Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Core data of 2001 IPCC report manipulated

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

The Telegraph [1] [2] is heavily critical of the way temperature data in the IPCC's 2001 Second Assessment Report removed all trace of the Mediaeval Warm Period and the "Little Ice Age".

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

....

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

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

As reported by the New York Times on June 22, 2006, [3]

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

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

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

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

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

Link to HS entry for more detail. Done.

Redirect pages

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

Bolding in Key Conclusions

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

Resignations

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

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

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

That will be more evidence of pseudoscience. 202.154.152.228 10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

AR4 name

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

Hockey Stick Criticisms section

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

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

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

As to the title:

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

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

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

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

Problem

[IPCC] a consensus-building structure that routinely issues scientifically cautious global warming reports, scientists say and quotes Stefan Rahmstorf, a physics and oceanography professor at Potsdam University in Germany, that it is perhaps a "strength" of IPCC, but that yes, IPSS is "very conservative and cautious".

This is marked as a quotation but in fact as you might expect the article doesn't say "quotes Stefan Rahmstorf". Rather the article quotes him. I'm lazy to work out the best way to fix it so I'll let someone else do it. And yes, it's supposed to be IPCC not IPSS. Also the link is dead but I found this (and multiple other versions) via a quick google [4] Nil Einne 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Category of IPCC reviewers, authors?

I wondered if there is a wikipedia category of "IPCC reviewer" or "IPCC author" (maybe broken down by which working group). I don't see any so far, and a few known authors' pages I checked weren't in any similar category. What do others think of starting such a category?Birdbrainscan 09:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible William M. Connolley 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged around a dozen bios as Category:IPCC_Lead_Authors so far. Lots of other lead authors are not presently wikified. I don't want to just redlink them.Birdbrainscan 04:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Do a search on IPCC and Pseudoscience. A lot of people believe that the IPCC is putting out unscientific information regarding climate change. I'm not sure how you would do a fair survey of experts to find the consensus on this, as most climate change scientists are being funded to support the politicized environmental/religious agenda on this issue. Is it appropriate to tag this article with Category:Pseudoscience? Someone removed my tag, stating (hoping?) that this was a joke. 202.154.152.228 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a joke or vandalism. Please don't re-add it William M. Connolley 11:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's neither. It was a bold edit. I will look to see if there are any independent reviews of the scientific literature on AGW, to see what they say. ^rossnixon 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

copyrights (and format) of IPCC reports?

The IPCC SPM documents I've looked at have no reference to copyrights or license. So, are all IPCC reports definitely public domain? I'd like to convert them to wiki format and put them into Appropedia, once I've confirmed that it's permissible.

Btw, does anyone know if they're available in Word format somewhere? If so the references will convert much more nicely into wiki format references. (I've tried Googling, and if no one here knows I'll contact them directly). --Chriswaterguy talk 14:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that they are PD... if you're contacting them, you could verify it William M. Connolley 21:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus in reports

I removed this:

---

Consensus in reports

IPCC Reports attempt to present a scientific consensus view. The general approach of identifying consensus among a group of climate scientists means that areas where there remains considerable uncertainty tend to be automatically deemphasized or simply omitted [5]. Another means of handling consensus problems was used in the SRES scenarios, where due to a lack of consensus there were many variations included with no indication of which are more probable doi:10.1038/35075167.

"Firstly, the Panel as a whole must always respect and consider the specific perspectives of each member. But, more importantly, each member must respect and consider the perspectives of the entire Panel. Consensus is not something that happens by itself. It is an outcome that has to be shaped, and the only basis for shaping it is to follow the two cardinal rules that I have just mentioned" — Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC[6].

---

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

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

I agree, we should not be removing peoples comments just because we disagree. This is a discussion, not an article. Also, there is a video (Watch at Google Video) from the BBC, which is an hour long, but well worth watching for anyone who feels they should be commenting on this topic solely based on what they had seen in An Inconvenient Truth, which documents the some of the dirty misdoings of the IPCC. Shaunco 07:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Dr. Timothy BellBall, who is the first Canadian to earn a PhD in Climatology" is a statement which is false

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

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

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

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

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

How is this fact even relevant? Is he a head of the IPCC? 198.144.209.8 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC) z

The above comment is unsigned and thus undated (though it could be traced back with diff, I'm not that enterprising right now.) Anyway I don't see any mention of Dr. Ball (or "Bell") in the article as of today, so this is now moot here. It is a valid point, and might be worth adding to Timothy Ball instead, where this issue is more briefly touched on already. I would leave out the part about "insulting" as that's an interpretation of the significance of the inaccurate claim. Showing it is inaccurate is enough.Birdbrainscan 14:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Important?

Concerning the IPCC reports, does any one know where they get their data from? Is it important to mention this? And now, I am curious, so even if not important to mention, where do they get their data from? Brusegadi 00:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IPCC summarizes the peer-reviewed literature; they don't do "data" in the sense I assume you mean it (numerical values directly from observations and the like). You'd need to ask the authors of the cited papers where they got their data from. You've touched on an important issue -- there are too many references in the popular press to "the IPCC's scientists found that..." and the like, so it would be nice if this article could clear up that common misconception. Raymond Arritt 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Monckton section

His criticism is notable and published. It has been referenced in other publications and even the response from Gore increases its notability. It is a scathing criticism of the IPCC that airs views that aren't currently in the article. There is no defensible reason to remove it beyond POV censorship. Oren0 06:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it notable in this context? 1) He is not an expert. 2) And its a publication in a regular newspaper - not something that should be mentioned in an article about a scientific subject. (see "in science, avoid citing the popular press"). For all purposes its undue weight to a critique by a non-expert source. (Don't get me wrong here - mentioning Gore here is just as wrong). --Kim D. Petersen 08:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

An anon rv'd on the grounds revert, Monckton has long term experience on this subject, studied scientific method at Cambridge, and was science advisor to Margaret Thatcher, where AGW first went political. I don't find this convincing. Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley says he was a policy advisor. His claim to training in the scientific method is not clear. His study of climate change is equally unclear.

Even more weirdly, the anon came back with revert, if people like Al Gore and the "policymakers" who make the IPCC summary are allowed a voice, then so is he. But (a) Gore doesn't get a quote and (b) Gore is rather more famous than CM anyway William M. Connolley 13:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is notable as a direct criticism of the IPCC. In addition to the original publication which took a hunk of two Sunday Telegraphs, the response by Gore, the challenge to a debate, etc., this criticism has been noted in many reliable sources including the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian [7][8], other news outlets [9], even RealClimate! It's obviously notable and relevant and it belongs here. Oren0 18:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is, if we set a precedent like this then we open the floodgates to all sorts of commentary by celebrity nonscientists -- Gore, Monbiot, Howard, etc. etc. I don't think that adding a non-science POV slugfest would improve the article. Raymond Arritt 19:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC is at least as much a political body as it is a scientific one (I'd say more so, but I'm sure some would disagree). Criticisms of the IPCC that are relevant and notable belong in this article, regardless of the precedent you might think it sets. It's not like this article is overflowing with content. If we find that there's too much critique or other junk piling up in this article, than we can talk about spinning off a new article or paring down content. That's certainly not a problem now, though. Oren0 21:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you bother say that, but just to prevent people saying "oh well we have consensus to write that the IPCC is more political than sci" I suppose I'd better note that I think you're completely wrong. And "the article isn't full; this is something; so we can add it" is a poor argument William M. Connolley 21:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that "we shouldn't add this notable criticism because then people will want to add other things" is a poor argument, that's all I was refuting. Let's judge each potential addition on its merits. I believe that this criticism is easily notable and relevant, and the only counterpoint I've seen to that is that Monckton isn't a scientist. That by no means excludes his notability. And for the record, I was by no means suggesting that the article say that the IPCC is more political than scientific, but I don't know how anyone could believe that anything the UN does isn't primarily political. Oren0 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think Monckton is especially notable, but however this shakes out it's overkill for him to have his own section. It also violates NPOV. His comments would need to be included in a section entitled "Comments on IPCC from outside the scientific community" (or something along those lines). The section, if added, must also include the perspectives of others -- there are many personalities of equal or greater note than Monckton who have commented on the IPCC. Raymond Arritt 22:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It was in a subsection of criticism and was countered by a quote from Al Gore. I don't see why the current criticism section should be restricted to scientists or separate from non-scientific criticisms. If you'd like to add more comments on the IPCC then feel free to do so. The fact that nobody has done so does not itself make Monckton not worthy of inclusion. Oren0 22:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Another concern is that Monckton, or someone claiming to be him, is threatening to sue Wikipedia for including criticisms of his climate change views (among other things). It's best to steer clear until the legal issues are settled. Raymond Arritt 23:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to wikilawyer, I don't see what legal basis Monckton could have seeing as all we're reporting is his published opinion. So long as anything we write is well sourced, which it is, this crit should be in this article. Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source for this supposed legal threat? Oren0 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Geez, did you even bother to look at his article??? Reference to the legal threat is right at the top. Raymond Arritt 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Whose? Monckton's? I don't see any mention of any legal threat on this page. Am I missing it? Oren0 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

History and studies suggesting a conservative bias, understating dangers

Very few of the sources in this section don't even come close to alledging a "conservative bias"...much of the 'rather large' section looks like Original Research expressing the opinions of editors. "Understating dangers" = "a conservative bias" to cut to the chase. --Dean1970 12:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless of course "conservative bias" meaning Thatcher had somewhat of a hand in the creation of the IPCC. --Dean1970 12:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

First (43) source gives mention. 44, 45, 46 do not. One is unsourced. The latter (47) is a book published by HarperCollins who are owned by the Corp pulling the strings at Fox News where its being promo'd. (Fox has a proven habit of promoting books published by a tentacle of its corp,) but thats just my opinion. Section needs trimming or sources need included to keep it fair and balanced. --Dean1970 13:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction, one does mention a famous memo by the usual suspects. Still, the section needs to be broken up to separate the sources indicating "under estimating dangers" from the left vs right aspect. --Dean1970 13:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC) First quote (I mentioned as 43) is in the quotebox, its a direct link. 44 mentions a "conservative approach"...is the context really "bias"? Hell and High water article doesn't even mention or insinuate a conservative bias, rather, author suggests more understanding is needed from ALL politicians. --Dean1970 13:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One paragraph reads (**my words**) -- An example of scientific research which has indicated that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, has actually understated them (this may be due **or may not**, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate, as well as to the conservative bias **refs 45,45 in this para don't back this up**, noted above **doesn't need including here then**, which is built into the IPCC system **ohh really**,) includes a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the researchers' analysis was "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001.[45][46]--

Ok, HNS supports claim. Exxon memo supports claim, though, "Conservative in the sense of right wing pro-corporate leaning" is here or there, i'm sure liberals own stock or are employed by the likes of exxon too. I'm going to separate "conservative bias" and "under stating dangers". It'll be kinda ironic that a newscorp owned news channel and publishing company is the meat and bones of the "conservative bias" article but I feel the section needs to reflect the views made in the sources in a correct manner. --Dean1970 14:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Earlier in the week I edited out "many examples" at the beginning because both sources mentioned only one --Dean1970 14:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

But a study published on the eve of the IPCC report suggested that the international body's previous reports may have actually been too conservative [10] William M. Connolley 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the paragraph about "conservative" bias as in politically right-wing makes this section very muddled and confusing. It is a tangent, picking out a play on words. The point of this section should be just the claim that the IPCC is overly cautious in what it projects (amount of sea level rise, etc.) There is a significant amount of discussion in recent months about this topic; the basic idea is that such a large and ponderous consensus-building process is most likely to put forward only the most basic, unarguable conclusions (although skeptics still argue even these). I'd prefer to see the thread about 'politically conservative influences broken out into a brief added comment after this section.Birdbrainscan 04:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias to overstate "dangers" and to ignore science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA on hold

Key issues

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

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

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

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

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

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

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

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

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

IPCC Lead authors

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

Nobel Prize Category

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

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

better definition of 'conservative'?

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

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

More on History

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

House of Lords report

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

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

Neutral???

The language of the opening sentance reeks of bias:

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

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

Conflict of interest

I took out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative?

Oops, I rolledbacks [11] Mirkin Mans change - apologies, wrong button. But I meant to revert it - it needs some word, like conservative, to indicate the direction William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

2500 Scientists

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

For the AR4, Working Group I contributors are here;[12] Working Group II contributors are here[13]; and Worjing Group III contributors are here.[14] I don't have lists of contributors for previous reports handy, but they doubtless exist somewhere. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Amount of Scientists

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

History

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

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

Alarmist bias of IPCC reports

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

===Alarmist bias of IPCC reports===

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Holland paper is available here in its enttirety. [15] RonCram (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

More evidence of IPCC alarmism

The Washington Times has an interesting commentary piece regarding IPCC alarmism. [16] The author comments on the "Hockey Stick" controversy and the forecasting practices of the IPCC. J. Scott Armstrong is a leading thinker in scientific forecasting and his review of IPCC practices shows they violated many forecasting principles. [17] RonCram (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Nir Shaviv writes an interesting piece on IPCC bias regarding climate sensitivity here. [18] RonCram (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fred Singer has a presentation in which he claims "the IPCC fails to consider important scientific issues - any one of which would upset its major conclusion that 'most' warming is 'very likely' human caused." [19] It is very clear that Singer believes the IPCC is ignoring evidence so it can be alarmist. RonCram (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The BBC defends the IPCC against the charge of bias

Here is another interesting article. [20] The author, Richard Black, concludes that the charge of bias against the IPCC is unwarranted, however, the article proves that the charge of bias is commonly known. Black ignores the blog postings of Pielke, the audit by Armstrong, the resignation of Landsea and many other facts in evidence. But at least Black proves the charge of bias is commonly expressed by skeptics. RonCram (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Republicans charge the IPCC with bias

I realize this is a political document and not the work of scientists but I think it makes some good points. [21] One of the interesting sources this document references is an opinion piece by Ian Castles titled "The role of the IPCC is to assess climate change not advocate Kyoto." [22] Castles writes: "The IPCC's failure to consider the Hansen "alternative scenario" and its dismissal of the Castles and Henderson critique are disturbing signs that the Panel's role in the assessment of the science of climate change has now become subservient to its role in supporting a specific policy agenda." In most cases, that policy agenda means they the IPCC has to hype the science and threat of warming in order to spur people and governments to action. RonCram (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Pielke's charge of IPCC bias

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

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

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

This article is biased

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

Ron, you're soapboxing again. The Schwartz paper is wrong [23] and so is the rest of your stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not soapboxing, I am pointing out the bias of this article. Schwartz is not wrong, Annan is wrong. The work of Schwartz has been partially confirmed by the Chylek paper which shows both aerosols and CO2 have been given too much credit.[24] Annan is still using assumptions that have been proven wrong. The main point is that observers on both sides are unhappy with the fact IPCC cutoff date was July 2006. Skeptics will point out that the majority of peer-reviewed science since then supports the skeptics. That is why Fred Singer started the NIPCC. But this article does not mention the NIPCC or the fact scientists are upset by the exaggerated alarmism of the IPCC. RonCram (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Wikiproject Earth

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

A bit of a format quibble

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

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

IPCC is a political body that advocates political change

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

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

That IPCC is a political body is evident from the sentences in the next paragraph that say, "The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[2] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol." --Steve (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. However, the IPCC is a scientific, not a political body. It does not perform its own original research, but then very few scientific organizations do - individual scientists and institutes do. The IPCC does perform a comprehensive survey, evaluation and integration of the published research. It is composed of scientists, not politicians, and it works on scientific principles. And it defines itself as a scientific body: "The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). [...] The IPCC is a scientific body: the information it provides with its reports is based on scientific evidence and reflects existing viewpoints within the scientific community."[25]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

How about "scientific intergovernmental body". I know that's using intergovernmental a bit repetitively, and it's the same words used by the IPCC (Right under "Who we are" on [26] this page), but I think it gets the points across quite clearly. The IPCC is not just a scientific body, it's also related to governments (like national academies are not just scientific bodies; they are also advisory bodies). I agree that "political" isn't quite right, because it's a very general term. Also, the IPCC says that it's supposed to be "neutral with respect to policy", so, as long as that's actually true (which, as far as I can tell, it is), then the IPCC doesn't make treaties; it just provides reviews for an international political process to use to make policies. The IPCC itself does not make or support specific policies, which is implied by the term "political". - Enuja (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

New criticism of the IPCC

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

Failure to meet standards of Global Administrative Law project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron, as far as I can make out, Barton did not act in his role as committee chairman, and he certainly did not use congress funds. See [27]: "committee staff informally sought advice from independent statisticians" and "Dr. Edward Wegman [...] agreed to independently assess the data on a pro bono basis" (my emphasis). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is indeed wrong - and contradicted by the Wegman report itself - lets quote [28] (page 7, 2nd paragraph, last sentence):

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

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

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

On the contrary, there is no reason to assume that the study was commissioned "by Congress". The "informally" even in Barton's own description should be a strong hint. How Wegeman describes Barton has no bearing on how he was recruited. There are many possible reasons why Barton would prefer an informal approach. A formal commissioning would require at least a discussion and very possibly a majority in the committee. It would also possibly limit Barton's choice of reviewer. It's quite possible that the committee would have rejected a further study, as congress had already commissioned the much more comprehensive (and competent) US National Academy/NCR study on essentially the same topic.[29] Also, if you leave a paper trail, its much harder to ignore unfavorable results. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, hogwash. Your statement is so full of inaccuracies it is difficult to know where to begin. Barton may have chosen the word "informally" for a great many reasons, perhaps just to refer to the fact Wegman had refused compensation. You have built an entire straw man out of your misunderstanding of this one word you describe as a "hint." You use the term "Barton's choice of reviewer" as if the choice was Barton's alone and as if Wegman is not up to the task. Not true. Congressional committee staff located Wegman (see page 7 of Wegman's Report). Edward Wegman is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association and chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. He is one of the preeminent statisticians in this country. Wegman's Report was co-authored by David Scott of Rice University and Yasmin Said of Johns Hopkins University. You only embarrass yourself when you try to denigrate the credentials of these authors. I do not understand why defenders of Mann want to bring up the NAS Report. People who have actually read the NAS report know that it does not help Mann at all. The NAS panel had some good scientists on it, but the statisticians (while competent) were not of the same reputation as Wegman. For example, I believe the NAS panel looked to William "Matt" Briggs and one other statistician to assess the statistical elements in MBH9x. [30] While Matt Briggs is very bright (far out of my league), he is much younger than Wegman and has not developed the sterling national reputation in statistics that Ed Wegman has. Also, the NAS panel was looking at a variety of issues and not just statistical ones. For that reason the NAS panel did not look into McIntyre's claim that Mann's method created a hockey stick from trendless red noise. Wegman did look into this issue and agreed with McIntyre (as Von Storch and Zorita did later). Wegman was asked to look only at the statistical issues and the NAS panel looked at other issues including the use of strip bark bristlecone pine trees. The NAS panel agreed with McIntyre that these trees are not temperature proxies and should not have been used. The NAS study was much more polite to Mann than Wegman but Gerry North is on record saying the NAS panel essentially agreed with the Wegman report. RonCram (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

NOBEL PRIZE

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

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

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

Not to mention that there isn't such a "requirement" on template:infobox organization. It seems that the requirement only exists on template:infobox scientist, and recent discussions on the talk page there, as well as on MoS [31] do not indicate that there is such a requirement or consensus.

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

Global Warming and the Second Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image copyright problem with Image:UNFCCC Logo.svg

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

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

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

"Scientific" Body?

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

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

I disagree with you, as does the IPCC itself The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body [32] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• people in possession of a dictionary should be able to deduce that the description is valid : scientific = [33] body = [34]

people capable of typing "scientific body ipcc" who ignore the blogs will also see reputable sources describing it thus: [35] Ephebi (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Incomplete Information

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

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

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

Criticism/Praise

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

Edit IPCC infobox / template

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

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

Landsea section?

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

Debate over value of a statistical life

I have some trouble with this section:

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

My specific concerns are listed below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've put together a possible revision below:

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

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

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

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