Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Himal: next problem

All the text is currently absent pending discussion

Continuing the long slow painful death by 1000 cuts of this section: The IPCC's 4th report has been criticized by Professor J Graham Cogley for using three reports, by the World Wildlife Fund, UNESCO, and the magazine New Scientist, none of which were peer-reviewed, to make the case that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035 This text isn't in the BBC report, and it is wrong. The text of the IPCC report is available to us all, and it is clear that the source for the 2035 claim is a WWF report. Allow me to quote you the IPCC text: Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005). The text in this article is an inaccurate paraphrase of the BBC report, and needs to be corrected William M. Connolley (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Lots of people have edited this page since I added this. Last chance to complain...? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Complaint added, please post your proposed revisions before adding to the article. Consensus must be reached before further changes are made. mark nutley (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Ah yes, I know this game: what you mean is that your agreement must be obtained before your edits are changed. We call that WP:OWN. Instead of fighting you should propose improved wording starting fomr the text William has proposed. He is right that the previous paragraph was an inaccurate paraphrase. Note also the other comments showing that IPCC is at liberty to use these sources if it wants; there was a long argument over text saying the opposite. So, please be constructive rather than obdurate. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I'm asserting that the existing text is wrong. You're saying you "complain". What does that mean? That you think the text is in fact correct? As Guy says, you need something of substance not just "no" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC) @ JzG, no i am not saying it needs my consent i am saying any changes to the article should have consensus, which i believe is part of the article probation. @WMC i am not just saying "no" i am saying i would like to see your proposed changes before you edit the article so a consensus ca nbe reached by all editors, not just me mark nutley (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC) You failed to make any substantive objections. You haven't defended the existing text as accurate, which is good, because it plainly isn't. I've replaced the existing text with one that corresponds rather more closely to reality William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC) The BBC article says, "The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the "outer year" for shrinkage of glaciers. They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist." and in a few other spots Cogley mentions his criticisms based on these reports. You are destroying the readibility of this section - you did the exact same thing in the Carbon sink article where you claimed something wasn't in the source and then altered the text to your liking. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I've provided you with the text of the IPCC report, above. If you don't believe me, you are free to read the text yourself - it is online. To assert that the IPCC relied on the NS is obviously wrong. We've already agreed that the BBC have erred in reporting this incident William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC) You are welcome go to the reliable sources board and persuade them that the BBC isn't reliable - I'll go with them rather than quotes from you (I didn't see a link). Of course, perhaps you have a source from "Real Climate" to better make your case? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC) There is a difference between stating that the BBC is not reliable, and pointing out that a specific article makes errors, and thus isn't reliable for these informations. Now do you acknowledge that the Beeb made mistakes - or are you simply arguing the rather extreme view that we must propagate errors despite knowing that they are indeed errors? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC) And again, quoting a small section of the report says absolutely nothing about what is in the rest of the report. Logically, this is the same as saying, "This loaf of bread doesn't have nuts, therefore, none of the bread in the bakery has nuts." TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC) You haven't even glanced at the report have you? Chapter 10 section 6 subsection 4 (page 493) 'The Himalayan glaciers' is the one that is talked about. It fills less than a column on a two-column page in the report. So it shouldn't be that hard to verify for you. It cites 3 references: (WWF, 2005), (Hasnain, 2002), (Shen et al., 2002) - the first we know, the two others are: Higashi, H., K. Dairaku and T. Matuura, 2006: Impacts of global warming on heavy precipitation frequency and flood risk. Journal of Hydroscience and Hydraulic Engineering, 50, 205-210. Shen,Y.P., G.X.Wang, Q.B.Wu and S.Y. Liu, 2002: The impact of future climate change on ecology and environments in the Changjiang - Yellow Rivers source region. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 24, 308-313. Both of which are P-R literature, and none of which matches the Beebs description. (it is also rather easy to check that neither New Scientist nor Unesco are cited in the report ... there is a reference listing). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC) <outdent> Yes there is a reference listing - for that chapter. Proving they aren't in one chapter of a very large report by only looking at the references from part of that report is quite silly - or were you arguing the glacier topic only appears in that section? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Also, I've already referenced this before, which I find unbelievable since you've both been at wikipedia for a very long time, but WP:VERIFY, a core policy of wikipedia states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." You are attempting to ignore core wikipedia policy in order to do what you want - and I have a very hard time believing you are unaware of this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC) WP:V is not a suicide pact. If you can verify that a source is incorrect (we can), then its a straight-forward editorial decision not to use that information, just because something is written in a reliable source, doesn't mean that it must be quoted. Hopefully you aren't really arguing that we should use material that we know is wrong - are you? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC) <outdent> Again Kim, you've looked through the haystack, found a needle and conluded there is no hay. I think I've demonstrated quite clearly that you and Connolley will continue to ignore wikipedia policy and evoke your own rules over clearly stated wikipedia policy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Where a secondary source is clearly contradicted by a primary source, the secondary source is obviously not reliable in that instance. There is no such thing as a categorically reliable source. If we want to report this matter reliably we should locate a more reliable source. If there are no or few other sources, then this speaks to WEIGHT and perhaps we should reconsider whether the particular item is important enough to merit coverage. That is, while I have no particular problem with the notion of reporting problems with AR4, particular statements about AR4 should be reliably sourced. --TS 01:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC) There is no clear contradiction Tony - they've merely quoted parts of a very large document and said, "See! It isn't in the entire document!" Besides, primary sources are not preferred for wikipedia use - again, something senior editors should know. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC) You are talking past people not to them. Kim's statement above is admirably clear: the section is a very small part of a large report, it cites three references of which two clearly are peer-reviewed, and these easily verifiable facts conflict with the BBC. The BBC has got it wrong. They do sometimes. Even if they hadn't, cherry-picking this one small part of a large report is likely WP:UNDUE in itself. What you are suggesting is that we include text that you like based on a source that says something you like even though it's pretty easy to show that the source you like got it wrong, because the source you like is secondary. That's gaming the system. The prohibition on original research is to prevent novel syntheses being made from published sources. Kim is not presenting a novel synthesis and neither is William. The text as currently formed looks accurate to me having checked the sources. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I have decided to take a break from climate related articles but before i do i want to point this out "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)." If this actually happens then it will mean absolutely noting will have happened, Himalayan glaciers only cover around 100,000km2 now. 500,000 is actually extra polar glaciers. This is why the report is so wrong, they got the year of expected melt wrong and the actual author never said they would be totaly gone, unlike the IPCC. They did not get the size`s right. They made alarmist statements on the back of this report and caused a lot of confusion. This is why the original text was far more realistic than what it has been changed to. There were three non peer reviewed used in the report the article now says one. It also states from the IPPC`s own journal Non-peer-reviewed sources will be listed in the reference sections of IPCC Reports. These will be integrated with references for the peer-reviewed sources. These will be integrated with references to the peer reviewed sources stating how the material can be accessed, but will be followed by a statement that they are not published. This was not done and is yet another mistake which is being brushed aside. I did ask about this above but as usual it was ignored. --mark nutley (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC) You should just have taken the break. All you've done above is repeated the ssame errors. There were three non peer reviewed used in the report - no, there was the WWF report. If you think there were any others *used* in the IPCC report, you've yet to provide evidence that they do so (please cite the section they are used in if you believe it). And indeed, no-one has provided evidence that the WWF report was non-PR. That appears to be an unjustified assumption. This is why the original text was far more realistic... No, the original text was wrong. I changed it, and those changes have stuck, because everyone here who has looked at it objectively has agreed with those changes; and those few who have objected have failed to just ify their positions. Repeating the same errors, as you've just done, is not helpful. The problem is that you bury some good points by failing to let go of the ones you're so clearly wrong about. They did not get the size`s right - well actually, you may be right about that (I haven't checked). If you'd drop all the unproductive wrangling about the number of sources, we could maybe talk about that. If you want to make productive changes you have to learn to drop points wher you are clearly in error William M. Connolley (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Mark, the date looks like a typo. The BBC suggests it's a typo and so do the experts they cite. I would challenge you to write a report anything like that big without any errors at all. I'm not seeing any proposed improvement over the current text here, so I think it's probably time to stop discussing this particular issue. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving on

Time now to examine The IPCC's assessment of melting Himalayan glaciers has also been criticized as being "horribly wrong" by to John Shroder a Himalayan glacier specialist at the University of Nebraska. According to Shroder, the IPCC jumped to conclusions based on insufficient data. Donald Alford, a hydrologist, said that his water study for the World Bank demonstrated that the Ganges River only gets 3-4% of its water from glacial sources - casting doubt on the claim that the river would dry up since its primary source of water comes from rainfall. [91] 91 is http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/326/5955/924 which is behind a paywall, so I'm guessing its being inaccurately paraphrased. Anyone out there with access care to toss me a copy? Email enabled... William M. Connolley (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is reprinted here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I missed a link, but that does not look like the original Science paper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It may not be - i may have jumped the gun by surmising that since it is the same author, same title, copyright AAAS and that the style looked consistent to the commentary section - that it was the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but maybe that is it. In which case its a straight rip-off of AAAS copyright and you're very naughty for linking to it William M. Connolley (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone sent me the pdf (ta). So I can confirm that Kim's link is correct. So: (one of the) troubles with the text above is that it is context-free: there is no ref to *what* is supposed to be wrong. In the article, there is extensive analysis. I don't think that is right William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

IPs etc

I have semi protected the page. There have only been a couple of new user IP or sock edits but when we are trying to keep 1RR and keep edits uncontraversial it is going to cause deterioration if they carry on. --BozMo talk 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article cleanup templates

I have reverted an edit that moved an article cleanup template to the talk page. Convention on WP, which is consensus by default, is to place these templates on the article. I know they are ugly and I would dearly love to not have them. However, they serve to alert the readers and the editors of WP about any article issues. This is not the first time that I have seen climate change article editors moving templates from climate change articles. It should be noted that policies and guidelines are applicable to the whole of Wikipedia. Please fix the relevant problem BEFORE removing the templates. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no single raw link in the article. Links are far from perfect, but the template is plain wrong. Please apply more discretion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the References section. There are plenty of bare urls. Please apply less accusation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Including criticism from NIPCC

No

In 2009, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) published a report, Climate Change Reconsidered, which broadly critiques the IPCC findings. Coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers say this 880-page report "contradicts the IPCC’s central claims, that global warming is man-made and that its effects will be catastrophic". . Connelly, please discuss why you reverted my edit and make a positive contribution towards compromise (Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary). This change, included above for reference, is neutral, factual and verifiable. As a summary of much scientific literature critical of IPCC results, it is useful to record here to avoid clouding the criticism section with a myriad of studies references. Julien Couvreur (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC) They're just these guys. You're sourcing this to their website. Can I start a club and get my stuff into Wikipedia? --TS 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) unproductive sniping. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Well, I noticed you've edited the Real Climate article a bit - they are just a club that managed to get their stuff into wikipedia too. Perhaps we can ask Connolley about how to go about doing that since he was a member of the Real Climate blog and created/edited the wikipedia article for it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) You could try spelling my name right. If it is too difficult for you, WMC will be fine. I removed the NIPCC because it is a joke. It isn't science; it is a product of Singer and a few others. Is that in doubt? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC) "Is that in doubt?" Yes. --GoRight (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC) NIPCC doesn't have a wiki page, and that for a good reason [1]. Its views are of no interest, because they are just Singers views William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC) lol, they don't have a page because you tried to get it deleted! I noticed that the votes were actually to keep the page though. Odd how you got them deleted, but had no problem creating the page for the "Real Climate" blog you were a member of (and which has been quoted extensively on wikipedia) - that doesn't seem very consistent. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Lots of things don't have a wiki page. That doesn't make them irrelevant. The contributers are sufficiently credentialed to comment in such a report. --GoRight (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors Looks like more than just singer will :) mark nutley (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC) <sarcasm zone>Yes, and the other authors are remarkably well-known for their ... hmmm .... it should be science, shouldn't it? And they are all very respected ... hmmm .... that should have been scientists, shouldn't it? Hmmmm.... </sarcasm zone> --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC) <sarcasm zone>Isn't the head of the IPCC a railroad engineer? Hmmm...</sarcasm zone> --GoRight (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Yep, but he isn't an author. He is an administrator. I especially like the honored doctor in welding technology specializing in thermal cutting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC) It is sad to see how quickly discussions fall away from wikipedia guidelines (NPOV). The unsustantiated ad-hominem attacks on Singer et al. above help in no way to build a compromise. Are you suggesting to keep the report but with a clearer attribution? Julien Couvreur (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC) There are two independent issues: whether the criticism is correct and whether it exists. We can argue whether it is correct, which is a matter of opinion and research, but it incontestably exists. This report is valuable to wikipedia in that it summarizes existing criticisms (Or do you question the referenced studies too?). In the spirit of compromise, how about a shortened formulation such as "Climate Change Reconsidered, published in 2009, is a critical synthesis of a number of scientific studies which differ from the IPCC AR4 findings"? Julien Couvreur (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Won't fly. Simple existence is not good enough, it needs to be notable. You being interested does not establish notability. The lack of a WP article is indicative of a lack of notability William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC) All the sources I can find suggest that "NIPCC" is just this bloke and a few of his mates. Do we have any reliable source to say otherwise? --TS 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Are you questioning the expertise of the authors or contributors? Which ones? Just to take one author, Fred_Singer (see credentials and expertise), as an example, why do you question his reliability, as opposed to Stefan_Rahmstorf (I took a random source already included in the page)? Julien Couvreur (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Certainly. Just look at their publication records William M. Connolley (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC) While WP:NOTABILITY generally refers to whether an article should exist, or not, allow me to borrow a brief passage from WP:FRINGE: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." Given the perspective here which is analogous to that articulated in the highlighted portion, and recognizing that a WP:NOTABILITY argument is also inherently a discussion of a topic's WP:WEIGHT, I would argue that this article more than adequately establishes the WP:WEIGHT of this topic in this context. --GoRight (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Could you explain this a bit further? I'm just not seeing the relevance of this self-selecting club and its website to this article. --TS 02:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Well, that's interesting. The existence of a source which describes the report as "self-evidently nonsense" should be taken as an argument for inclusion in this article? Actually, I'll quote the full context of that description: "In concluding, We’d like to level with our readers. Some of us thought that the “NIPCC” report was so self-evidently nonsense that we shouldn’t even give it the benefit of any publicity. But it does give a great opportunity to give the RealClimate ‘wiki’ a test ride." Hm. While references that debunk can be evidence of notability, that passage from WEIGHT shouldn't be misinterpreted as meaning that disparagement in and of itself automatically counts as notability. I'm not sure that it would improve our article here to include – based on these sources – a passage like "Criticism of the IPCC report[1] by a fringe group has been described as "self-evidently nonsense"[2] by a reliable source." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC) If it were "self-evident nonsense" they wouldn't have bothered to respond. The very fact that they took note of it means it is notable. --GoRight (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Are we really writing about "Notability" here? I thought it was a matter of Due Weight. "Notability" is a guideline that is used by some people to determine whether a subject is important enough to merit its own article. Here we're discussing whether a reference to criticism of the IPCC by an ignored and derided fringe organization would be merited, under our Neutral point of view policy, specifically the Due Weight clause. --TS 23:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC) A notability argument is inherently also a due weight argument. --GoRight (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC) An editor can reject the concept of "notability" (I do) without rejecting the neutral point of view. The question is whether to include an opinion when the only secondary source appraising it is a blog item and derisive in tone. That speaks to weight, not "notability". There isn't any weight to speak of. --TS 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Please go back and reread this thread and pay particular attention to the argument being presented. --GoRight (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC) The NIPCC meets all notability standards for due weight here and the Heartland Institute publisher has a wiki article. The exclusion is abusive, the remover's offer no progressive compromise in favor of obtuse arguing, perhaps forcing escalation. The NIPCC can be attributed with faith in the reader (and little faith for article ownership). Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC) What on earth does "all notability standards for due weight here" mean? Notability is a content guideline and due weight is part of the Neutral point of view policy. Notability concerns whether a subject merits a separate article. Due weight as applied here determines whether we include the opinion of NIPCC. Since the only reference to their opinion we have is to a derisive comment on a blog, we're not going to be including it. It would be like including criticism by the flat earth society in the NASA article. --TS 00:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Absurd extrem POV ... if at least it would be like "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." as above in wiki guidance. Please notice the "OR" in the criteria. It is notable because it specifically addresses the IPCC. Please find a middle way to notability. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC) That would be an argument if you were to create an article about the NIPCC (which btw. has already been done - and rejected in AfD) - but not an argument for its inclusion into an article. The whole argument here is silly (sorry), it seems to be (correct me please): A fringe subject might be notable enough to have an article, therefore any mention in another articles of this fringe subject is ipso facto due weight. Say what? Please go read WP:NPOV again, pay good attention to the due weight section. If it is fringe then it shouldn't be included. Significant minority positions must be mentioned - but fringe is per definition not a "significant minority". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I read NPOV UNDUE and the first thing it says is "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The Heartland NIPCC report is well above fringe and even if it were, it would still be HIGHLY RELEVANT to this article. Please follow WP:ONEWAY and the toxic negativity vanishes with constructive progress. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC) HNY. Ok, to move the conversation forward clearly you claim "well above fringe" which others here seem to dispute. So what is your argument for this not being a fringe source? --BozMo talk 09:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC) [indent]Well if you look at the credentials of the guys who run it i would say they are well above fringe. --mark nutley (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC) "Fringe" doesn't mean "lacking qualifications in the field." It means "espousing ideas that have little or no currency." NIPCC are fringe, and if they hadn't cleverly chosen a name that sounds a bit like IPCC I doubt this thread would have gone on so long as it has. --TS 11:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Yes tony, although you are correct that their qualifications are not relevent i just looked over the wp:fringe rules, in this part [[2]] it cleary states "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." So the wp:fringe rules clearly state that the NIPPC can be used due to the fact a notable group (The IPPC)has both referenced and disparaged the NIPCC mark nutley (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I think that's a bit dubious given the provenance of the debunking--RealClimate is a useful source on climatology, but it is by no means a "major publication". Note that even if it were, the very page you cite also says: Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack. Really we're wasting our time even discussing this. It isn't going to happen unless major independent publications treat this idea prominently and seriously. That needs a bit more than a flippant dismissal on a climatology blog. --TS 15:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry tony, is that in reply to me? I did not cite real climate as blogs are not reliable sources mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry I did misread you. Do you have a link for the IPCC addressing the NIPCC "in a serious and prominent way"? I've scanned this discussion and don't see any prior reference to this, but that could be a New Year hangover problem. --TS 15:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry no, i just had not said real climate :) however the following for independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. try the following The Washington Post CNS News The Telegraph All reliable sources which connect the topics. --mark nutley (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC) The Washington Post piece is written in a light-hearted way and doesn't present NIPCC as a serious organization. They obviously think these chaps are flat-earthers. CNSNews.com is not to be mistaken for a serious news organization. The Telegraph piece is an opinion piece by Christopher Booker, who for reasons amply documented in our article on the man, is not taken seriously on matters of science. --TS 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC) [outdent]Ok tony, you say the washington post is light hearted and think they are flat earthers, so under this part of wp:fringe References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, then they can be used. cnsnews, i fail to see a problem with them. They have a readership, those readers read about the nipcc. The Telegraph, yes it is an opinion piece, once again that does not matter you asked for independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. you got them. --mark nutley (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC) This is not a credible organisation. It appears to be just more of the usual suspects trying to appear more significant than they are. You could change my mind by showing me peer-reviewed publications in major journals which cite this body as a significant authority in the anthropogenic global warming denial movement. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC) These are not serious pieces. Read Wikipedia:Fringe and see if you can understand what they're getting at. The Post piece for its frivolity, the CNSNews for its provenance and its uncritical regurgitation of a news release, and the Booker piece for the man's abysmal reputation on science. Note also the term "independent" here certainly compromises the Booker commentary, as he's been a partisan critic of the NIPCC and the global warming consensus for some time. --TS 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Man you guys are hard to please :) How about Senator Hatch NIPCC Report Climate Science International The Register I honestly think i have provide enough links to prove that the NIPCC meets wp:fringe requirements --mark nutley (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC) If you're down to suggesting that El Rego is a useable source, you're lost William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC) If all you can do is say dismiss just one of the links out of hand then it is you who are lost. Who and why is "El Rego" not a useable source btw? And this is about wp:fringe and weather or not the NIPCC meets the criteria for inclusion based on it. From the links i have provided i believe i have proved the NIPCC can be used. mark nutley (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC) El Rego is The Register. And i'm sorry to tell you that neither of your references are reliable sources. (your #2 link is incidentally from almost the same people as the NIPCC (check about us). "Neither" ??? I have so far posted six links which prove the following or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." That is the basis of wp:fringe I have covered it quite well and all i get from you guys is you dismiss a few of the sources, you need to prove why they do not cover or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." as stated in wp:fringe --mark nutley (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Your whole approach is faulty. By demonstrating that the NIPCC is WP:FRINGE, you will ipso-facto be demonstrating that it shouldn't be mentioned here (per WP:WEIGHT). I tried to point that out before. (notice btw. that the climatescienceinternational link that you provided is an astroturf group, that definitively *isn't* independent (take a look at the overlap between authors of the NIPCC and their "About Us" link. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC) [outdent]Sorry kim but no, the rules according to wp:fringe means they can be used as a source. However with regards to wp:weight it clearly states, Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. so given that neutrality requires we fairly represent all viewpoints means the NIPCC should be used to give balance as the sources are reliable. From all the links i have provided i believe i have shown the prominence of the NIPCC which also means they can be used. --mark nutley (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Argh! Stating that a source is WP:FRINGE automatically means that the source doesn't represent significant minority. Therefore you are biting yourself in the bum by trying to demonstrate that the NIPCC is fringe. (btw. i agree that they are). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Sigh, Why do you guys only respond to one point at a time, it doth lead to large and unwieldy threads. Someone above said they could not be used as they were a fringe group, i have shown how they can be used under that rule. Now care to address my point about your weight argument? --mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Ho hum, time to hop off the fence. However distasteful to some and for whatever self serving reasons, journalists and others may have given a little notability to the criticisms of a small group setting themselves out as alternatives to consensus. So what's the big deal about listing them with a small amount of detail about what they have said? Perhaps I am getting too apathetic but I thought Nutley won this thread somewhere back with the Washington Post link [3] and we should put something along those lines in here. --BozMo talk 20:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I'm baffled. That link just looks like the usual crud. Why is it winning? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Count me as baffled as well. An article that basically says that they are a fringe group, makes them suddenly have due weight !? Hmm? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC) We generally eg list any kind of marginal criticism of big entities as soon as they get any notability, even if it is saying they are fringe etc. When there are few critics there is a kind of weight from being one of few, as soon as notability gets passed, even if that means being noted as a pimple. And it helps to know how substantial critical groups are cos everyone has them. --BozMo talk 22:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC) So we just throw weight and npov out the window? "substantial critical groups"? How are they substantial? Sorry - but i'm as baffled now as i was before. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Long and not today probably. I am not suggesting throwing anything out of the window. This is a long article about a complicated organisation, not a science article. The criticism section looks long and thorough but is not, at present it has some rubbish in it including [this] which appears to be written by someone so stupid they do not even know what a lowest common denominator is (unlike any 11 year old still doing maths) but lacks mention of any of the groups which set out to discredit the IPCC. These groups exist, obviously, attract some interest because it sells papers, and once they meet a minimum level of notability to allow them to be mentioned have weight because they are exactly what they are; and rare and of interest because of it. So yes once enough notability is proven they should go in. No other anti IPCC group is mentioned. Their transparent feebleness such as it is can only be to their detractors glory. --BozMo talk 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC) [outdent]Bozmo, that link to nybooks leads to a page not found? Is it also possible to try and exhaust this current discussion before we continue the arguing in arbcom remedies below? We will get no-were if we keep jumping all over the place. --mark nutley (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) So any chance of finishing off this discussion? I know everyone has jumped into the probation piece but i really think we should focus on one thing at a time if we are to get anywere :)--mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Well as there have been no arguments put forward against this since the 2nd i have to assume that the NIPCC can be used as a source for criticism as was suggested. I believe i have proved it is a reliable source and there have been no objections made within the rules i shall begin work on an inclusion for this article --mark nutley (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC) No. Whatever gave you that idea? --TS 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I don't think we got to agreeing it as a source but there was some scattered agreement that mentioning the existence of the NIPCC as a criticism might be ok. --BozMo talk 21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Sorry, but you are misreading silence as consensus. The NIPCC falls under WP:FRINGE which means that it isn't a useful source here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC) @tony Well the fact that none of my reasons for them to be used have not been rebutted plus what bozmo said above plus the fact that they can be reliably sourced outside of their own organisation. @Kim, dude i proved above that they can be used under wp:fringe so thats a non argument. --mark nutley (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Mark, you have to obtain consensus. That doesn't mean waiting until everybody is tired of arguing with you, and then declaring consensus. --TS 22:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Tony i am not declaring consensus :) I am suggesting i do a small write up to include in the criticism section, and then present it for discussion. --mark nutley (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) ArbCom Remedies This negativity has gone on too long in abusing due weight. It may be time to look at the ArbCom remedies here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Neutral_point_of_view_as_applied_to_science and Wikipedia:Scientific_consensus The NIPCC is a notable reliable source published by a reputable Heartland Institute and validated by other reliable sources. The Heartland Institute expressed a conflict with the RealClimate bloggers [4]. Of which, the remover is self identified member. I suspect these conflicts have rolled over into Wiki and are disrupting the community for their POV and abusing a resolution to NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC) No, your statements are simply wrong. NIPCC is not reliable (actually, it's not only not reliable, it arguably is not at all), and Heartland is not reliable on scientific issues either. You declaring things otherwise does not make them so... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Climate change is not a conflict between opposing blogs, nor is it a political choice. What to do about it is a political matter, and the Heartland Institute may have a say in that within the US. If the US right, in their ongoing efforts to do absolutely nothing about CC, feel they have to try to discredit the whole of science to make their point, that is up to them. But they won't be able to alter Wikipedia's fringe and notability policies to help them - there're too many people here who know what they're talking about. --Nigelj (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Stephan Schultz, which cited higher power gives you the authoritative strength to make your negative claims? Please affirm the community with links. Nijelj, please stay on the ArbCom topic. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Ah ZP5, are we all then born notable, reputable and reliable until negative media proves otherwise? Nay, rather we are born naked and helpless and the onus is on those claiming repute and notability and reliability to prove it with references I think. --BozMo talk 21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Verification and Validation: BozMo, I was assuming eds were faithfully following the NIPCC report discussion. 1) I verified the report to be RS [5] here, 2) Other NPOV seeking eds have agreed. The NIPCC report exists, 3) it was published by the reliable Heartland Institute, 4) theses independent reliable sources validate it's existence [6],[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Stephan Schultz, the status of the NIPCC organization is irrelevant to the report's reliable source existence. Non-bias Wiki editors know a reliable source when they see one. (Note: I was born with the freedom to include reliable sources in wiki without NPOV disruptive teams). Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Please try again ZP5. That paragraph does not make sense or match the meaning of the words. In particular I think you are using the word "reliable" in a manner a little special and not in the way in which Wikipedia does. I have now looked at these sources and none seem to provide much supprt for repute and notability and reliability--BozMo talk 07:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I'll make it simple for you, too: My point was that there is nothing for ArbCom to arbitrate here, just silly point-making from those who don't understand. --Nigelj (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Nigelj, zulupapa5 has not asked for arbitration, he is looking at past findings by arbcom as a reference to this discussion. --mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Well, they haven't looked at this. Those links were about Pseudoscience and Scientific consensus; this is about a US political think-tank masquerading as a 'scientific' authority. --Nigelj (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Erm nope Neutral point of view as applied to science 1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of :::significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. So you see legitimate scientific disagreement --mark nutley (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Significant is the key word. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC) How many signed the Manhattan Declaration? Is that not a significant alternative? --mark nutley (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC) The Manhattan declaration does not give an "alternative" (in the scientific sense). Its a declaration of people sharing a viewpoint, and the people that have signed the declaration are for the most part not anymore qualified than you or I in stating such a viewpoint. It may be relevant in Global warming controversy though, if it is considered an important statement by secondary sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Ok if we ever reach an agreement here i`ll head on over there and we can begin the arguing anew :) I look forward to your reply on the above thread btw. --mark nutley (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC) These discretionary sanctions Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions are significant if they are to receive consensus here for NPOV enforcement. Now, will the negative editors lay down the sticks and back away from the carcass, so that a NPOV may be achieved by attributing the source into the article? (The nihilistic stench is contributing to an ugly wiki environment.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Your comment above is certainly not contributing to a pleasant environment. I invite you to remove it, and then this, in the spirit of a New Year William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I've removed negativites, and reopend the reliable source discussion. Let's work for a NPOV in the new year. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken reference

Discussion of re-wording the "use peer-reviewed lit" bit. Stalled

I note that this reference, [16] is broken. I believe that WMC observed the same thing above. I have been looking for the replacement and I have found [17]. Since I don't know what the original was I need confirmation from someone that knows that this is, indeed, the new version. Can someone confirm this please? Assuming so, the new reference states: "The authors will work on the basis of peer reviewed and internationally available literature, including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer reviewed literature. Source, quality and validity of non-peer reviewed literature, such as private sector information need to be critically assessed by the authors and copies will have to be made available to reviewers who request them." The current text of the "Scope and preparation of the reports" section states: "The IPCC reports are a compendium of peer reviewed and published science." I believe that this description is an inadequate summarization of what the actual IPCC document states and therefore leaves the reader with a misleading impression as to the source material that can be part of the IPCC reports. I believe that it is important to make clear to the reader that in some cases "selected non-peer reviewed literature" may have been used. Indeed, we already know of one such case which has come to light already. There may be more that are as of yet not known for similar reasons. I would propose that we change the existing statement to: "The IPCC reports are a compendium of peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed published and unpublished literature." I believe that this better reflects the actual statement from the IPCC in this regards, but this assumes that the reference to "manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review" is a reference to unpublished works. If this is incorrect then the "and unpublished" could be dropped from the above. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC) GoRight, As I said above, I think you have a point and if we discuss it carefully you have a good chance that it will get support so please be patient as we try. My question was does a peer-reviewed compendium (=? summary) of non peer reviewed work count as peer reviewed (probably, I think it does). So the technically accurate statement would be "The IPCC reports are a peer reviewed compendium of peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed published and unpublished literature." ? not pretty I know. But as a baseline does everyone agree that this is the accurate statement, given what WMC dug out etc? --BozMo talk 08:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I don't think either of these are acceptable. If you want to know what goes in IPCC reports, then the answer is "peer-reviewed lit" 99.x% of the time. Your formulations above give undue weight to the non-P-R stuff. The original "peer reviewed and published science" is delicately ambiguous and covers what actually happens. Also, "we already know of one such case which has come to light already" is incorrect: we do not know if the WWF report was P-R or not. Also, I dont know what "non-peer reviewed published and unpublished literature" means. If it implies use of "non-peer reviewed unpublished literature" then I think it is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC) If you can find a non OR basis for 99.x% I might immediately agree with you. Otherwise I am comfortable on my fence. Do you object to "The IPCC reports are a peer reviewed compendium of published science." which appears slightly more accurate given the previous comments. --BozMo talk 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I would be comfortable with that wording (which is itself a carefully worded reply) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC) The use of the phrase "peer reviewed compendium" is not accurate. The compendium in question is a self-published report. If some organization X produces a report using internal processes which include peer review does that make the resulting report peer reviewed? I argue that no this is inherently inadequate to be considered peer reviewed in the sense normally applied to that term within the scientific community. For example, let's assume that X = Bob and Sally's Climate Research, Inc. which is owned and operated by Bob who holds a Ph.D. in climate science and Sally who also holds a Ph.D. in climate science. This organization has formal internal review processes which consist of Bob and Sally reading each others sections of jointly produced reports. Would the scientific community consider a report produced by this organization and published on their blog to be peer reviewed? I think not. The IPCC and its reports are nothing more than a glorified version of Bob and Sally's Climate Research, Inc. No externally run peer review process has ever been applied to the final reports. How would people feel about "McKitrick and McIntyre Climate Research, Inc." and their self-published reports? Or how about the unattributed blog posts on RealClimate? I see no reason to consider the IPCC reports to be any different with respect to the issue of being peer reviewed. --GoRight (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I find this edit grossly WP:POINTy. If Bob and Sally or M&M have a public peer review process that involves thousands of scientists, and then get, say, 30 National Academies of Science to support their reports, their reports can be called peer-reviewed, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC) There is nothing pointy about it. It is a valid argument which uses an extreme (i.e. on one end of a logical continuum) example to illustrate the point that no organization can peer review its own outputs. --GoRight (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Leave the sentence out altogether or don't have qualifiers: "The IPCC reports are a compendium of climate change science." and then move on to the next thing that needs fixing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Actually, I would find this acceptable, although I believe that it should be changed to say something to the effect of "independently researched climate science" to highlight that the research itself does not come from the IPCC. --GoRight (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Hmmm. Still no progress. Let me break the ice with another compromise proposal: "The IPCC reports are an internally peer reviewed compilation of potentially peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed sources." This gets an acceptably accurate description of both the inputs and the outputs of the IPCC process. Thoughts? I'll let this sit a day or so but if no responses are forthcoming I will assume that implies consent. --GoRight (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC) And what exactly does "potentially peer reviewed" mean? And what is your reference for it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I suppose some wordsmithing of this might be in order. I had intended it to be parsed as: "The IPCC reports are an internally peer reviewed compilation of potentially ( peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed sources )." The source is the same as listed above, namely: "The authors will work on the basis of peer reviewed and internationally available literature, including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer reviewed literature. Source, quality and validity of non-peer reviewed literature, such as private sector information need to be critically assessed by the authors and copies will have to be made available to reviewers who request them." Let's try this then: "The IPCC reports are an internally peer reviewed compilation of sources which may or may not have been peer reviewed themselves." Better? Acceptable? --GoRight (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I noticed that you didn't answer my question, could you please do so? So that i can get a feel from where you are comming. No, i do not think that your new proposal is better. The original sentence is better, and doesn't have an undue focus on "may or may not have been" which seems to be POV in disguise. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not being evasive, I thought I answered your question. What part do you consider unanswered? My wording is a full summarization of the text I quoted above whose source is listed at the top of this thread. The text clearly indicates that the reports will be "on the basis of peer reviewed and internationally available literature, including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer reviewed literature." This clearly indicates that non-peer reviewed literature might form the basis of the reports. I want the text of the article to accurately and explicitly reflect that fact just as it has been in the original source text. --GoRight (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [18] There's the source link copied to here for your convenience. --GoRight (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Well that is very nice original research ("clearly indicates that non-peer reviewed literature might form the basis of the reports"), but strangely enough that is not what sources say. If you have serious sources that suspect this, then please put them on the table, we are not here to speculate. (and in case you want to do original research, then i suggest you take a tally of the number of PR vs. non-PR references in the reference sections of the IPCC reports - strangely enough your "indicates" and "might" get blown to bits from that). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but that is clearly what the IPCC's own document says, and that document is apparently the same one that was used as a source for that entire section ... unless you dispute that the source I provided is the correct replacement for the broken reference. Are you claiming as much? Right now we have an unsourced statement (and perhaps more in that section), shall we delete it altogether and avoid any further discussion on the topic? Otherwise I want the text of the article to accurately reflect all of the explicit aspects laid out in the source. You don't get to use a biased (by ommision) and/or incomplete summary of the source. --GoRight (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC) What is unsourced about "The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Well, if you believe that this statement is sourced, please point me to the source. The burden is on those including the material to provide the sources. Lacking any suitable source the statement should be removed. --GoRight (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced text in 'Physical modeling debate' section

I've noticed that the section 'Physical modeling debate' seems to contain original research (in bold):

MIT professor Richard Lindzen, one of the scientists in IPCC Working Group I, has expressed disagreement with the IPCC reports. He expressed his unhappiness about those portions in the Executive Summary based on his contributions in May 2001 before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation:

The summary does not reflect the full document... For example, I worked on Chapter 7, Physical Processes. This chapter dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments – including those of clouds and water vapor. The chapter was summarized with the following sentence: 'Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapor, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport.'

The Summary for Policymakers of the WG1 reports does include caveats on model treatments: Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales.

These statements are in turn supported by the executive summary of chapter 8 of the report, which includes:

* Coupled models can provide credible simulations of both the present annual mean climate and the climatological seasonal cycle over broad continental scales for most variables of interest for climate change. Clouds and humidity remain sources of significant uncertainty but there have been incremental improvements in simulations of these quantities.

* Confidence in the ability of models to project future climates is increased by the ability of several models to reproduce the warming trend in 20th century surface air temperature when driven by radiative forcing due to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. However, only idealised scenarios of only sulphate aerosols have been used.

In my view, this is an unsourced commentary on Lindzen's viewpoint, and should be deleted. If someone wants to comment on Lindzen's viewpoint, then they should provide a source. For example, Sir John Houghton has given evidence to the House of Lords on Lindzen's views. Alternatively, you could simply refer to supporters of the IPCC, e.g., other climate scientists, statements made by national science academies, etc. and let readers make up their own mind.Enescot (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Looks like somebody has taken care of the problem by removing the lengthy excerpts and just using a quote from Sir John. Definitely an improvement. Thanks.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken Ref

Link 98 "NRC Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions p. 11" is broken202.78.240.67 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Please add new topics at the end (you can use the "New section" button). Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We need discussion & resolution of the self described "Scientific" vs. "Advocacy" characterization

The problem relates to the first sentence of the article as it appears as of 12-12-09 emphasis added:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity.

Should the term scientific be used to describe the IPCC, notwithstanding the fact that the IPCC itself goes to great length to characterize themselves as such: "The IPCC is a scientific body."[19] But we find what appears contradictory in the same article:

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. 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),[4] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change.

and

The IPCC is only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP.

It doesn't seem right to call the IPCC, a United Nations body, a self described intergovernmental body, as a scientific body. It also seems wrong to deny the central purpose of the UN, influencing policy and conduct of its member nations. Let's consider by analogy, the publishing arm of University is not a scientific body. The credit union which provides banking services to members of a University is not a scientific body. Perhaps they are regulators, or a policy think tank. I don't dispute that they are commenting on the scientific reports and data of some scientists, academics, & researches. Clearly the operation of the IPCC has had affects on politics, policy, and perhaps legislation around the globe. I would like to suggest that the word scientific be removed and inserting "policy influencing" or "advocacy" at the same location. Obviously this particular issue has had some attention with less than a perfect record of civil discourse. So Please let's discuss this in a civil manner. The issue to discuss in this role is not Global Warming, but how to accurately characterize the IPCC. These are two separate questions one for the deletion of an adjective, one for the inclusion of an adjective. 1) Is it a scientific body? 2) Is it a body for policy influence or advocacy? This article needs some sort of organized resolution of these two questions perhaps with the assistance of some experienced editors / administrators. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes. 2. It is a body whose results are used for political purposes, just like lots of other scientific research, but which is itself largely non-political William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, since it's composed of scientists. There are interests behind almost every scientific study. They're payed for by governments, companies and advocacy groups. They will always get their money from a particular group of people with particular interests. That doesn't mean they won't follow scientific principles and methods. 2. It's a scientific body whose results are used for policy influence.--camr ^nag 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Sure. Al-Jazeera, Sydney Morning Herald, BBC, Guardian, Royal Society, ... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. No. Some of the lead authors are economists, not scientists e.g. Kenneth Arrow. 2. Judging by the contents of its public reports, it is focussed on advocacy - note for instance http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/10th-anniversary/anniversary-brochure.pdf - the summary of each IPCC report has a followup section advertising what impact that report had on the government COP meetings that followed. The IPCC clearly measures its performance against its influence on those meetings. Cadae (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So, economy is not a science? Also, any scientific body that discovers that X is bad, would not cease to be scientific if they actually say "hey, X is bad". If doctors discover that smoking is bad for your health and recommend their patients to stop, then their licences should be revoked?--camr ^nag 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct - economy is not a science. Scientific bodies don't use the word or concept of 'bad' as that is a value judgement which is distinctly not science. 'bad' is, however, liberally used in the realms of politics and advocacy. Cadae (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, you've said it all.--camr ^nag 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes. This complaint seems very partisan against the IPCC. The contributing authors for the Assessment Reports bring in most of the top scientists in the field - highly cited, widely published, many elected Fellows of learned societies including the AGU, AAAS, National Academy of Sciences, etc. 2. Yes, the IPCC sets out the basis for concern and the need for a broad response to the implications of their findings. The whole point of forming the IPCC was to have a forum where leaders could inquire of scientists what the science tells us, and what the implications are - what is the problem and what would we have to do to address it. Do you want to argue that no scientist can ever discover facts that compel us to respond? Is all science only ivory tower, irrelevant theory? Birdbrainscan (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Time to readd himalaya glacier info?

Re-added summary of existing text on Criticism of the IPCC AR4

Previously there was an RfC on this and the conclusion was that there wasn't enough coverage in reliable sources to mention it here. As William Connolley said at the time, "It is also too new - wait a month, the view amongst WP:RS about this may settle." A few weeks later, this story has been picked up by many reliable sources as apparently the IPCC is set to retract this claim: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. I believe that the WP:WEIGHT here is clear, as many items appearing in this article don't have nearly this much coverage in reliable sources. It may be worth waiting until this retraction is made official, but when/if this happens as reported I'd like to be ready to go with an addition to this article. Oren0 (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC) If the IPCC is really about to retract the claim, why don't we just wait a few days until they do so, rather then risk another potentially pointless argument which is soon superceded by new developments? Edit: Actually I see you did acknowledge it was a good idea to wait. However I don't agree we should be ready to go. What we add will depend on what the IPCC says when/if they retract and what other sources say. There are too many possibilities for us to guess precisely what will happen, so trying to come up with something now is pretty pointless and likely to lead to arguments which will be redundant if/once it actually happens. Instead, let's just wait. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC) First, I said wait a month - I can't see any reason to rush this in in less. Are you in a hurry? Second, not only was the inclusion of anything disputed, the text to be used was disputed - that put in was grossly wrong, as I pointed out more than once. So you might want to consider getting the text right. Thirdly, the best thing to do would be to thrash this out where it belongs, over at crit of AR4. As I said above, I added a section to that article describing the true situation, but because it was a sub-article rather than a sexy main article no-one cared William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Well, IPCC has retract the claim officially [26] [27]. Any other reason for not including it now? EngineerFromVega (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Hmm, the IPCC has not even updated the report to show the correct date have they Still 2035 ? I think i will head on over the AR4 and add this in there. --mark nutley (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Looking at the RFC, I see that all of the uninvolved commentators said they thought this item was being accorded undue weight, and most of them said they thought it didn't belong in this article at all. I do not see how the passage of a couple of weeks could change that. --TS 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC) The passage of time doesn't change anything, but the addition of sources sure lends weight to the story (distinct from those linked above): [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. Major news outlets are now reporting that the IPCC is reviewing the glacier claim. This doesn't belong only in AR4 IMO because there is a new investigation happening, which obviously won't be published in AR4. Also, the news sources are saying that the IPCC is being criticized for this, not AR4. Most of these sources don't explicitly mention AR4 at all. Oren0 (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Which is a general indication that the sources are clueless William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC) So I looked at a couple. The key to your first is In November, Ramesh backed a study by Indian scientists which supported his view, prompting Pachauri to label his support "arrogant." - the article is just politicking (the real dispute there is the one described in [34], if you're interested). #2 is better, but Research by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggesting Himalayan glaciers may disappear by 2035 needs to be investigated anew following a report in the London-based Times newspaper that flawed data may have been used is wrong, obviously - they haven't understood the issue. #3 - [35] - is much better and is usable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I'm inclined to agree that many of the sources are of exceptionally low quality. This is very small beer and if we don't even yet cover it in the AR4 article there's little point putting it in this one especially with an RFC result broadly against doing so. Thanks, WMC, for the clarifying clued-up sources. --TS 14:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC) The RfC was before this became a major news story. There weren't sources then. We're not talking about some small town gazettes here, these sources are news articles from ABC News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the AP, Bloomberg, The Sunday Times, etc etc. "I think these sources don't know what they're talking about" doesn't cut it. Again, this has way more source coverage than almost every 'criticism' item on this page, the only likely exception being the hockey stick section. Maybe another RfC is in order, but I don't see how one that reached a conclusion based on weight can still be considered valid after dozens of reliable sources report on an issue and the IPCC opens up some sort of investigation. Oren0 (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC) That would be a mistaken interpretation of the arguments made in the RfC - the major objection was that the critique is about a (very very) small part of the WGII report, and thus that including it here would be undue weight. This is not general critique (overall problem), it is micro-critique (error in small part of whole). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC) It isn't a major news story, most of the sources we have found don't even get it right (and yes,that absolutely does matter, we do not use unreliable sources) and it still isn't in the AR4 article. --TS 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC) It is in the Criticism of IPCC AR4 article, where it belongs. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I am currently working on a section to include here about the entire Himalayan glacier fiasco. Given the IPCC has now had to issue a statement saying they were woefully wrong on this, it does belong here as it is a criticism of the IPCC and not Ar4 Once i have written the section and gotten the links ready i`ll post it here. mark nutley (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Since such a section already exists in the crit article, it is unclear why you want to reinvent the wheel. Still, we must all have our won wheels I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Because as i said, it is a criticism of the IPCC not of AR4, which part of this don`t you get? mark nutley (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Err, so what? If you disagree which article it should be in, that doesn't mean you need new text. Let me make the obvious plain, because you seem to be having some trouble: we should not have the same text in two places. We should not describe this controversy differently (especially incompatibly) in different places. We should describe it in one place, and put brief summary links to that one place in other places that need it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC) So basically, the bar has been moved again - color me shocked. It was claimed not to meet WP:WEIGHT, but many major newspapers have now covered it (even more than Oren listed). Sorry but having our esteemed fellow editors declare sources like the New York Times to be worthless and wrong because they find their original research to be a superior source doesn't cut it - not if anyone is being honest with themselves. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I still don't get why people are so worked up about this. If you genuinely believe the IPCC is going to revise this claim, then why don't you just wait until they do? Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC) They've already made a correction. The thing that annoys me is that the IPCC's statements says what my section said - that the IPCC didn't follow their own procedure. This was the language used in the news sources that I used, but no, that wasn't good enough, the above editors did their original research, claimed the section was wrong, and finally deleted the entire thing. There is one standard for AGW flagbearers and then there is one for those who are trying to insert a little bit of truth in here. Hell, just go look at the conversation if you want to wade through it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I'm a bit confused about what you're talking about. The source is date 20th January. I see no edit to the article since 15th January. Most of the discussion above was also from before the 20th January and the source was available and all of it was from before anyone linked to the source; and as I said from the beginning and seems especially to me now somewhat pointless IMHO. Now that we actually have the official position of the IPCC and confirmation from them they did not follow their procedures (in this single minor issue in a detail reported), we can discuss whether it warrants mention in the article. Complaining about the exclusion of speculation from the article, particularly when several people said, let's just wait and see what happens isn't helping matters. I would also point out while it's been included in the Criticism of the IPCC AR4 article it hasn't yet been included in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report nor any discussion in the talk page, where I would argue it belongs albeit only as a brief mention. P.S. I should add that there appears to be some mistaken belief that we've somehow committed the ultimate sin if we we decide against including something because it's initially too speculatory or considered undue weight or recentism but then later blows up or is proven correct. In fact, there's usually nothing wrong with that. We should proceed not preceed sources and proceeding them by a fair stretch of time when necessary is no biggie. While we tend to be updated much faster then a traditional encylopaedias including traditional electronic ones, we aren't a news source (try wikinews:Main Page) and don't aim to be one and neither readers nor editors should expect we need to be up to the minute. There's nothing wrong with being conservative, particularly when living people are involved (which I acknowledge is not the case here) and with waiting a few days and sometimes even a few weeks to see what happens rather then pointlessly arguing over something soon supercedeed. And just to repeat what I said from the beginning in a different way, when it turns out the information people are trying to include is later backed up by more substanial sources it doesn't mean we were wrong or should be embarassed by the fact we waited, in fact often we should be proud Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Can you please break up your text more? It is not pleasant to read. Anyway, the complaint has several facets, for one, this story has far more coverage than a lot of the IPCC criticism in this article - much of which isn't really criticism in any real sense. It is like asking someone what their greatest fault is in a job interview and they say they are a workaholic or too nice - that doesn't cut it. Also, the initial reports weren't too speculatory, they had good sources, but while they may have gotten a few things wrong they weren't nearly as bad as some people tried to make them out to be. To make the point even clearer, their criticisms have now been flat out shown to be wrong by the IPCC themselves, which should hardly be considered a trusted source when criticizing themselves. Honestly, look at it, they did original research, pointed to a small section of the IPCC rules and said, "Look! It isn't in there! They didn't break the rules!" My retort was that showing that something is not in one section does not prove it isn't in another section - and they have a LOT of text. This was ignored, wiki-policy was ignored, the facts were removed, but some people got what they want - just like they always do. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Here is a relevant, unimpeachable source. The failure of the article to even include the term "glacier" is a bright line violation of NPOV and makes Wikipedia look silly and biased to the disinterested reader. We saw something similar with John Edwards extramarital affair. How'd that one turn out? Ronnotel (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I think we're being criticised for not being a newspaper. We're not a newspaper and that's a good thing. At the moment we cover the glacier thing, but not perhaps in the place some people are arguing for it to be covered. Our priorities and standards are considerably different from those of the IPCC and those of the press. And as has already been noted, we have no deadline. --TS 15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC) The TR piece you quote is interesting, because it includes a number of rather relevant quotes that were not available from previous poor quality sources. For example, "I don't think it ought to affect the credibility of the edifice as a whole," says J. Graham Cogley, and The error has been traced to the fact that the IPCC permits the citation of non-peer-reviewed sources, called "grey literature," in cases where peer-reviewed data is not available. - so much for all those who were so stridently crying on this page that the IPCC had broken all its own rules. This is an excellent arguement for *not* rushing material into wiki William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC) The IPCC's own statement said they didn't follow their procedures. I said wrote this down based on my sources and you used your own original research magic wand to make it go away. You've flat out said the New York Times is "clueless" compared to your amazing intellect - is your original research going to trump the IPCC's own admission of fault as well? TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC) The truth: any statement either way was original research. Remember: there is no deadline. It's fruitless to argue over who was more prescient because we're not writing next week's Wikipedia but today's, based on reliable sources available now, not next week. --TS 00:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Don't rewrite history. The statement I included in the article wasn't even my own - it was from a reliable source, a newspaper - the only original research that was done is for all to see on this talk page. Connolley showed a tiny section of the IPCC rules and said they didn't break their rules. I said showing one section of a rulebook says nothing about what is in the rest of the rulebook. The only thing that has changed is that you can't claim the IPCC is an unreliable source about its own policy - calling the New York Times clueless because you don't like what they write isn't acceptable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC) "It was from a reliable source, a newspaper." Where on earth did this toxic idea that newspapers are reliable sources on science come from? Certainly not any of Wikipedia's policies. --TS 01:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC) It wasn't about science and you know it. You guys claimed they were unreliable in their claims about following IPCC policy. Why do you keep on trying to rewrite history? Everyone can see it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Please be specific. Explain how your comments of 00:21 and 04:31 yesterday, and 00:44, 00:51, 00:55 and 01:57 are intended to improve the article. It just isn't on to maintain blithely that this article isn't about science or that the claim about the glaciers wasn't science, or whatever you really intend to say. How can we use the information you are putting on this page to improve the article? Or are you using this talk page for some other purpose? --TS 02:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC) The purpose is to persuade the lot of you to actually follow the rules instead of making them up on the fly. If you like we can take this to arbitration instead. The fact of the matter is that I added content which improved the article and you guys had an agenda to remove the content because you didn't like it. WMC and the lot of you have no problem painting skeptics as believers in "martians" on their wikipedia pages though. I just want standards to be followed fairly and justly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC) <outdent> You still haven't explained how your comments are related to improving this article. If you have a conduct issue with these chaps you refer to as "you" (plural, presumably), then follow dispute resolution or raise an enforcement case at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and stop cluttering up this page with your grievances. If you have a suggestion as to how we will improve the article, nake it without expecting us to indulge your propensity for personal attacks indefinitely. --TS 02:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC) I thought it was obvious - I'm trying to improve this article by adding content. The content can't be added until we can agree on the rules. I try to follow the rules that I read, but I can't follow the rules that you make up or that suddenly get changed in interpretation in order to keep the content out. That isn't a personal attack - that's a matter of record from this very talk page. Thanks for the suggestion about Climate Change Probation. I may follow your advice. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC) <outdent> @TS: The dispute here isn't about science. I don't think anyone argues that the 2035 date is correct scientifically. This is about politics and IPCC procedures, so the sources to quote would be (primarily) newspapers and (secondarily) the IPCC. Also, there is no WP rule that newspapers aren't reliable sources for scientific matters, only that peer reviewed science is preferable where available. There isn't any on this topic, so newspapers are the best sources we have. Oren0 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Obviously newspapers are not the best sources we have on this subject. --TS 02:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC) @WMC: It's hard to argue that the IPCC followed its own rules when the IPCC statement on the subject disagrees: "In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly." Of course, the article could say that the IPCC says it's procedures weren't followed but that Technology Review disagrees, but that would be a bit silly don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren0 (talk • contribs) I agree with Oren. WP goes by notability and verifiability. If something is in news about IPCC and IPCC itself has retracted officially [36] [37], it should be mentioned in this article. (edit: typo) EngineerFromVega (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC) If no one objects, I'll go ahead and add this information to the criticism section of this article. Thanks. EngineerFromVega (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Object, per the above, of course. Please stop playing silly games William M. Connolley (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Of course this is a misrepresentation of both WMC's comments, the RfC and the IPCC statement. The issue that has been raised here was one of (lack of) peer-review in the cited source, which isn't the problem at hand. Of course there are those who will try to blow this out of proportion, but that doesn't mean that WP will (unless a significant proportion of RS's state that it is a general IPCC problem and not just one with the AR4 and one paragraph). Its an error in a single paragraph in a 900+ page document, it's been corrected, and we describe it in Criticism of the IPCC AR4. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC) WMC, please define 'silly games' first and I request you to familiarize yourself with WP:NPA before responding. I'm trying to include an information which is being covered by major news sources and is notable and verifiable enough. KDM: though I agree that only one paragraph is being criticized in a 900+ pages, the main issue here is that this one page is being discussed and analyzed more than the other 899 pages in mainstream news papers. It is notable, verifiable and surely not OR. It is also not WP:UNDUE because this one paragraph has forced IPCC to retract officially. While I'm not criticizing IPCC in general, I strongly believe that we are not doing proper justification by avoiding this information completely. Why shouldn't we include a summary and a link to criticism of AR4 in this article? Will that not make Criticism of AR4 an orphan article? EngineerFromVega (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Kim says: WP can't cover this here "unless a significant proportion of RS's state that it is a general IPCC problem and not just one with the AR4 and one paragraph" Sunday Times: "Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise...Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report." [38] New Zealand Herald: "The incident is an embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...The story has immediately made international headlines." [39] Daily Mail: "Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were last night exposed as nonsense...The revelation is a major blow to the credibility of the IPCC which was set up to provide political leaders with clear, independent advice on climate change." [40] Hindustan Times: "A United Nations body is expected to retract its oft-repeated prediction that most of the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035." [41] (Note 'oft-repeated', which contradicts the notion that this is a minor error in a minor paragraph) The Australian: "The peak UN body on climate change has been dealt another humiliating blow to its credibility after it was revealed a central claim of one of its benchmark reports - that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 because of global warming - was based on a "speculative" claim by an obscure Indian scientist." [42] Canada.com: (Quoting an IPCC lead author): "This is a source of a lot of misunderstandings, misconceptions or failures," Kaser said, noting that some regions lacked a broad spectrum of expertise. "It is a kind of amateurism from the regional chapter lead authors. They may have been good hydrologists or botanists, but they were without any knowledge in glaciology."...The IPCC's Fifth Assessment, scheduled for release in 2013, will probably be adjusted to avoid such problems, said Kaser. "All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the Fourth Assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made," he said. "If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said 'we will do better next time.' It is clear now that Working Group II has to be restructured," he said. There will still be regional chapters, but the review process will be modified, he added. [43] (If this will lead to a restructure of IPCC reporting, it's clearly bigger in scope than AR4). The above sources clearly indicate that this is further-reaching than one paragraph in AR4. Oren0 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Now I don't see any problem for not including this information in the article. Oren0 has fairly addressed all the concerns of KDP in this post. KDP: Do you still have a problem against consesus? I can put up a poll here if you want. EngineerFromVega (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC) A new source and some choice quotes from it From the Times: "But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999." "But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.” He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section. " He goes into detail about the 5 major errors in that section of the IPCC report. I suppose at this point we may even need an article about this incident - a lot of the errors are pretty bad. "Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme." That is really pretty interesting since back in November Dr. Pachauri called the Indian government "arrogant" for claiming the IPCC was wrong about the Himalayan glaciers. He also amusingly says that the Indian report wasn't "peer-reviewed." "But he too admitted that it was “really odd” that none of the world’s leading glaciologists had pointed out the mistakes to him earlier. “Frankly, it was a stupid error,” he said. “But no one brought it to my attention.”" (Pachauri) Well, at least he admits it was a stupid error and I too am curious why not a single glaciologist would point out this stupid error. Who is funding these people if they don't notice or report such things? Well, these are the best quotes out of the article. I'm sure we can distill the essence out of a few of them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC) KDP writes: "Of course there are those who will try to blow this out of proportion, but that doesn't mean that WP will". We are not here to speculate whether this is being blown out of proportion or not. We are here to report that 'This has been blown out of proportion'. Your statement clearly sounds OR to me. It will be helpful for us if you can provide verifiable sources that confirms your statement. Unless you do so, this is OR and I'll go ahead with adding this to the article. (Edit: indention)EngineerFromVega (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Nothing new or of interest here. You've misrepresented some of it, but that is hardly new William M. Connolley (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC) WMC: your comment doesn't add anything to this discussion. I reiterate, unless KDP can come up with a source that this is being blown out of proportion, there is a fair case to add this information to the article. If you have a dispute, please put your thoughts forward and donn't just say 'there is nothing new' as per WP:CCC. See the above sources from Oren0 please. KDP: Do you personally think that this is blown out of proportion or you have a source for it? The criterion to include information in WP is verifiabiltiy, not truth or speculation. EngineerFromVega (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry EfV, but you forgot to quote my parenthesis as well, which said "(unless a significant proportion of RS's state that it is a general IPCC problem and not just one with the AR4 and one paragraph)", thus you are presenting only half of the picture. The onus is on you to demonstrate that an error in a single paragraph in the 900+ pages WGII document, is sufficiently important to merit inclusion on an article that is about the IPCC in generic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC) KDM: please check sources provided by Oren0 above. He has fairly addressed your concerns. Now please provide sources that this problem is being blown out of proportion and it is not your OR or speculation. Why should we discuss your 'being blown out of proportion' theory, unless it is covered by RS? EngineerFromVega (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Except of course that these describe the error in the AR4 in specific, and do not speak about the IPCC in general. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC) @EfV: au contraire, "this is nothing new" is indeed an argument. It means, none of the prior conclusions are affected by this "new" stuff you've introduced. When you've got something new, do come back William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC) <outdent> The criticism section in the IPCC article already contains comments that are specific to certain IPCC reports - your refusal to allow this well-documented and widespread criticism is not consistent with the article as it now stands. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC) But we *do* allow this crit - its in Criticism of the IPCC AR4 report. So we might as well provide a summary of that, here. I got rid of Landsea - he is so last year - in favour of this sexy new stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC) lol, so I point out the obvious inconsistency and you use that as an excuse to delete some criticism while putting in your own extremely tame version? Why didn't you delete the Hockey Stick Graph criticism while you were at it? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC) I've provided a fair summary of what is on the Criticism of the IPCC AR4 page, which itself is (IMO) an accurate summary of the facts of the matter. I've advertised the existence of the text on that page quite frequently, and invited people to comment there. Few have. The correct way of handling this kind of material is to thrash it out on the sub-page, then once we're happy, include the material on the main page. Since you were being so insistent, I judged that the time was now ripe to include the matter here. If you (well, not you personally, I mean a weight of contributing editors) disagree, then we can remove the new stuff and discuss further on the sub-page. Meanwhile, Landsea: he is last years (or the year before that's) stale pie. It was never notable, but pushed in by the septics at the time. It was long time for removal; now is a good time William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Wrong, Landsea is mentioned with a fair amount of regularity on skeptics blogs. Even today he was mentioned at WUWT, which was voted the best science blog in 2008. This isn't a "give and take" situation - this is an improve an article situation. If you want input on the process then fine, but summarilly deleting things with the edit summary that they aren't sexy enough isn't acceptable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC) WUWT is trash; if that is the best you can do, you're lost William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)