::Seriously man, do not chop my posts up again. Now what part of this are you confused about? ''The New Scientist magazine carried the article "Flooded Out - Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley communities" in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming'' Why is it so hard for you to comprehend the WWF`s own words? The 2035 quote came from NS, from an interview with Hasnain, Hasnain has said it was speculation. The only link to the ICSI is the fact that hasnain was working for them then. Any further questions? --[[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 19:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
::Seriously man, do not chop my posts up again. Now what part of this are you confused about? ''The New Scientist magazine carried the article "Flooded Out - Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley communities" in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming'' Why is it so hard for you to comprehend the WWF`s own words? The 2035 quote came from NS, from an interview with Hasnain, Hasnain has said it was speculation. The only link to the ICSI is the fact that hasnain was working for them then. Any further questions? --[[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 19:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
::: I've explained it above. [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/theres_no_light_the_foolish_ca.php] may also help [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW - we should not be using that interview with Lal as a RS: Lal has an enormous COI over this issue. As I read it, Lal was the guy responsible for putting 2035 in, and he knew at the time, cos Kaser told him, that it was wrong. *Now* he has been caught out, and he needs a good excuse for why it isn't all his fault, so is desperately trying to spray blame around [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 31, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
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.'[1]
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.[2]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."[1] 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)[reply]
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.--camrnag16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?--camrnag14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Since the reliability of the entire IPCC report is in question, evidence that the report was written in a biased or sloppy way is extremely relevant to this page. Vegasprof (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that the "reliability of the entire IPCC report is in question" is your personal opinion (which you are free to have as long as you do not project it into Wikipedia). But here we are talking about an error in one paragraph in chapter 10 (of 20) section 6 subsection 2 in the WGII report which is 1 of 3 main reports in the AR4 (which is the 4th report) from the IPCC - and that is grossly WP:UNDUE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact that the IPCC's scaremongering about Himalayan glaciers has permeated the collective unconscious of society then I find this to be very relevant. When I first added it you people didn't like the sources, so I changed them, and now you are inventing a new reason to limit the spread of information - the only way to destroy the urban legend that they invented. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which again seems to be your personal opinion ("scaremongering", "permeated","urban legend"...). And again you are free to have that opinion - as long as you do not project it into Wikipedia articles. And i'm not "inventing" anything - please read and understand WP:UNDUE (which is a part of our WP:NPOV policy). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to pretend with me Kim. I know your record and that of your friends. Sorry, but my sources show that it is a plain fact that the IPCC was drastically wrong about the melting glaciers - the fact that such a myth has spread so far and wide is evidence of how significant their propaganda has been. If I actually saw you apply policy in a way that didn't massage the AGW perspective then I might be more inclined to respect your opinion. I couldn't live with myself if I behaved in the same way. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and [WP:UNDUE]] doesn't apply. We aren't talking about "viewpoints" here - we are talking about verifiable fact. And the fact of the matter is that the IPCC broke their own publishing rules by not using peer-reviewed literature which resulted in them making a glaring error about melting glaciers. Again, those are facts, not viewpoints - come up with a new excuse. Third times a charm right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so the question becomes whether this mistake (if it is indeed a mistake) is sourced as being of significant importance to the panel, its mission, its public perception, etc. Becoming a hot item among climate change skeptics and anti-environmental operatives is not in itself worthy of note, but if their agitation reaches the point where it is part of the story of the organization, perhaps. Also, if there is a child article relating to the report or to some scandal (or to the glacier in question, perhaps), the information is probably better centralized there. Also, to reiterate Scjessey's point below, please don't use article talk pages to criticize other editors, or any page to make simple personal attacks like the above. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I suggest you actually read the policies you love to cite as excuses to keep out information. It plainly states that WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints. I'm inserting facts and attempting to do so without bias. Facts are not "viewpoints." Here is an idea for you Kim, and I know it is radical, but consider this, encycopedias are like people - they are improved by knowledge - not ignorance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More sources that confirm my edits and show how their importantance - [2][3][4][5][6][7] - plus the sources I've already quoted. Is it your contention that these facts are unimportant? Is this not enough? Tell me this - what, in your mind, and be specific, would be enough, or the right kind, of evidence for you to concede that this information is important and should be in this article? TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The date error (2035 vs 2350) from a trusted source - the IPCC - has caused a fairly significant myth to be created. For instance, a Google search on the keywords "Himalayan glaciers melt 2035" gives 48,200 hits, whereas the number of hits for the correct date - "Himalayan glaciers melt 2350" gives 6,460 hits. Reliance on the veracity of the IPCC has been responsible for propagating seriously incorrect information. Here's an example of what can happen when one disputes the IPCC: http://www.france24.com/en/node/4921700. This is an important aspect of the IPCC and merits coverage on the wikipedia entry about the IPCC. Cadae (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite odd that the entire section is just deleted, the entire reasoning given for this change in the edit summary being "per Kim"; as if said user somehow is the final authority on this subject, and that if he says so then that's the end of that and no further discussion is needed. The second edit summary has even less details, merely stating "no". I don't see how undue weight is an argument here, there's no denying that the melting of glaciers is a key example used to demonstrate the reality / severity of climate change, and grossly inaccurate reporting on it by an authoritative agency I think is certainly worth mentioning, especially considering (as demonstrated above) the fact this error hasn't gone unnoticed in the media and has even resulted in criticism from India's environment minister (see BBC ref. in deleted content). It's not like it's just a minor typo without real consequence. But I guess mentioning it would make the statement written just a little lower - "We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes" - seem rather silly. Infact that entire section seems rather silly, I don't see UNICEF getting a praise section for their work. I could obviously restore the section, but there's no doubt in my mind it'd be deleted again. BabyNuke (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has alrady been pointed out, this stuff refers to one section of one report. Hence "The IPCC's 4th report has been criticized by..." is clearly too broad-brush. At the very least you need to re-phrase it to make it clear (assuming you know, of course) which report, and which bit. Even then the question of due weight still applies. I don't see how undue weight is an argument here - this may be a flaw in your understanding, rather than in the reasoning. Is melting of Himalayan glaciers presented as key evidence by the IPCC? I rather doubt it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could care less where it started, and I didn't even know it "started" at that article, but the fact of the matter is that your friend is using the EXACT same excuses to keep it out of that article too. The evidence demonstrates that you and your friends don't want this information in any articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These assumptions of bad faith ("you and your friends," et al) are unacceptable. Please comment on the content, not the editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It a verifiable fact that they are friends from looking at their facebook pages - linked from their own profiles. It is also a verifiable fact that they've been citing every wiki-policy they can think of, for 6+ years, to "maintain the integrity of wikipedia." Of course, you automatically assume that I'm assuming bad faith - are these facts so damning that their revelation can only be "assuming bad faith?"
KimDabelsteinPetersen has been repeatedly deleting the contribution from TheGoodLocust, citing WP:UNDUE. An article about the IPCC ought to cover the major aspects and characteristics of the IPCC. One of the most significant aspects of the IPCC is its accuracy. When that accuracy is called into question with good evidence to demonstrate a lack of accuracy, then that evidence is significant to the character of the IPCC, and WP:UNDUE does not apply - indeed the very opposite applies - this is signficant information about the character of the IPCC that needs greater weight than mere appendage to the section "Criticism of IPCC". Cadae (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this edit war still ongoing when there is a discussion here?
The sources are well founded and the additions are pertinant to the article.
I fail to see why there is a problem with this inclusion.
mark nutley (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point seems to be to make edits so difficult that they can only be accomplished with much hassle and outside mediation - I think it drives a lot of people away from wikipedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use of Non-Peer Reviewed Sources and the Himalayan Glaciers
Here is the section that I wrote up to be included in the criticisms of the IPCC:
---
Use of Non-Peer-reviewed Literature and the Himalayan Glaciers
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. When the original source was tracked down he found that they had misstated both the year and the effect - the original source, by a M. Kuhn, states that the year was actually 2350, and that the Himalayan glaciers would be intact at that time. IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt, but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate. [3]
The IPCC's assessment of melting Himalayanglaciers has also been criticized as being "horribly wrong," according to John Shroder a Himalayan glacier specialist at the University of Nebraska. According to Shroder, the IPCC jumped to conclusions based on insufficient data. Additionally, Donald Alford, a hydrologist, asserts that his water study for the World Bank demonstrates 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. [4] Finally, Michael Zemp, from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, has stated that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" on the subject, that, under IPCC rules they shouldn't have published their statements, and that he knows of no scientific references that would've confirmed their claims.[5]
---
It is still WP:UNDUE, you are still focusing on one bad information from a report that contains several thousands of such. There is no doubt that it is wrong - but it is a factoid projected far beyond its prominence. It could be mentioned in the article on Retreat of glaciers since 1850 where it would be on-topic and due. But certainly not in its current form which is extremely one-sided. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kim is correct: both that the substance (2035/2350) is correct and that this is UNDUE. Also, the bit about the Ganges is not very relevant here. And you've been rather partial with your quotation from Zemp. Incidentally, the bit about not using PR papers is funny, given the spetic desire to re-instate fig 7.1c from the '90 report William M. Connolley (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry kim and will, this is not one sided, it is fact. Encyclopaedias deal in facts.
There is a section in the article which praises this report, so were is the undue weight in a section which has found flaws in said report? It is called balance.
Also undue weight is about viewpoints, not facts.
This addition is well sourced and pertinant to the article. Once again you are letting your personal points of view get in the way. mark nutley (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopaedia deals in pertinent facts, this is not such - it is not an indiscriminate collection random factoids. This is a cherry-pick blown out of proportion. And that is exactly what our policy on neutral point of view (the undue part) is about. Now there (as i said) may be articles where this is within due weight, but a general article on the IPCC (or the AR4) is not the place. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pertinent fact at issue is the reliability of the IPCC and its reports. The incorrect dates indicate that the IPCC reports cannot be given the weight attributed to them. They must be viewed with some suspicion as the IPCC have not adhered to their own stated policy. This is pertinent to the characterisation of the IPCC, and WP:UNDUE doesn't apply. Defending the IPCC in the face of this error is not WP:NPOV. Cadae (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IPCC have failed to adhere to their own policy, leading to an error of fact. This has significance beyond a simple factual error - it indicates poor management and a lack of process control - thus affecting the veracity of their reports. The very existence of this process break-down and factual error may well cause the "worlds scientific bodies" to reconsider their support of the IPCC reports. Your appeal to the authority of the "worlds scientific bodies" backing the reports is a self-serving argument - you've assumed your own conclusion that they won't give this error any weight Cadae (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, review failed for one paragraph of a several thousand pages document, that happens, so what? And i do get that you apparently have very strong feelings on the subject - but that doesn't make it more important. If the worlds scientific bodies reconsider their support - then we most certainly will report it (even if one scientific academy does), since that would be a pertinent fact - as opposed to this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The consequences of that review failure extend beyond 'one paragraph of several thousand'. The assumption is that the IPCC reports are highly accurate. This event calls into question that accuracy. Your claim of WP:UNDUE is like claiming we can ignore a murderer's single act of murder, simply because he has murdered only on one day of the thousands he has been alive. That one act of murder (or in the IPCC's case - failure to adhere to policy) characterises the murderer. We rightly highlight that one failure of character of the murderer in the courts, the press and wikipedia - similarly we need to highlight that failure of character of the IPCC in Wikipedia.Cadae (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A mountain out of a molehill. Sorry but the murder analogy is rather bad. It is a single mistake taken out of a context of tens of thousands points of data/facts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your 'mountain out of a molehill' doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The 'molehill' is far from a 'molehill'- it is nothing less than a question of the character of the IPCC as an unblemished reliable source, upon whose reports the world's economies will be spending trillions of dollars. There were several failures of policy and procedure involved. If this were a pharmaceutical report, the authors would be arrested and tried for fraud. Cadae (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to my reasons for showing why WP:UNDUE doesn't apply, you ignore my reasoning and blandly repeat your WP:UNDUE claim without responding to my points. Your POV is also clear, but is backed only by the claim that it is only "one paragraph among thousands". I have repeatedly addressed this, but you continue to fail to engage with the points raised. It gives the distinct impression that the deletion of the section about the IPCC error is motivated by bias. Cadae (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The recent edit war was over whether to report on an error found in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in this article. A similar discussion is taking place on the AR4 talk page to see if the error should be reported in that article.
It seems to me that, if we can't agree to include a mention of the error in the AR4 article, we're unlikely to reach agreement on whether to mention it in this more general article. I would suggest therefore that it makes sense for us to all concentrate, at Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, on whether to discuss the matter as part of that article. If we decide not to go ahead with that, it seems to me, then it seems very unlikely that we would want to include it here. On the other hand, if we decide to include it in the AR4 article, the case to include it here will be a little stronger. So I advise a hierarchical approach. Discuss it at the AR4 article and take it from there. --TS17:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AR4 article focuses on the contents of AR4 and does not speak to the nature and characteristics of the IPCC. The error introduced in the AR4 report has significance beyond IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). As an indicator of a failure of IPCC policy and procedure it has significance independent of the error itself, as it speaks to the reliablity of the IPCC. It is thus less important as an item in the AR4 article than as an item about the IPCC itself. Creating a dependency between its presence in IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) to its presence here is a mistake. It can and should be considered differently in each context. Cadae (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view (though I don't agree with it). But I don't think you can make an argument that will convince people who are already dubious about the notion of discussing the matter at all even in the AR4 article. --TS11:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should this article not mention that the IPCC is not allowed to assess the "for and against" of global warming since it is signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which states that global warming is real and dangerous
No, it shouldn't because it is incorrect. You seem not to have read the report(s)? Take a peek, they are quite interesting and contain quite a lot that various people assert that they do not. (for instance about solar or natural variations, discussions of Svensmarks cosmic ray hypothesis, discussions of benefits of warming etc etc etc) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to TS - I'm not sure which POV you understand - the POV that the AR4 article and IPCC article shouldn't be dependent on each other, or the POV that the error is more significant in the IPCC article than the AR4 article ? If you comprehend my point, you will see that you have the dependency around the wrong way - the date error is less significant in the AR4 article than in the IPCC article. Even if it is not in AR4, it has more significance to the IPCC article, and exclusion of it in AR4 is no justification for excluding it from IPCC. Cadae (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble here is that I cannot begin to address your argument because I cannot make any sense of it. The error is in the AR4, so under what circumstances could it possibly be appropriate to mention it in this article but not in the article on AR4? --TS15:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll restate the argument and try to make it clearer. AR4 is all about the AR4 report - it is not about the IPCC. Information about the IPCC itself is in the IPCC article i.e. information about the IPCC's characteristics, history, successes and failures. The date error (2035 vs 2350) is a significant failure of the IPCC to adhere to its policy and processes - this is of greatest import to the article about the IPCC itself, not the article about AR4. The significance of the failure is dependent on its context - it's even more significant in the IPCC article than in the AR4 article. Cadae (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: What does WP:DUE indicate regarding errors in an IPCC report?
I've looked around this and as far as I can tell the only purpose of including the text is to try to portray IPCC as unreliable, which in general they are not. It's not a criticism that makes the mainstream reviews of the subject I've read and seems to be considered massively important by the global warming denial community and nobody else. As such it looks very much like undue weight to me, something considered significantly only y a fringe minority (there are analogues in the debate around the big bang theory, some people seek to exploit minor debates around tiny facets of what amounts to an overwhelming consensus in order to overstate the extent of the dispute and the solidity of the evidence base). I guess I am reminded of the infamous hockey stick, criticism of which is used to deny the late 20th century temperature uptick which appears in so many different models that those using the hockey stick critique give a very strong impression of deliberately choosing the thing they can criticise in order to avoid answering an unanswerable case. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what the current status of the RfC is, but. The "Himalayan Glaciers" section seems to be about a rather small issue that is given too much weight/space. But the same can be said about all sub-section in the "Criticism of IPCC" section. I think it is important to present the criticism, but it is also important to inform the un-informed reader that there are also many scientists who agree with the finding (and all of these have not gotten their own 10-line description in the article). I also miss a description of the possibly-unfair criticism from politicians and others. To summarize, I think the criticism should be included but it is necessary to have a meta-description about what the general consensus in the scientific, and political, community is. Labongo (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the edit history, and it looks as if the material relating to the apparent use of non peer-reviewed data is a clear case of undue weight. A neutral source suggesting that this might be a noteworthy problem for the report would be required, at least. What we appear to have is some decidedly non-neutral criticism coupled with an admission that the sourcing could have been better. I long for the day when Wikipedia subscribes to the standards of the IPCC. --FormerIP (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Include - The IPCC is not immune from controversy or criticism. The sources provided are clearly reliable for this material. --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Disclosure: I am not sure what "field of articles" refers to but in this case I am suitably independent of this article and it's talk page. My only contributions to this page were to place a {{fact}} on the claim that the IPCC is a scientific organization, to correct a broken reference, and to add a link to the see also section. I have now become an active participant.[reply]
Too new / minor - on including some mention: this is a minor point in the WGII report, not in the more-known WGI report. It is also too new - wait a month, the view amongst WP:RS about this may settle. On including the text proposed [8]: it clearly violates WP:UNDUE and fails to understand the issue William M. Connolley (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an extreme case of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. The cause is one error in the WG2 report. The effect is (nearly) as long as the whole section on the AR4 so far. Moreover, it mixes criticism of process with criticism of results, and significant parts of the later seem to be unsourced. And on the Meta-level: The RfC is horribly spun. You are supposed to at least try to make it look neutral. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are hardly uninvolved with this article Stephen. Oh, and TS, why'd you remove the list of those for/against? Was it because the talk pages show a clear case for inclusion? You also removed my editting to make my post look ugly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you are quoting WP:COATRACK which is NOT wikipedia policy, and indeed, the talk pages show the vast majority of involved wikipedians voted AGAINST making it policy due to, among other things, its potential abuse for keeping relevent info out of articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for "spin" I can only present the counterarguments that your side has made - like your quoting of non-policy. It isn't my fault that it looks bad. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use votes for this kind of thing (hence I guess people are commenting not voting) we use arguments here WP:UNDUE is a heavy argument against including this, given how much coverage IPCC gets and how little this one has got. OTOH is is hardly something to get worked up about. --BozMotalk19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And again, not only has this gotten a lot of coverage, but an expert on the subject, as quoted and sourced in the inclusion, has said that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" - if it is "major" then it certainly isn't undue. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He works for the World Glacier Monitoring service and is a doctor - here is a list of his publications. He is certainly far better qualified to determine how important this is than any of us. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This mistake was still being cited by the ipcc on on third of november.
(Jean-Pascal van Ypersele IPCC Vice-chair, said at UNFCCC, Barcelona, on 3 November, 2009):
receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming; in addition, high population density near these glaciers and consequent deforestation and land-use changeshave adversely affected these glaciers
the total glacial area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2(or disappear entirely) by the year 2035
Bearing in mind if the himalayan glaciers melt to 100k`s2 then it actually no loss at all is that is their current estimated size :) So it`s impact is still ongoing, google glacial melt and you would think that this was an accurate date.mark nutley (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last couple of paras here is written assuming the reader is deep in conversation with you and knows what you are talking about. What in this last couple of paragraphs is the quote and how does it fit with the point you are making (which is that some IPCC data used was not peer reviewed prior to use, I think)? Whose figures are which etc. What's the significance of the date you would think was accurate by googling glacial melt etc. All this is on the road to proving sufficient weight for inclusion I take it?--BozMotalk20:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to William M. Connolley @ 09:58, 1 January 2010, once again i see the words "minor point", you fail to address the fact that this 2035 date was widely published and reported as fact by both the IPCC and the MSM.
This failure of the IPCC to follow their own guidlines in no using non-peer reviewed literature has lead to a massive belief that 2035 is correct and not 2350.
I also fail to see how balance can be achieved in this article if a section "Praise for the IPCC" can be viewed as ok and not be WP:UNDUE but a proposed section to point out major mistakes is called WP:UNDUE ? Sorry makes no sense.
I would also like to point out from one of the conversations which has been collapsed, User:Stephan Schulz cites WP:COATRACK as a reason against inclusion, this is not actually WP policy at this moment in time. --mark nutley (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That glaciers are melting is major. That Himalayan glaciers would melt by a given date isn't. The idea that all Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 is ludicrous. I agree that date is in the PDF you've linked above; I disagree that anyone took it seriously (though that is hard to pin down; [9] (twice)) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry william i strongly disagree with your statement I disagree that anyone took it seriously
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele IPCC Vice-chair took it seriously.
I think we all know you disagree. But you need better sources. Your Telegraph link sources the statement to "Indian climate experts", not IPCC. The third example is very weak too William M. Connolley (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This RFC is so grossly biased that it will inevitably accomplish nothing. The first argument "WP:UNDUE Specifically is stated to apply to viewpoints - the proposed section contains facts." is so amusingly incorrect that it makes the cases against the authors viewpoint quite effectively. This discussion should be at the AR4 page - as TS has said. The text is clearly UNDUE; it is inaccurate (it speaks of the report instead of one of several); I don't believe the 3 sources stuff; etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is well aware of your bias Connolley. If there are any facts that need correcting then you are free to point them out. Anyway, you are welcome not to "believe" anything you like, but the sources we have say otherwise. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just my 2c: The error isn't a mere typo, it's a gross error on a topic that's used as one of the main examples of climate change in the media. If it was a mere typo, I'd agree, it'd just be nitpicking. But there is more going on here, it's a mistake that's the result of sloppy work done by the IPCC and it also happens to have been reproduced frequently in the media; both the number being used incorrectly (as is mentioned above) as well as by media pointing out the mistake. The FIRST hit I get on google is a big player, CNN: "The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report." and another editor mentioned a BBC article that pointed out the error, so it's not just obscure climate change bloggers writing about these things. So yeah, this perhaps little mistake has had considerable consequence and has been picked up by the big players in the media, so it's well worth including. Considering the article even has a praise section for the IPCC, I think it's not throwing the article off from a NPOV either.BabyNuke (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that all that this shows is confirmation bias - right? If you look for something that you know is there, then when you find it, it shouldn't come as a surprise.... Yes, it is an error - No, it isn't important in this context. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are errors then list them and source them. The undue weight complaints are completely without merit. Also, the cry to put some information into satellite articles, where less people are likely to see the information and even fewer people are likely to discuss it seems like a tactic to keep it out of the encyclopedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets take it again this is: one error in one paragraph in chapter 10 (of 20) section 6 subsection 2 in the WGII report which is 1 of 3 main reports in the AR4 (which is the 4th report) from the IPCC - the proposed text presented above is larger than the paragraph with the error. => Grossly undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant. The weight comes not from the number of words in the paragraph but in where the paragraph resides and the significance that it carries. The mere fact that it is an error in the IPCC report gives it far more than enough weight for inclusion. --GoRight (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refuting errors often takes more work than simply making them - in the same way that deletion/destruction is easier than the creative impulse (the difference between destroying books and writing them). Also, the section explains the impact as well - and there are many areas on wikipedia that expand. Additionally, their error has been cited so many times in the mainstream media which increases its "size." TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked you to tell me what the errors are and to source them - be specific. You can't just say there are errors without explaining yourself. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm by no means convinced that we yet have consensus or policy reasons sufficient for giving this proposed addition the kind of prominence it gets here. I have reverted pending a justification for the amount of weight, and the presentation. What happened to the idea of seeing if it can go into AR4? --TS23:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They won`t have it there either. @Kim, it does not matter if it is one small part of the main report. They used non peer reviewed papers and made statements based on them. Sorry but if a group like the IPCC make statements like "all glaciers will be gone in 2035" in will cause widespread alarm. This should be in here, they messed up and you guys seem to want to hide it mark nutley (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article gets more traffic, and therefore more outside opinions (as shown by the number of people who keep restoring the section). Anyway, we don't need policy to keep it in, we need policy to keep it out - and a reliable source has stated that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" - obviously it can't be undue if an outside expert thinks it is important (plus the other reasons against the UNDUE charge). TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, you're wrong there. We do need to establish whether there is consensus and policy support. I don't think the case has been adequately made yet. Edit warring to get it in won't work unless we establish consensus. --TS00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From a dictionary
con⋅sen⋅sus [kuhn-sen-suhs]
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
We probably don't have consensus, else you wouldn't be having such a devil of a time getting it to stay. Vsmith, I, Kim, William, and Stephan have removed it. Some of those inserting it are scibaby socks (certainly Jong-C having now been permanently blocked as a scibaby sock). So it doesn't look like consensus at all. --TS00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet there are still more just on this talk page who want inclusion - and even more, obviously not socks, who've restored the text, but not gotten involved in the talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who? I see Nutley, Bluefield and Goodlocust doing the reverts. All voted above. Please name the (non-sock) others and be very careful with such claims. There is such a thing as reputation. --BozMotalk08:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main case against inclusion of the error has been assertion of UNDUE. The main proof presented that the error is UNDUE is that the amount of text it takes up in AR4 is relatively small! This is not a logical argument for exclusion. There are multiple reasons highlighted on this talk page why the error is important, none of which have had reasonable counter arguments presented. A majority of the editors want it in. Those opposed have used a set of technical tools to thwart its inclusion - and it's getting rather tiresome. Cadae (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I do think errata that have been published and criticised by acknowledged experts should probably be included in relevant articles. The problem I have here is that those people editing the article on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)--the report which contains these apparent errata--don't yet seem to have reached consensus to mention it at all there, and we have no consensus to do so here. I'd like to see editors make an honest case to include a description of their errata and their significance in the AR4 article, rather than this tiresome edit warring.
Another problem I have here is that the question of the significance of the errata doesn't seem to be treat seriously. Do these items mean global warming isn't happening? Obviously not, because the report in question is by Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability). Perhaps the errata mean that we don't have to worry about the Himalayan glaciers melting in our lifetime, or perhaps they mean something different. We need to approach this correctly or it just looks like we're saying "this paragraph on page X is wrong" and the next question is "so what?" We need to make sure the answer is clearly given from reliable sources.
But as I have said, I think the correct place, in the first instance, is the talk page of the AR4 article. That's where one might at least find people have more than a cursory acquaintance with the material.
Now I won't edit war on this because if we continued along that path we could easily end up making the atmosphere here very bad. Please respect this. Let's discuss the possibility of adding the item to AR4, at the relevant talk page. --TS03:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My take on this is similar to Tony Sidaway's. If the appropriate way to describe this error (in whatever level of detail) has not been established at our article on the report which contains it, it seems a bit excessive to include a detailed description in this much broader, higher-level article. Specific errata (particularly if they represent very small portions of the report in question) don't warrant extensive, detailed description in this overview.
The bulk of the criticisms included in this article seem to focus on more general, structural concerns (plus the ever-popular and very high-profile hockey stick controversy). The glacier error doesn't appear to be anywhere near that high in profile, and certainly shouldn't make up a large part of an article on the IPCC as a whole. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Meh. This bit is a clear example of a breach in the much ballyhooed IPCC process. As such it is appropriate to list it here rather than bury it in the report. The weight of the issue comes from this fact alone. It derives it's weight from the weight of the IPCC process and the importance and the claims thereof. --GoRight (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the IPCC and its proponents have always loudly shouted that they use peer-reviewed literature to make their assessments - this has now been categorically shown to be false. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we produce a tally from the opinions above to make an orderly assessment of the state of consensus? Or will that be viewed as pointy and controversial? --GoRight (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is we don't decide things by vote. Anyway, didn't you do that further up the page, but not including ones who made a change either way with edit comments? If you do a list please exclude socks, include article editors and mark me down clearly as "unable to generate a flicker of interest from anywhere deep within my soul on this issue". And if you get anything other than "no consensus" stand in the corner until you can recount straight. :-) --BozMotalk23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why included article editors? The initial criticism was that the source wasn't good enough, but that criticism no longer applies. Also, some people appeared to just be reverting the edits of the sock. If someone wants to put their name on the list then they are welcome to do it, but we shouldn't count article editors who are unwilling to state and defend their reasons for reversion and who may have changed their mind.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Progress of this RFC
In over 8 days the RFC has gathered four comments from editors previously uninvolved. They appear to me to be unanimous in rejecting the case for inclusion of the section on errors in the IPCC AR4 report in this article, though one or two suggest thatit might be appropriate for the article on the report itself. Accordingly I assess consensus to be against inclusion at this stage. Discussion should continue, but I am removing the section for now. I encourage those wishing to see encyclopedic coverage of these errors to gain consensus for coverage in that other article, which is called IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. --TS10:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries on consensus
Please could everyone stop claiming "consensus at talk" in edit summaries when it is clear that no consensus exists. Adding up opinions above (and counting me as "don't care"; I haven't read and don't think I edited this page unless on a vandal revert) I make it 6-6 on opinions expressed. Anyone who reverts without adding value (e.g. by proposing a compromise text) is in danger of an Edit Warring sanction. This page is also in danger of having to be protected. So no reverts, just improvements please. --BozMotalk08:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you quantify this consensus? I did a rough head count and it seemed to me that there was a slight majority for inclusion, but substantial objections, and reasons for holding off on declaring consensus (consensus on whether the item merits discussion at the AR4 article has not materialized). We don't normally treat this kind of situation as consensus--consensus usually means something like "very few objectors and no significant policy objections". --TS20:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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". [6].
Connelly, please discuss why you reverted my edit [7] 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)[reply]
They're just these guys. You're sourcing this to their website. Can I start a club and get my stuff into Wikipedia? --TS22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
<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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? --TS00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --TS02:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 viewpolicy, specifically the Due Weight clause. --TS23:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. --TS03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --TS00:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? --BozMotalk09:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"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. --TS11:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes tony, although you are correct that their qualifications are not relevent i just looked over the wp:fringe rules, in this part [[11]] 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."
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. --TS15:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. --TS15:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. --TS15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[outdent]Ok tony, you say the washington post is light hearted and think they are flat earthers, so under this part of wp:fringeReferences 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --TS16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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 [12] and we should put something along those lines in here. --BozMotalk20:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. --BozMotalk22:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --BozMotalk23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --BozMotalk21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Mark, you have to obtain consensus. That doesn't mean waiting until everybody is tired of arguing with you, and then declaring consensus. --TS22:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [13]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --BozMotalk21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verification and Validation: BozMo, I was assuming eds were faithfully following the NIPCC report discussion. 1) I verified the report to be RS [14] 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 [15],[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. 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)[reply]
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--BozMotalk07:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can everyone agree on whether the Himalayan glacier section should stay in or be removed while the current RfC runs? If so, I (or someone else) will ask Jayron32 whether they think it would be a good idea to change the article status to unprotected with a very low tolerance for edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well naturally i think it should stay in regardless of the rfc run :) but i`m not fussed about it being unlocked, however i suspect ip only contributors or socks will revert like mad if it is unlocked and the disputed text removed --mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to worry about IP's if the article is semi'd; socks can be dealt with. I want the text out; I have the same objections (none of which have been addressed) before it goes anywhere else. The text is *wrong*; but dumped into the crit-of-ar4 article we could at least try to fix the wording William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however i would like to point out that when we tried to add it there the same people who will not have it here refused it there. I do believe that there should be a criticism section here to provide balance to this article, the IPCC make a lot of alarmist statements and i honestly this those should be brought into perspective. I can`t speak for the others who want this included here either so you`d have to ask them.Looking at WMC`s gives me pause for thought though. He says the test is wrong, but has yet to offer any compromise on it, he says he wants to fix the wording, sorry but for that i read "spin it to look better", perhaps i`m wrong on that only time will tell mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a reliable source for the notion that the IPCC is widely regarded as "alarmist" then we can consider how to present that. I've seen the term "alarmism" a lot, but only from a relatively small group of committed global warming skeptics. I'm not sure this would merit a lot of space, but perhaps a mention might be merited. --TS22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, lots of the "criticism" isn't really criticism in the IPCC section and some would be considered "UNDUE" based on the arguments about keeping out the section of the IPCC's use of non-peer-reviewed lit. The peer-review/glacier section contains some real criticism with some bite - and blows holes in the oft-heard argument that the IPCC should be trusted because they only use peer-reviewed science. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally sympathetic to the current criticism section being poor but I don't suppose you would like the kind of one which I might write either. What is in my view entirely missing is mention of broad brush dismissive critics as opposed to micro critics. If any of the full-body criticisms have notability (and I suspect some do) we should work out which are the most notable and include something about them. As above, I think the most notable will de facto have enough weight for some mention provided they meet notability. Meanwhile on glaciers I am on the fence, but if WMC suggests dumping into AR4 and fixing it there, which others have suggested above then I think the option is open to do it and I would support it there. --BozMotalk22:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I initially wrote the "glacier" section it was titleed "Use of Non-Peer-reviewed Literature" - this is quite important since supporters of the IPCC always talk about how they use peer-reviewed papers. The glacier segment of it is also important, certainly more than other sections considering how often people talk about how the glaicers are melting because of global warming and other such nonsense, but it was added merely as a way to demonstrate the inaccuracies of using non-peer-reviewed sources, which we can all agree the IPCC did indeed do. As for being in AR4, there isn't really a good place for it there, and this criticism so strongly contradicts what supporters say of the IPCC that it makes it notable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Count me as a supporter of such a rewritten criticism section. I agree with your view, that the section in general is poor and focused on micro-criticism. What is needed is process and methodology criticism. My thoughts in that direction would be some of the recent criticism, stating that the IPCC has outlived its usefullness - i believe Tol, Pielke Jr. and others have levelled such recently.
Here`s an idea, WMC says he is against the use of non peer reviewed literature section being in although he say`s if it goes into the AR4 article it would need to be rewritten.
So why does`nt WMC write it up in a way he deems it to be appropriate and then we can discuss that, currently all we have is "It`s got mistakes" or "It`s poorly written" but no actual alternatives being given. So any thoughts on this? @Kim i believe i refuted your wp:weight argument above, please respond there --mark nutley (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent suggestion. Give us a good faith alternative that addresses the issue which you would find acceptable. We can't find a compromise if you don't want to help find some middle ground. --GoRight (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that there is an intent to apply these new probationary sanctions even handedly, I hereby object to any change in the current protection level of this article unless and until a warning comparable to this has been issued here. --GoRight (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rest more assured after they issue the warning. I have noted a strange phenomenon regarding when the page protections just happen to be applied to various articles. It does not appear to be random. This page is currently an anomaly in that respect, and I note the lack of a substantive warning regarding the removal of contested material here. --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin who has no involvement in this article, I can confirm that edit warring will result in a block. If a consensus forms to unprotect the page I will consider doing so and keep an eye on it. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)22:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might you also consider specifically warning people regarding the addition or removal of contested material, per my example above? It would put my mind at ease. --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To forestall further WP:edit warring, any editor who adds or removes contested material from this article without first attaining consensus here may be blocked from editing. To be clear: any edit which another editor has reverted in whole or in part is contested. --TS23:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the controversial issue. But the introduction is missing information about what kind of people (scientists?) are part of the committee and how they are selected. Labongo (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the entire article I still don't understand how the IPCC members are selected/elected. The "Operations" section should be clarified with regards to provide information about who actually where selected rather than: "Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged". I also suggest moving the "Operations" section to above the reports. Labongo (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think all that is mandated is The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged. (I'm guessing that is from the charter). What actually *happens* is that governments get to appoint who they will to the *panel*. The panel (I think) will then appoint various working groups (which is why there are the WGI, II and III reports; of which WGI is by far the best). The way this goes is that the scientists get to write the science chapters (and as far as I know, in practice this actually happens) and then comes the process of approving the report (and traditionally the chapters of the report are left alone, in the full knowledge that only the very interested will read them; only the exec summaries and stuff get fought over). This is where it gets political. Traditionally the EU have been pro-science; the US (presumably no more) and Saudi (how odd) have been foot-draggers. The problem is that I rather doubt any of that is written down anywhere reliable, or even at all William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article must Report that IPCC is Widely Criticized
Seems to have petered out
In order to be correctly encyclopedic, this article must report the fact that the IPCC has been widely criticized, including by many scientists. (I have personally read many such articles.) A number of those criticisms are mentioned in the article already, and should stay there, along with appropriate refutations of those criticisms, if any. No one reading this article should get the impression that the IPCC is not controversial, because it is. Vegasprof (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you support your "widely criticized" with reliable sources? How do you define "widely"? And when you say controversial, then what is your basis for it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i would claim that the IPCC isn't controversial. Limited sections of the political spectrum, (primarily) within a limited number of countries, do consider it controversial though, but these are (to my best knowledge) not representative of any major political, scientific or NGO standpoint. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have seen only one poll that addresses the IPCC directly. A Rasmussen poll published last month that found only 22 percent of Americans consider the UN to be a reliable source of information on global warming. That less than a fourth of the public in the world's second-largest democracy (and the country that provides the largest share of the UN's funding) trust the UN on matters of global warming seems to argue strongly that it's controversial, regardless of whether ones believes the controversy is justified.
That said, it may be hard to demonstrate how many of those 150 million or so people have spoken out to "criticize" the IPCC. Do you have reliable sources to support the idea you are trying to capture? --DGaw (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - but we are not here to discuss whether or not my personal opinion (which i gave in good faith) is correct or not. Can we get back on track? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Kim, I may have been unclear. My last, "Do you have reliable sources to support the idea you are trying to capture?" was directed toward Vegasprof. In the absence of an RS that says the IPCC is "widely criticized", I don't think that formulation can be added to the article. If he/she believes the contention contention that the IPCC is controversial is relevant here,he/she will need an RS that supports the idea--and will need to frame it in a way that is supported by the source.
As for the rest, it was meant to be on track. You said you were not aware of any major political standpoint holding the IPCC to be unreliable, and asked Vegasprof to provide support for the contention that the IPCC is controversial. I responded by providing evidence. Am I to understand you do not find that evidence persuasive? --DGaw (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i do not find the "evidence" persuasive. Public opinion polls tell us absolutely nothing about how controversial the IPCC is regarding the science or amongst policy makers. And the US is (i'm sorry to say) rather an outlier with regards to this issue, both in the sense of the public opinion or the way that this issue is politicized. It may be worth mentioning the publics opinion - but we'd need a summary over time (since the first report to now) as well as in space (rest of the world), otherwise it is too specific. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a lot of discussion above and elsewhere on improving the criticism section. Do please provide some more sources about criticisms, it would be timely to help us rework it. --BozMotalk23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start gathering some possible sources. Feel free to add yours here too. Please just include the sources and a brief excerpt in this section. Discussion of the proposed use of these sources can be addressed elsewhere. --GoRight (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pielke: Mainly the fact that the same individuals who are doing primary research into humans’ impact on the climate system are being permitted to lead the assessment of that research. Suppose a group of scientists introduced a drug they claimed could save many lives: There were side effects, of course, but the scientists claimed the drug’s benefits far outweighed its risks. If the government then asked these same scientists to form an assessment committee to evaluate their claim (and the committee consisted of colleagues of the scientists who made the original claim as well as the drug’s developers), an uproar would occur, and there would be protests. It would represent a clear conflict of interest. Yet this is what has happened with the IPCC process. To date, either few people recognize this conflict, or those that do choose to ignore it because the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed, and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.
As a UN body, the IPCC must not allow itself to be captured by one scientific faction or another. It needs to give fair representation to all views. Indeed, the IPCC is supposed to take into account all peer-reviewed literature, including dissenting views.
Is this actually happening? No, says Michaels. "The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable. These include articles from the journals Arctic, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions, Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Quaternary Research."
(3) ROYAL SOCIETY REBUTTAL - Probably not usable directly but may provide additional pointers to other sources.
(4) [27]"With the apparent solar :cooling cycle upon us we have a ready explanation for global warming and cooling. If the present :cooling trend continues, the IPCC reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of :science." - Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus - Geology, Western Washington University Nothughthomas (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism section: broad (methodology/process/legitimacy) or narrow?
I think this is the wrong approach, This is once more micro-criticism and focusing on (the usual) individuals with minority opinion on climate change. There is a whole slew of social science/political science literature out there, that examines the IPCC processes and methodologies. That is where we should start looking. Pielke Jr (not Sr) would be the one to look at. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, KDP, I don't take a stand on that either way. You may well be correct. But this is my attempt to embrace the new era of probationary sanctions and to try and foster an actual consensus based on the sources available. You allude to the existence of sources that you feel are superior to those that we are finding. Rather than leaving us hunting for your needle buried in a hay stack perhaps you too could embrace the spirit of collaboration and provide them? --GoRight (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, please give a definition of "micro"-criticism. And why do you say "minority opinion"? Scientific truth has nothing to do with majority/minority anything. Vegasprof (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Micro-criticism is criticism of small parts of a large picture. When looking at the whole it has very little substance or meaning.
How do you determine scientific "truth"? Is Pielke Sr. stating the scientific "truth", or is it his peers, who are significantly in the majority? For Wikipedia we determine this not by seeking "truth" but by presenting the prevalent scientific opinion, and mentioning significant minority viewpoints. When Pielke Sr. is arguing that everyone else is wrong, then it may possibly be that he is entirely correct - but it is not our judgement to make... What we see is a single individual who is arguing a position which the majority of his peers do not seem to share. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Pielke's criticism is "micro" at all. It is a blast leveled at the entire IPCC report. And what really counts is whether Pielke (or whoever) has the professional "weight" required for his opinion to be taken seriously, which he clearly does, and which Al Gore (for example) clearly doesn't. And, despite what you say, he is by no means the only "weighty" person who disparages the IPCC report. Vegasprof (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the terms of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, I'm placing this under a 1 revert rule restriction indefinitely at this time (although this can obviously be changed in due course if needs be). All editors should refrain from reverting more than once in any 24 hour period. Clearly, there are other forms of disruption that could occur and these would also be met with a warning/block under the terms of the probation. I'll unprotect the article for now, but I'll also leave a note for the protecting administrator and he can have final say. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter12:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IPCC only using P-R stuff?
Discussion
One of the assertions made above is that the IPCC should not have useed the WWF report, because that report wasn't peer reviewed. Who says this is an IPCC rule, and where is the appropriate rulebook? This article says The IPCC reports are a compendium of peer reviewed and published science and links to [28] which is broken (argh, I hate this stupid orgs that can't even maintain a website). However, it now seems to be at []. This includes Contributions should be supported as far as possible with references from the peer-reviewed and internationally available literature, and with copies of any unpublished material cited. Clear indications of how to access the latter should be included in the contributions. I would read that as clear evidence that while P-R lit is preferred, non-P-R lit, provided it is internationally available, is permitted. In this particular instance (Himalayan glaciers) the WWF report *is* widely available, so using it (I argue) falls within the IPCC rules. That makes the text "IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt, but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate" that misc people have been reverting back in wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? "That makes the text "IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt," of course there was a mistake they were 300 years out on it.
Also from the IPCC principals 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. They did`nt do that either did they? --mark nutley (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What WMC was referring to, and which is rather obvious is the last part of the sentence: "...but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate" which is clearly incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.
We have a reliable source that says they are mandated. You appear to be doing OR in order to say it isn't mandated, and it seems to me that anyone can show a section where it doesn't say it is mandated - what matters is the section that requires the mandate or a source that talks about that mandate - and we have the latter. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to report an error purely because a RS makes that error. I'm going to take the erroneous text out, unless someone can provide a good justification for keeping it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are telling me that your original research has determined that a reliable source is in error? This is not good enough and is obviously against wikipolicy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - what exactly is it that makes the IPCC principles document a non-WP:RS? And where do you figure it is written that we must propagate an error when we know that it is one? (it would be rather bad editing if we did - wouldn't it?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<outdent>Hey look, I can do original research and find statements from their website that say they use peer-reviewed literature!
"The IPCC assessment process is designed to ensure consideration of all relevant scientific
information from established journals with robust peer review processes, or from other sources which
have undergone robust and independent peer review."
Again, here at wikipedia, and I'm surprised you don't know this yet, we try not to use primary sources or original research - otherwise you have editors determine what is "right" and what is "wrong" - wikipedia procedures state that information must be verifiable with reliable sources - not "right." TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of stating the obvious the quote about what "the IPCC is mandated to be doing" is not equivalent in meaning to "breaking an IPCC mandate" since there is a clear difference in meaning of the word "mandate" in the two cases. The current text is not supported by the BBC wording. If this isn't obvious to anyone "what the IPCC is mandated to be doing" in a political context (per Singer and BBC) amounts to anything anyone say they expect of them. "An IPCC mandate" though is legalistic wording and implies something to do with their legal obligations or statues. This is meanings (1) and (3) in my OED but someone can find an online version I am sure. --BozMotalk22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) That isn't their rule book. Direct quotation from their rule book shows that use of non-P-R lit is permissable. Accordingly, I've removed (some of) the incorrect text from that section. Also, it should be noted that the BBC report says Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing. Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers. But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed - or 'unpublished' - documents when assessing the status of the glaciers which your version paraphrases as "IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt, but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate". Your version looks like it is ML saying they broke the mandate. The Beeb text is rather different - the mandate claim is completely unsourced (nor is the claim that none of these are PR obviously true) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Their "rule book" as you call it also makes it clear that they should be using non-peer-reviewed stuff carefully and certainly not in the way that they did - that exception to their rule, was meant to apply to things like industrial research that wouldn't be peer-reviewed, but which was necessary to help determine the application of policy - they clearly were not doing this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm glad you've agreed that they *are* indeed allowed to use non-PR stuff - the only debate now is over exactly *what* non-PR stuff. I don't agree with your interpretation of only things like Ind R - but that really doesn't matter, because that question is non-urgent and non-exciting William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I find WMC's observation and argument here quite interesting. So he is arguing that the IPCC reports are NOT based only on peer-reviewed literature? Well, given that the standard here on Wikipedia for discussions of scientific fact IS the use of only peer-reviewed literature does this not mean that the articles on the IPCC reports, which purport to represent scientific facts, should be deleted per WP:UNDUE? --GoRight (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must agree with Connolley in this case - the IPCC is not scientific and therefore not a reliable source in the matter of global warming. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) A nice piece of light relief, but easy to bat away. First off, I'm not aware of the use of non-P-R lit in the WGI report (you *did* know all this stuff is only about WGII, didn't you?). Secondly, there is no requirement at all for P-R literature itself to be based only on P-R lit. The IPCC reports themselves are P-R'd (and before you ask, no, that doesn't make them immune to all error; nothing is) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"IPCC reports themselves are P-R'd" - Really? By whom? The reports are WP:SPS with respect to the IPCC, are they not. Their internal processes cannot peer-review themselves. What independent peer-reviewed source or journal published these reports after subjecting them to their peer-review processes? Maybe I am wrong, I don't claim to be an expert on the IPCC reports, so help a poor fellow out and explain this to me. Who actually publishes the IPCC reports? --GoRight (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying we should follow wikipedia policy. But if you want to "interpret" things then it is clear, by my interpretation, that their proposed additions did not follow the spirit of the exception section for peer-reviewed research - since it didn't follow the spirit of that excemption then they did in fact break their rules. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The probation terms on this page appear to have been set at 1RR rather than consensus only. At least that's my reading of the above. GR asked for consensus only but got 1RR. It was discussed around the place I think --BozMotalk23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, BozMo. The terms set by Ryan above are WP:1RR, so if people are so inclined they can revert WMC's WP:BOLD edit that completely lacks consensus (I assume since he declined on his talk page to point me to where the consensus for his change was determined). --GoRight (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You can't argue both sides of the fence, ESPECIALLY not on the same talk page over the same topic. That's just nonsense. WMC is using a technicality to try an wikilayer away a valid criticism given the prevailing posturing here on Wikipedia regarding the IPCC reports and the science that underlies them. Well, if that technicality calls the peer-reviewedness of those reports into question it is fair game to call their use on Wikipedia into question as well. --GoRight (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Bozmo, it was said no contested text would be removed nor added if protection was removed, look in page protection section above
@Kim, Are you all seriously saying that we should propagate an error that we know is an error
I ask you to look at WMC`s edit and tell me it`s not been spun? name changed and then this IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt apart from it being out by 300 years of course. --mark nutley (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GR, given the above can you offer text on the PR nature which reflects the source better than the words WMC removed? Viz that the text cannot refer to "an IPCC mandate" since the RS doesn't but could to what people feel the IPCC is mandated to be doing? I think including that some people feel it broke expectations of the IPCC is legitimate but breaking a mandate per sae is completely unsupported. Then we can decide if here or at AR4 --BozMotalk23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A misleading paraphrase? I shortened, ""Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing." - into something like "breaking an IPCC mandate." That isn't misleading at all - that's paraphrasing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Not as far as I can see, or at least not in the reverts you did perhaps there is an original contribution in the article history? I can see completely unsupported words like "breaking an IPCC mandate" in the article versions but in the source only stuff about being outside what the journalist feels the IPCC is mandated to be doing which has a totally different sense? --BozMotalk23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you appear not to have paraphrased you appear to have completely changed the meaning (unless I misunderstand which is your text). I suggest you read the above. WMC pointed out that the text switched attribution. I pointed out that "what the IPCC is mandated to be doing" in a political context (per Singer and BBC) means anything anyone says they expect of the IPCC. "An IPCC mandate" however is legalistic wording and implies something to do with their legal obligations or formal statues. These are completely separate meanings of the word mandate listed separately in the dictionary. Switching from expectation to formal statue and simultaneously changing attribution from a journalist to an IPCC officer does not look like "exactly quoting" --BozMotalk23:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<outdent> Wait wait wait....so you are arguing that while I used the same word I somehow "changed its meaning" to make it "completely unsupported" by the source? I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous - the only distinction is in your interpretation, which is completely subjective. I used the same word - I simply shortened (paraphrased) it.TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be abusive, especially when three people are being very patient in explaining something to you. You changed the meaning whilst claiming that you used the "the exact passage". I think you need to consider where you are standing on this more carefully. --BozMotalk00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abusive? There was no abuse - you seem to subjectivly interpret a lot of what I write in the worst possible way. I used the same word that the journalist used to describe what they did - the word didn't change its definition because I shortened the passage a bit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, i want to know what is being done by connolley`s edit to contested material in breach of the agreement made before page protection was removed? At the moment i see everyone being sidetracked into an argument which only serves to hide this breach of trust? --mark nutley (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I answered above. AFAICT no admin gave a "no non consensus edits" ruling, one gave a 1RR ruling and one a "no edit warring" ruling. If you think someone made a edit which went against a ruling above talk to the admin who made the rule. --BozMotalk00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW on the edit warring one which you could try but I think given that he did not revert the whole passage out as in previous reversion wars but only changed a few words in it, it is hard to argue it is edit warring. --BozMotalk00:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bozmo, it was agreed man, even ts said he would block anyone adding, altering or removing contested text it`s right there in article protection. I hate it when people break an agreement.
I have re-edited the article back to the way it was prior to WMC`s revisions. I was trying to talk here, my arguments above go unanswered and then this breach of trust takes place. So is it a case of they can`t win an argument so ignore it and then edit the article into a nice positive light, sorry but thats just plain wrong. mark nutley (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of change to the uses-peer-reviewed-lit bit
This] is unsupported by discussion. The previous text "compendium of peer reviewed and published science" doesn't imply that everything is peer-reviewed, and the new text seems quite frankly to be pointy, and is certainly not as GR stated "Per talk page discussion on P-R sources". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "doesn't imply that everything is peer-reviewed" - I never claimed as much, but I fail to see how this is relevant. You are only making the argument that my change didn't substantively alter the meaning of the text so why are you complaining? Doing so seems rather disruptive to fostering a collegial atmosphere here.
"[This] is unsupported by discussion ... and is certainly not as GR stated" - Please see this section, [30], wherein WMC clearly states:
"I would read that as clear evidence that while P-R lit is preferred, non-P-R lit, provided it is internationally available, is permitted."
I was merely being WP:BOLD and reflecting his position in the article. My reference to "Per talk page discussion on P-R sources" was to that. Are you now contesting WMC's position?
"the new text seems quite frankly to be pointy" - Please be mindful of the new probationary sanctions coupled with assumptions of bad faith, especially when they are actually articulated as you have here.
What is the difference between "published science" and "as well as other internationally available non-peer-reviewed materials" ? And what your background/references are for creating this dichtomy? Does it accurately describe what the IPCC is doing without breaching due weight? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My references are WMC's references and my argument is WMC's argument. If you feel that either are found wanting, please take the matter up with him. --GoRight (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but could you please summarize the parts of WMC's argument that answer my questions? As far as i can tell, WMC hasn't made this edit, but you have.. In fact i rather strongly suspect that WMC wouldn't agree with your edit - so somewhere there is a disconnect. So please answer yourself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GoRight is indefinitely blocked--effectively until he agrees to work with other editors. Meanwhile does anybody know what argument he was claiming to have made, and more to the point does anybody honestly think the edit makes the article more accurate or better in any way? --TS08:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we are talking about the same thing, it is not immediately obvious to me that his edit was wrong but I haven't read the whole article context and am really tight for time today. Anyway I would want more discussion before we take in out during his block. His point AFAICT was that if the IPCC reports are free to use internationally published non PR material then they are not a compendium of PR. They are themselves PR so they would be a PR compendium but not a compendium of PR. They would be a compendium of PR and non PR material which is what he wrote. Its an obvious point (peer review is not a pedigree thing and you can have peer reviewed material made of non PR). But moving the PR to a different place in the sentence might be an alternative or maybe there is a subtlety on the relationship between a compendium and its references which I haven't looked at. It is not entirely clear in what manner the reports are a compendium to me and if someone can explain precisely that would be fine. --BozMotalk09:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Oops, I just took it out. Well, if you like it we can re-add it. I don't agree with BozMo's suggestion that the text should stay during GR's block - that is a curious interpretation of convention, and inappropriate given that GR's block was for - and I quote - You are blocked. Basically for being a complete waste of time. I argue that GR's addition is controversial, and that there was no attempt prior to addition to support the text. Nor, indeed, has there been any attempt afterwards - all the conversation above has been along the lines of "I didn't like something else, so I did this". That won't do William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there were clearly stated objections to GoRight's edit, and would add that he stonewalled requests for a proper explanation, perhaps realizing that his claim that William M. Connolley had argued for the edit would not stand the "sniff" test. I think it's appropriate that William M. Connolley, who should know whether or not he supports the edit, should revert it. --TS10:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I'd missed that. Yes, I was merely being WP:BOLD and reflecting his position in the article is certainly a misunderstanding of my position. I don't think anyone else has made this same misunderstanding, but I'll be happy to explain further if anyone likes William M. Connolley (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BOLD suspended?
Rejected: no support
I notice above that someone has said I was merely being WP:BOLD and.... I suggest that BOLD is not a good policy in these delicate times. I propose an extension to the existing community probation explicitly discouraging BOLD edits from articles under the probation. Since the issue arose here I'm talking here first; if this gains any support it can go to the probation page William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Be bold policy is perfectly fine. The trouble is that some people don't read it. A better name might be "Be bold!...but please be careful"--the names of the first two sections in the policy. Being bold doesn't give anybody carte blanche to make an edit for which there is clearly no consensus, and the recently reverted edit was just such an edit, because GoRight supported it by the false premise that another editor had argued for it. Obviously that's not so much bold as suicidal. --TS10:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe, but I think it would be good to see it "officially" tempered a bit. BOLD says "Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, usually painlessly." which is very easily taken as an excuse. At the moment we're sort-of in a regrettable position of having one policy (be bold, you can be reverted) whilst the probation strongly discourages reverting! William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm i see, now you have made you bold edits with no consensus you wish to prevent any other editors from rectifying the incredible spin you have put on the article? If you feel that wp:bold should be suspended perhaps you should replace the contested text you removed? Which was an obvious breach of the agreement to have page protection removed. --mark nutley (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I didn't claim BOLD, unlike GR, and indeed I discussed it beforehand, unlike GR. If you indeed believe my actions were an obvious breach, then you should report them for enforcement. If you don't believe yourself, then don't William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No i`m afraid you are mistaken, i never said you claimed bold and i never said you did not discuss your changes. I said you made a bold change without reaching consensus and in a breach of honour against the decisions reached in the above article protection section. I am still considering if i should report it, or is there a time limit on these things? --mark nutley (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However the 2035 date was still being used by Jean-Pascal van Ypersele the IPCC Vice-chair in a meeting at the UNFCCC in Barcelona on 3 November, 2009.
The IPCC was accused by India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh of being "alarmist" in their estimated projections of Himalayan Glaciers melt.
The problem isn't so much with the text as the sohurcing. The first source is a PDF containing a transcript of a speech [31]. That looks a tad too close to original research to me. We're not journalists.
The source for the second statement puzzles me greatly. It is an external link to the Wikipedia article Retreat of glaciers since 1850. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for in that article.
Sorry i linked to the glaciers article as there is mention of them in the addition. the part about india`s enviroment minister is already linked in by WMC in his previous edit (bbc link)sorry the .pdf is hosted on the ipcc website (check url) --mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried cleaning up the references a bit. I substituted the BBC reference in the immediately preceding paragraph as a reference instead of the Wikipedia article Retreat of glaciers since 1850, which I've removed, and I gave the PDF reference a ref tag. See what you think of it. --TS14:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I objected to your edit and you blew me off, you certainly had no consensus for it and to have the cheek to whine about mine is hypocritical. I also fail to see how it is controversial, it is well sourced and obviously pertinent to that section of the article. Perhaps you should say which part is controversial instead of objecting to it just for the sake of it mark nutley (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken MN's added text out. There is clearly no consensus for it - indeed, no-one has spoken in its favour. You'll immeadiately note the contrast to the text change I made, which generated considerable support.
Also, the text itself makes no sense. However the 2035 date was still being used by... However? However what? The BBC report is dated 5th Dec, so something from Nov does not count as a however William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You had no right to do that, only you have spoken against it and no the revisions you made gathered only support from your supporters. I see plenty above who were not happy with what you did. something dated from nov counts as it shows how much the IPCC messed up. Once again you make changes to push your pov without discussing it. You show a blatant disregard for WP process and refuse to debat changes to the article which will not suit you POV. mark nutley (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This talk of "right" is meaningless. What I did gathered support from people who supported it and (a point you seem to have persistently missed, so I'll repeat it) was discussed *before* I made the change. You were opposed to removing a clear error from our pages, because that error fitted your POV. You're now adding text you know to be controversial with no consultation beforehand. You've now made a number of PA against me - that my edits are "obviously" against the probation and that I'm showing a "blatant" disregard for process. These are all false claims by you. Back off, or its the enforecement page for you. [Apologies: refactored to: please cease making these false claims or I will see enforcement against you]
Now, I've asserted above that your text makes no sense and provided a justification for that assertion. You've made no attempt to defend your text at all. Perhaps that is because it is indefensible William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not threaten me, you got support only from your supporters as well you know. I have made no false claims and if you feel i have go get enforcement. I have no need to defend my text, the facts speak for themselves. You have yet to say why is it controversial. mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is an enforcement request, I popped in here to try to get some understanding of the context. I must say I'm dismayed at this subthread. MN and WMC, you BOTH need to "back off" from going at each other's throats, I think. ++Lar: t/c19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the "however... still being used.." part is completely wrong, not to mention original research. The dates do not fit neither "however" or "still" (since the BBC article is dated after the event). I also question the expansion of a section that is already is RfC'd for WP:UNDUE concerns. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well no surprises there kim agrees with WMC :) Still waiting to hear why it`s controversial.
Lars, you have my apologies, however try to understand my frustration and what is happening here.
WMC is making changes to existing text without consensus, he is reverting good faith edits without offering an alternative which i believe the project rules say he should. When article protection was lifted we were assured that no changes could be made without consensus, WMC has ignored this and gone ahead with business as usual. I will try to remain calm but the way things are going it is not surprising if i get angry. mark nutley (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's making changes to your text without your consent. The edits have been discussed and have support beyond just WMC. So, be constructive not obdurate. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No you are wrong, this was the disputed text [[32]] which wmc altered without consensus when the consensus was for it to stay, he also altered it without discussion and made the announcement after the change, so i fail to see how he got support for that change when it was done with no discussion. Also that text was not mine, it was the good locusts addition. Yes he did revert one of my additions, once again without discussion first or any attempt to offer alternatives. --mark nutley (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Connolley's earlier edit, which you dispute, was not a change to the essential meaning of the text, so it was not against the spirit of the RFC (which is ongoing as far as I'm aware). You addition, likewise, was well within the spirit, although perhaps the fact that you expanded a text whose presence in the article was already disputed is pushing it a bit. Nevertheless I don't think either of you acted outside the spirit of the probation.
However in the opening of this section I raised several points about the new text. While I worked with you to improve the sourcing the problems stil remain, and it is still a borderline edit because it's an expansion of a disputed section that is under RFC. I think it's quite in order for other editors to refactor or remove it.
The only problem I have is that it was William who did it, and often his editing strays, as you have observed, into the realm of Ownership of articles. I hope William does not mistake my defense of his editing here for a licence to act as a gate-keeper for any and all changes. We're trying to get out of a vicious cycle where point of view editing leads to a group of "defenders" fighting those edits, which gives the impression that they are taking ownership of the articles, and that in turn alienates the defenders from Wikipedia mainstream, which encourages the POV editors, and so on. We should address both concerns to arrive at an acceptable editing environment on Wikipedia's global warming articles. --TS22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@ 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
<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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
<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)[reply]
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. --TS01:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Broken reference
Discussion of re-wording the "use peer-reviewed lit" bit. Stalled
I note that this reference, [33] is broken. I believe that WMC observed the same thing above. I have been looking for the replacement and I have found [34]. 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)[reply]
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? --BozMotalk08:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --BozMotalk21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --BozMotalk08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
i want to add this image to the 2001 report section
No pix from blogs thanks
for me it looks like there are relatively few images helping the reader to get a picture of the activities and result the IPCC does deploy. the image below seems to add up nicely with the already existing text and thus supports the purpose of easing the access to information contained in the paragraph. i think it further makes clear where the IPCC published predictions do significantly differ from what a simple statistical analysis of world climate would produce from climate date humans recorded out in the wild.
earth surface temperature change up to 2000 with predictions up to 2100
Does this have any reliable source? As far as I can tell it's statistical nonsense. Obtaining a 42 year "period of oscillation" from 120 years of measurement? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oscillation is everything for cliatology, see this article on US-Today. If you doubt that 42 years cycle, you might want to apply the mathematical method of fourier analysis to the publically available original data. Having some 120 dots should allow you to extract aplitude, frequency and phase value of the included frequencys up to some few percents precision. You might be even in state of add 10 more years of measurement to that. (BTW wikipedia explicitely allows you to mathematically process data, e.g. for calcuating the age or birth date of a person from public data, but that rule is not limited to that.) --Alexander.stohr (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like pure WP:OR to me. The sources cited on the image page include only other WP images, and so on up the chain. There are no error bars and no source for the numeric data, let alone whatever smoothing functions may have been added to the numeric series, least of all for the fourier analysis or its extrapolation into the coming decades. Total fantasy, from what I can see. It must be a very attractive fantasy for anyone who just bought a new coal-fired power station, or Hummer, though! --Nigelj (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whats wrong? Any sort of trend analysis (advanced math: FFT, standard math: mean value & slope & average deviation & max deviation calculation; you will find the wikipedia articles on that on your own, i am sure) is routine for making such data more meaningful for the human eye. Those toolset is in fact not a part of a 16 button pocket calculator, but it is e.g. for MathLab, Mathematica, free Octave and a bunch of other programs that are the standard programs for preparing and visualizing such data. In most computer languages bind the matching library (like GNU scientific math library) and call one function for getting the values. Its routine for that sort for data. BTW, your human ear pair all the time does this - convert a signal into its frequency (by a few hundreds of selectively tuned cells) and phase (by probing the form of the incoming edges) components. It even can do acoustic localisation with that. And be assured I truly did not built that curves in any way my selves. The only thing I "added" was taking the frequency out of the diagram with sort of a ruler and writing it down in numbers to that legend object. You can do that as well - nothing complex because that data is already there. Just load it in an SVG viewer and check the temperatures periodicity. And even if it would not be periodic, the max deviations around the averaging linear approximation would make the very same long term perspective - for the pure climate data so that the IPCC specific prognosis (based upon their theoretical models) is as outstanding different as it is with any other standard prediction method. By the way, the mathematical determined increase trend is some 0,7-0,8°C/100 years. Read this for a comparison: But the warming trend in 1909-2008 (the fastest “modern” 100-year trend) was +0.87 °C per century. (source article) The value in the diagram is probably a little bit lower since the additional few years are a "high" and thus damper the slope. A very clear diagram for the missing years from 2000 compared with the IPCC data can be found here in this article. The data is out there. And if you even don't trust that - print it out in A4 and then take a ruler for determining your own linear approximation, even if chances arent that high that you will get to something that different. Its all just about to create a diagram out of it that combines it in an evident way to show whats needed. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's sourced to two private blogs, is it? A person with a ruler can disprove all the combined decades of work by thousands of climate scientists? And get it published for the world to see on Wikipedia? It's amazing what people can do these days. I'm amazed that none of those scientists saw it coming - if only some of them had paid attention in fourier analysis lectures when they were younger. --Nigelj (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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: [36][37][38][39][40][41]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --TS13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The passage of time doesn't change anything, but the addition of sources sure lends weight to the story (distinct from those linked above): [44][45][46][47][48][49]. 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)[reply]
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 [50], 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 - [51] - is much better and is usable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. --TS14:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --TS21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --TS15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --TS00:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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. --TS01:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? --TS02:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
<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. --TS02:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
<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)[reply]
@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 [52][53], it should be mentioned in this article. (edit: typo) EngineerFromVega (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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." [54]
New Zealand Herald: "The incident is an embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...The story has immediately made international headlines." [55]
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." [56]
Hindustan Times: "A United Nations body is expected to retract its oft-repeated prediction that most of the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035." [57] (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." [58]
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.[59] (If this will lead to a restructure of IPCC reporting, it's clearly bigger in scope than AR4).
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)[reply]
"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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
<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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh and from here, the lead author admits the info wasn't verified and knew it was "grey literature." The author then goes on to say that they put it in there to influence policy-makers in the region. Additionally, there is criticism in the article about how the IPCC tends to be rather alarmist in there predictions, which is why I laugh when I read the wikipedia article since it says they are criticized for being conservative. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And from Fox News:
The IPCC "made a clear and obvious error when it stated that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035," added Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, in an interview.
"The absurdity was obvious to anyone who had studied the scientific literature. This was not an honest mistake. IPCC had been warned about it for a year by many scientists."TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me all this should be in this article as it is a crit of the IPCC and not of AR4 as it was to begin with. I was writing up a section for here but you seem to be ahead of me, why not write up what you have and we can go from there mark nutley (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This error was one of five "glaring" errors
I reverted TGL's [60], for the obvious reasons: it is wildly controversial stuff which he has made no attempt to gain consensus for on talk.
There are any number of problems with that text; lets start with the most obvious: if this error is so "glaring", how come a mistake in a 2007 report (which was publically available as draft in 2006) wasn't spotted until late 2009? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly wildly controversial now is it. It is well sourced and pertinent to this article. You have broken the 1R rule on this article btw i left you a message on your talkspace --mark nutley (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, he wasn't "misquoted" (by the IPCC) - since we know the IPCC quoted the text from the WWF report. Secondly the 5 errors are in the same paragraph as before. It is still only one paragraph that is in error, the error comes from the WWF report. Third, Dr. Hasnain according to the Times certainly has a lot of the blame by not pointing out the error, despite acknowledging that he knew about it. And the whole "glaring" thing is simply POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - WWF got it from new scientist who got it from a short phone call so yes the IPCC have misquoted him by using material they should not have.
2 - AGW being linked to natural disasters This is more than one paragraph in error. The entire report should be in doubt along with the IPCC when such obvious lies are told.
3- The people to blame are those who wrote and released this report by using material they should not have, which would be the IPCC. Dr Lal says that they knew it should not have been in but they used it to promote an alarmist agenda. So failing to see an issue with this inclusion --mark nutley (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but do you consider Newsbusters a reliable source? I'm going to make you aware here that BLP rules do apply to talk-pages as well, and that your statement that Dr. Lal "lied" is a breach. You are inferring here, and you aren't basing it on reliable sources but instead on your own personal POV. (Nowhere is it said that Dr. Lal "lied" sorry). There is nothing wrong with the IPCC using "grey literature", it is in fact (as pointed out earlier) stated clearly that they can do so. When the IPCC are quoting from the WWF report, they cannot be "misquoting" something when they state the same thing as the WWF report. If anyone is misquoting - it is the WWF (and they didn't do so either - since they also quote a reference where the same information is located). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, WWF didn't get it from NS, they got it from ICSI, as they said. Your #2 looks like speculation. Dunno what you're on about in #3. Try to avoid mud-flinging; concentrate on one secure thing at a time instead of multiple poorly supported ideas William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WWF got it from ICSI? Source please, and a reliable one not a self published one from WWF as all sources to date say it came from NS. #2 How can you say it`s speculation? read the article and of course Chris Landsea Leaves IPCCkinda verify`s it. 3 i was responding to kim saying that Dr Hasnain had to shoulder a lot of the blame, the blame lies squarely at the feet of the IPCC for wishing to push their alarmist agenda. mark nutley (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of "reliable" sources out there that have been hopelessly wrong on this; you're clinging to them because they support your POV. As to how we know, how much spoon feeding do you need? Its already written down in the Criticism of the IPCC AR4 article: and I quote, from the WWF report, quoted there: In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood [sic] of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”. [p. 38] I think you'll agree that does rather suggest that they got it from ICSI, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry man, once again it is you who need spoon feeding,
"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International
Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high.'"
This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded.
The essence of this quote is also used on page 3 in the Executive summary where it states: The New
Scientist magazine carried the article "Flooded Out - Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley
communities" in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the
International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said
most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming" See that part there about It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain now were do you think that quote came from? The NS of course. Even the WWF says it came from there. --mark nutley (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well no. The material on p3 (p3? I thought it was p2) doesn't mention 2035. Also, it is quite clear from the material quoted that the WWF text has come from the ICSI text, not the NS text. You've got this wrong; stop digging; you just make yourself ridiculous William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously man, do not chop my posts up again. Now what part of this are you confused about? The New Scientist magazine carried the article "Flooded Out - Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley communities" in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming Why is it so hard for you to comprehend the WWF`s own words? The 2035 quote came from NS, from an interview with Hasnain, Hasnain has said it was speculation. The only link to the ICSI is the fact that hasnain was working for them then. Any further questions? --mark nutley (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - we should not be using that interview with Lal as a RS: Lal has an enormous COI over this issue. As I read it, Lal was the guy responsible for putting 2035 in, and he knew at the time, cos Kaser told him, that it was wrong. *Now* he has been caught out, and he needs a good excuse for why it isn't all his fault, so is desperately trying to spray blame around William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that both this article and Criticism of the IPCC AR4 have subject headings saying that the date used is 2035 and that it should be 2350. This makes the whole incident seem like a typo. Do we have a source for this claim? The only supposed cite for 2350 in Criticism of the IPCC AR4 is this, which doesn't mention the date 2350. None of the sources I have seen mention this date. Does anyone object to removing the 2350 date from the subject headings or can we get a reasonable source for it? Oren0 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a typo. [Interview with Dr Lal] As i point out above even the wwf has admited the 2035 date came from an interview in new scientist, which they have admitted to in fact in the updated report linked from the crit of ar4 article. WMC seems to be having trouble grasping this concept though. --mark nutley (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I've patiently explained to MN the truth above. You can read it for yourself, too. As for 2350: how did you miss: The degradation of the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising ocean level already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic rise of the ocean thereafter caused by the deglaciation-derived runoff (see Table 11 ). This period will last from 200 to 300 years. The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates—its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes [p 66] which is a direct quote from the ICSI report? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is original research/synthesis. Who is to say that this is the date they meant? Do you have a reliable source that says they merely substituted one date for another? This isn't the way I've seen the story reported in sources. Oren0 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
