Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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.[1]

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.[2]

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. [3] (SEWilco 01:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC))

• The more detailed version is at [4], with a diff being [5] (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 [6] is the diff between the one you put a POV notice on and the last WMC before it.

No, this [7] is the diff of my adding the POV notice. The changes to fix the "Aims" section are separate, and were applied to both the censored and detailed versions. (SEWilco 19:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 17:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) As for POV, cam you explain why you keep changing "few" scientists to "some" scientists? Of the 120 lead authors, 2 are known to have complained. That sounds like "few" to me, or perhaps "very few". Why do you think "some" is more accurate?

The "few" and "some" are part of someone else's changes which were reverted along with mine. (SEWilco 19:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC))

It does not say "few of the lead authors" or "some of the lead authors". It says "few of the scientists whose work is summarized" and "some of the scientists whose work is summarized." The most neutral choice is "some" here because some is an unspecified quantity (applying no judgment to the actual amount), while few carries the connotation of smallness, implying a dismissive perspective on a quantity that is not presented exactly. The word "some" is usually more neutral than "few", especially when no exact roll call is given by either side. — Cortonin | Talk 19:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)) "some" implies a reasonable number; "few" is clearly more accurate, though obviously "very few" would be better. This discussion is typical of the pointless timewasting that you skeptics engage in.

Did that comment sound at all polite to you while you were typing it? — Cortonin | Talk 19:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If it is 2 of 120 lead authors then maybe we can assume a similar ratio of the scientists in general (unless you have other numbers), and that ratio of 60:1 would indicate that few is appropriate. Vsmith 19:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate that the set of "IPCC lead authors" is a statistically random sample of the set of scientists in general, then sure, that would be a good assumption. Otherwise, no, it's not. — Cortonin | Talk 23:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)) This has echoes of the pointlessness of the "climate models show warming" nonsense you indulged in a few months back.

Whether or not the IPCC authors are representative of the set of scientists is a critical issue in assessing whether they speak for the consensus. Have you never considered this? Read Sampling (statistics) for more info. — Cortonin | Talk 19:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Look through the diff [8] and you'll see there are three sets of "few": (SEWilco 03:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC))

1. Few scientists whose work was source material for reports. (technically, the work which was chosen for use)
2. Few lead authors (120) of TAR WG I. (not changed in diff)
3. Few scientists have complained publicly about AR 1998.

Information about some relevant scientists is in scientific opinion on climate change. Some recent information has been removed so you might check this diff: [9] (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 [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] by William M. Connolley [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] 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.

Operations

O added [20] which I cut down to:

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

and then cut out. Because I don't see where it comes from. AFAIK the "supreme" body is the panel. Saying "one vote" is misleading, because it works by consensus. And its misleading to say that it (the panel) approves the reports, because [21] appears to tell a rather more complex story. William M. Connolley.

rm xs Landsea: why

Anon 158.147.53.100, who has taken to pushing POV into GW, inserted [22] an excessive amount of Landsea into this article. Landsea is already mentioned; moreover he is a faded argument largely forgotten and of little importance. So I removed the xs. William M. Connolley 09:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

Rob Dorland quote on the Mann review

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

Moving content on IPCC assessment reports to separate articles?

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

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

Talk:Summary for policymakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and more importantly

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

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

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

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

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

Imprisonments and fines

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

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

IPCC Processes

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

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

number of people working with/in the IPCC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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