they were doing a cover-up. In the case of global warming, I think not. But does the Economic Factor really have a bearing?

Maybe we need a completely different way to write about controversies... --Uncle Ed 15:03, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Maybe we need a few less red herrings and a genuine effort to either (a) contribute readable, factual text that is relevant to the particular topic at hand, or (b) stop buggerising about trying to make articles on cruically important subjects unreadable in order to push a partizan point of view. Tannin

Looking for the SEPP survey on CC1995: came across a 1991 survey (http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/noscicons.html). I think that's the one they're referring to, so I'm moving the paragraph appropriately. And rolling my eyes somewhat... Martin 16:45, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

IPCC objectivity challenged

The IPCC's claims of "objectivity" have been challenged by scientists at NASA, MIT, and Harvard.

Although the IPCC said they "proved" their novel climate change theory in 1992, NASA scientists released data in 1999 which clearly contradicted this theory. --Uncle Ed 21:50, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That would be why this article does not say "The IPCC is objective", then? Martin 21:54, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Oh, am I beating a dead horse again? Sorry. Nice horsie :-) --Ed

The horse will be resurrected. People keep inserting objectivity comments in various articles. -- SEWilco

Ed, which is the IPCC "novel" climate change theory? So many things have been contradicted that I don't know which is being referred to. Particularly as each IPCC report states that the previous one was awful. SEWilco 18:27, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I was unconsciously quoting SEPP. I meant the theory that more CO2 will heat up the air too much. And, btw, good point about each IPCC bad-mouthing the previous one. What does that remind me of? Oh, yes: Soviet regimes each repudiating the "excesses" of the previous regime. Where is the honesty? The selfless devotion to the public good? (Okay, I admit I have a LOT OF TROUBLE maintaining my cool about the GW controversy...) --Uncle Ed 16:54, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Read Climate Change 1995 (The Science of Climate Change): The IPCC says "There are still many uncertainties" and "Climate is expected to..." and "The balance of evidence suggests..." - and that's right at the top of the summary. Science is always a work in progress. That's why every IPCC report notes areas of improvement since the last report, and it's why every IPCC report notes areas of uncertainty. Martin 17:47, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:28, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I've changed "most" to "a few" in the scientists-who-criticise-ipcc section. This is because I've actually counted the lead and co-ord authors (4/10/10/11/12/11/9/11/10/10/9/8/6/6/4; check my math) for each of the chapters 1-14 of the wg1 report, and compared that to those who have complained (2: lindzen and christy (from the dubious webace page; are others available from elsewhere); note that manning doesn't "count" here cos he's just an author; if you want to inc him and get it up to 3 you have to add in all the authors to the 120).

IPCC Objectivity

I've thought about Global Warming and the IPCC over the weekend, and I think I'd rather stay on vacation!! It mainly seems to hinge on whether the IPCC is an "objective" source. Its website promotes the need for objectivity, anyway. But it also seems to reveal that it's already made up its mind that CO2 is the devil and the Kyoto Protocol is the answer to the world's prayers.

So my question is whether:

they are still objectively trying to discern whether CO2 emissions have caused/will cause a discernible temperature increase; or
they are actively promoting the view that CO2 emissions do cause discernible temperature increases. --Uncle Ed 14:24, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Objectivity is not incompatible with making up your mind, provided that you are always willing to revise your opinions in the light of further evidence. The IPCC's record shows that they are willing to revise past published opinions, or else SEWilco would not be able to have such fun pointing out differences between earlier and later reports. Martin 15:17, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As Kyoto was based on the SAR, and TAR points out the significant progress and uncertainties in the SAR, I await the Kyoto Protocol update which reflects that significant progress and uncertainty. --SEWilco 20:39, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The uncertainties in the SAR were also pointed out by the SAR itself (which you knew, I'm sure) Martin 20:59, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Having fun and writing a neutral article aren't necessarily incompatible. I guess we'll get something new with each roll of the dice... --Uncle Ed 15:49, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:32, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)) You seem to be very sure that IPCC aren't objective. Up above in "IPCC objectivity challenged" you appear to admit to unconsiously quoting SEPP, assuming the attributions are correct. So, I would ask you:

Are you under the impression that SEPP are objective?
If not (one would hope not), does it worry you that you appear to have unconciously adopted their opinions?
What exactly is your source for "IPCC is biased"?

The asnwer to the your question above (are they still objectively trying to discern CO2 effects) is yes, they are, and being objective. Which leads to:

Have you read or skimmed the relevant sections of the IPCC report?
If you have, which bits look non-objective to you?
If you haven't, errr..., isn't that a bit embarassing?

(WMC attribution at start of above section)

Indeed, many people haven't been reading the documents.

Up above in Interest of the IPCC I pointed out that studying climate change is the IPCC's reason for existing.

The IPCC must report the risk, impact, and options related to human-induced climate change. Its assesment is not required to include info not related to the risk (I'm not saying it hides non-warming info, but it does not have to evaluate what is thought to not be relevant to human climate change), so IPCC info is not required to have all climate science info.

No. This is false, because *all* cl ch info (for the "recent" past) is relevant to assessing the risk of future climate change. How does one assess whether the current change is unusual? By examining past cl ch (WMC).

(cont) The impact and options studies are for contingency plans, whether they are needed or not. The IPCC can exist if it finds no risk (it has to keep watching), and it can continue issuing its assessment and impact reports in case they are needed.
The UNFCCC (parent of the Kyoto Protocol) requires some developed countries to pay undeveloped countries for all costs related to climate change which is caused by humans. (When reading the UNFCCC, note that the Definitions section defines "climate change" as climate change caused by humans.)

Irrelevant to IPCC (WMC)

UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocols require monitoring and reporting various climate statistics. At least some climatologists will have to do that work. Developing countries will be paid to do that work, so the climatologists in such countries have an "industry" interest in the continuing need for such monitoring.

-- (SEWilco 20:39, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC))

At the moment, the vast bulk of "climate" type funding goes to the "western" world. I don't see that changing (WMC).

William, I regard SEPP as the most objective source of information on global warming. Like the IPCC, they have made their mind up. Unlike the IPCC, however, they have actually made an effort to find out whether or not emissions of CO2 and so forth have actually led to any discernable warming.

Well, I find this pretty weird. You're entited to your opinions but you're wrong. I can't understand how you can read the IPCC reports and still think this. [WMC].

Despite having received some help from my church early on, and exactly one donation from an "energy company", SEPP aren't beholden to any interests: political or economic. The guy who started it helped NASA develop its satellite-based program of measuring the earth's atmospheric temperature. Also, I think his connection to my church's Science Conference is a sign of objectivity: who else but someone interested in truth would dare be associated with a 'cult' and risk being tarred with the same brush? (My answer: only a scientist who considers knowledge more important than reputation)

Your church is irrelevant. I don't even know what it is (don't tell me: I don't care). SEPP is beholden to Singer. Singer is biased.

You really have to wade through a lot of statistics to get a clear picture. I think SEPP (and to some extent Lomborg) make a good case that the IPCC suppresses statistics that shed doubt on the theory they espouse. Have they mentioned temperature measurements made from weather balloons? How often do they check the predictions made by their "models" against temperature readings made AFTER those predictions? How much emphasis do they place on Balunias's work with solar variability?

This is pathetic. You criticise IPCC in total and utter ignorance. Have they mentioned weather ballons? Of course they have. Go to the wiki IPCC article, a the bottom (stupidly, someone moved the refs) is a link to the TAR; go to "obs ch"; go to upper atmos. Or just go to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/059.htm. Now, please, learn something about IPCC before you criticise it. For solar, see: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/213.htm.

So: show me where SEPPs evaluation of these matters is.

I think the IPCC exists not "to study climate change" but primarily or even solely to garner support for the Kyoto Protocol. Tens of billions of dollars are at stake, maybe even 100s of billions. The US would never reduce its energy consumption, it would just do "emissions trading", thus not reaching any Kyoto "targets" but funneling Immensely Huge Amounts of money to third world countries.

This is just your opinion. Unsupported by evidence, it worthless.

People who aren't "objective" are generally into money, power, or power over money. SEPP doesn't look like it's interested in any of these. The IPCC, run entirely by UN member nations' appointed representatives looks like it's about something other than disinterested scientific objectivity. Blocs of UN members have managed to get Zionism declared as racist (the Arab bloc). Why not get carbon dioxide declared a pollutant? There's a lot of money up for grabs.

Oh good grief. Stick to climate, at least here.

You asked, I answered. My cards are on the table. Care to lay down yours? Or should we just get back to making a mutually-satisfying, NPOV article? --Uncle Ed 16:23, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I "support" the IPCC consensus: in the sense that I believe that it reflects the consensus of scientific work (William M. Connolley 17:15, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT); and above).

L's un-missing caveats, and models discussion

(William M. Connolley 17:31, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)) SEW attempted to bolster L's criticisms by failing to find support for the positive model statements in the overall exec summary within the summary of ch 7. Thats because he should have been looking in ch 8. So I did...

(SEWilco 15:36, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I see what happened. We haven't found a way to describe a glass with water at the midpoint, so one of us is saying it is half-full while the other is saying it is half-empty.

You looked for support of models, while I looked for support of L's statement that ch 7 shows that the models aren't treating well the known processes. You're looking at the successes of models, while I'm looking at the uncertainties and weaknesses in the science which is needed for simulation.

(William M. Connolley 16:00, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)) No. You inserted L's claim that the sumary didn't include caveats. I looked at the text and discovered - surprise - that caveats were there. We're doing textual analysis, not science.

(SEWilco 08:09, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I interpret

This chapter dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments

as meaning the chapter dealt with two issues:

This chapter dealt with basic processes, and also found problems with model treatment of processes

while I think you interpret it as:

This chapter about basic processes found problems with model treatment of processes

This is silly. L comlained of lack of caveats in the summary. I pointed out that there *are* caveats in the summary, addressing the very points he asks for caveats upon.

(SEWilco) I think that's caused by the different interpretations of the phrasing.

If you read it as ch 7 found science problems and problems with model use of science then the one-sentence summary [15] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm) seems to gloss over the many problems in the basic science, including that needed by models. [16] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/261.htm).
If you read it as ch 7 found problems with model use of science then the caveats from ch 8 are sufficient.

You think top-down is fine, where a model which produces an expected result is a success, and then more details can be added to the model so as to replace estimates with simulations of known processes.

No. Models are built using the best available physics and computational resources. When better are available, they are put in. They are analysed on that basis.

Yes, so the best physics are used, but details are omitted due to resource restrictions or unknowns. (SEWilco)

Thats what I said "...and computational resources".

OK, so we agree that models have implementation limits. (SEWilco)

I think you believe the top-level results are already OK, while I think they're not based on enough detail

~~-- such as the problems with the major greenhouse gas, water vapor.~~

I stated what I think one of our differences of beliefs is. I shouldn't have introduced another issue at this point. (SEWilco)

You seem to think that repeating "water vapour" as though its a magic charm will do something. It won't. If you think there are problems with water vapour, then find them, and write intelligibly about them.

That is one of the issues which ch 7 points out have many unknowns in the basic science [17] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/261.htm), which are missing in the single-sentence summary. Let's deal with that later, and get back to the L issue. (SEWilco)

Some models are on slow equipment so some processes are replaced with simpler estimates or averages (actually, in the case of flux adjustments, TAR says models without them emerged only "recently"[18] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/315.htm#842)).

If you knew about climate models, you would know when they emerged, and not have to rely on vagueness like "recently".

The IPCC considers "recently" sufficient. I saw no need to assemble a multiproject milestone history. And how much I know about simulations is only relevant in an ad hominem exchange. At the moment I'm trying to determine where our semantic nets differ so we can find what should be explained to readers. (SEWilco)

As L mentions, atmospheric models still have cloud and humidity problems[19] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/319.htm#8514). Ocean and land difficulties are also in ch 8. And additional resolution is still desired[20] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/335.htm), but limited by computational resources. But then, everyone is limited by computational resources [21] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/313.htm), and we can't requisition a planet on which to run a simulation.

Yes: this is the point: IPCC (and the scientists whose work they are using) are honest about the limitations of the models. Which makes L's complaints all the odder.

I think more bottom-up is needed, where the processes which cause climate have to be understood better before simulations can be built which can produce trusted results.

You want delay.
Surely you don't want the Kyoto design to be implemented, based on obsolete and incomplete science? Do MTBE[22] (http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm), Rabbit_(ecology), water hyacinth [23] (http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/hyacin2.html) and kudzu mean anything to you? Several were acted upon by experts; I don't know what was considered in releasing rabbits for hunting.

If you want to talk about Kyoto, do it on the Kyoto page.

I was stating two viewpoints of the situation to see if I had found a reason for different POV about L's statement. I think we're wandering from the understanding of this issue to more general issues. I'll mark with STRIKE my suggestion that this be ignored. (SEWilco)

For example, a lunar-landing simulation can succeed by having rocket thrust be based upon the current height and amount of fuel &mdash the craft will oscillate up and down in the process, but a little additional calculation based on speed can dampen that out, and this can be refined further to produce a desired behavior. Or the calculation can be based upon the underlying science, from the formulas for calculating acceleration, gravitational attraction, and knowing engine thrust abilities, thus planning the engine thrust for the entire trip. The former approach takes less calculation but is harder to adjust when changing between goals of minimal fuel use or constant deceleration. The latter approach requires knowing enough about the relevant physics and engineering.

For example, a lunar landing could be done based upon 1960's and 1970's technology, with levels of cost and safety appropriate to those times. Or, one could say: why bother? In 10 years time we could do it cheaper and safer: lets delay. Then do the same, ad infinitum.

Hmmm... no answer?

Too many issues in converting from the simulation context to the implementation context.

Do we agree that we can't plan on solutions with future technology?Climate has to be understood, and I think we disagree about how much detail is needed. (SEWilco)

Putting a rocket engine on Jupiter and moving it to Alpha Centauri may work if you only know about the ecliptic and having to turn around when halfway there. But there are advantages to using Newtonian and relativistic physics to calculate what will happen when. And the results might depend upon whether you know that some radiation shielding will be needed, and if you don't even know that is a factor then the result is based on another random factor (luck).

to Martin

You removed my comment that SEPP had raised no issues with the TAR. But you failed to replace it with the issues that they had raised. So what are they? I can find none on their web site. Do tell. (William M. Connolley 16:07, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)).

I just did a google search of their site - they've talked about it a fair bit.

OK, I started at the top and tried to find a link to it, and failed.

That's why Google is needed - there's a lot of stuff in archives for The Week That Was which are not linked to by topic. (SEWilco)

You also removed the para showing that SEPP had used misleading/inappropriate surveys to support their position. Why? (William M. Connolley 16:07, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)).

More relevant at SEPP than here, no? Martin

To Ed

(William M. Connolley 18:58, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)) Ed: you added "It is governed by a board appointed by representatives of UN General Assembly members who are part of WMO and UNEP.". Whats your source for that? I'm not saying its wrong, but isn't obviously compatible with http://www.ipcc.ch/about/chart.htm

The IPCC website does not clearly state who's behind it. I had to use other sources.

Yes, but what are they? At the moment, its a sourceless statement that appears to contradict what the IPCC say. Unless you can source it, it should be replaced with what they say.

I've added my best guess.

And: you added "yet it has been accused of misrepresentation, bias and violations of generally accepted scientific methodology." This reads to me like weasel words.

I've toned that down a bit, and I see you've added "some of the sci whose work is summ". Good. But still, who do you mean? Are you including Lindzen? Is his work in there? Not that I know. S+C? Who?

If it sounds weasel-worded, by all means delete or fix it. The last thing I want to do is overstate my case. I trust you to be objective ^_^ --Uncle Ed 20:10, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Aha... I'll see what I can do, though not for a day or two.

(SEWilco 17:11, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)) Ed, perhaps your board is the IPCC Bureau and Chair which are elected in the IPCC plenary sessions? http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm (see Organisational Structure) If not, you should mention the board's relationship with the IPCC Chair or Bureau.

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:

environmentalists predict disaster and advocate Kyoto Protocol
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:

skeptics and big-oil-business deny that climate change is occurring and advocate business-as-usual
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.

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.

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?

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". [24] (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf)

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.

Undocumented POV

Compare (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Singer&diff=11746391&oldid=11733134) and C (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12363819&oldid=12360823)o (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12359851&oldid=12359706)n (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12359115&oldid=12357037)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12275028&oldid=12269263)r (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12268480&oldid=12265649)a (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12264354&oldid=12264265)st (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12262634&oldid=12262179). 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Robertson&diff=prev&oldid=12379436). 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Robertson&diff=12379843&oldid=12379436) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#The_vital_component:_good_research). 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)

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))

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))

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.

Implied criticism

"Rv to WMC. The Hansen text is grossly cherry picked to imply a criticism that doesn't exist." [25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12534098&oldid=12533008)

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))

NPOV Dispute

Why did you revert out the NPOV tag here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12581382&oldid=12579884) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12582665&oldid=12581858)? 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)

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: [26] (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:pvtLKwdDSWMJ:squall.sfsu.edu/courses/gm310/articles/GlblWrming20thCenturyCauses.pdf+peter+stott) or [27] (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:RO_fdONeuQEJ:www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/stott_regional_attribution_GRL_2003.pdf+peter+stott).

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 [28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/William_M._Connolley_vs_Cortonin/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=12735397). 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))

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))

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 [29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12682045&oldid=12679017) [30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12708358&oldid=12708138) [31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12717628&oldid=12717315) [32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12720663&oldid=12718162) [33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12772098&oldid=12770572) without reading what you were reverting. — Cortonin | Talk 01:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another unread edit, courtesy of Vsmith [34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12776995&oldid=12774198). 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)

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)

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))

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.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&oldid=12803747)

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.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&oldid=12776995)

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)

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)

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. [37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=0&oldid=13525252) (SEWilco 01:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC))

The more detailed version is at [38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&oldid=13521825), with a diff being [39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=13523461&oldid=13521825) (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 [40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=13520480&oldid=13490683) is the diff between the one you put a POV notice on and the last WMC before it.

No, this [41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=13520480&oldid=13519854) 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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=some) is an unspecified quantity (applying no judgment to the actual amount), while few (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=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 [42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=13523461&oldid=13521825) and you'll see there are three sets of "few": (SEWilco 03:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC))

Few scientists whose work was source material for reports. (technically, the work which was chosen for use)
Few lead authors (120) of TAR WG I. (not changed in diff)
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: [43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&diff=0&oldid=13342222) (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))

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 [44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&diff=prev&oldid=14076250) [45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&diff=prev&oldid=14072065) [46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&diff=prev&oldid=13847381) [47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&diff=prev&oldid=13828814) [48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_greenhouse_%28technical%29&diff=0) by William M. Connolley [49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&diff=0) [50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick&diff=prev&oldid=14082906) [51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=14085987) [52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=14077463) [53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&diff=prev&oldid=14083726) Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

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

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.

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change"