Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri: Difference between revisions
→Rv: why: err, no |
→Rv: why: humourless |
||
Line 1,195: | Line 1,195: | ||
:::::You commented in the thread william, are you getting forgetful in your dotage? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajendra_K._Pachauri#New_text_to_be_added_to_article_here] The talk actually spread ocer a few sections but a consensus was formed. Now tell me why you think this reliably sourced text should have been reverted? [[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 18:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::::You commented in the thread william, are you getting forgetful in your dotage? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajendra_K._Pachauri#New_text_to_be_added_to_article_here] The talk actually spread ocer a few sections but a consensus was formed. Now tell me why you think this reliably sourced text should have been reverted? [[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 18:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::: Leave out the dotage crap please. No, there is no consensus in that section, indeed, there are people clearly disagreeing with you, and then the matter drops [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 18:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::::: Leave out the dotage crap please. No, there is no consensus in that section, indeed, there are people clearly disagreeing with you, and then the matter drops [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 18:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::Get a sense of humour for gods sake :), As i said it ended up being dragged across several sections, if you can`t be arsed to look thats your problem. It does not matter now, i see the text has been put back along with some new refs so problem solved [[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:34, 27 February 2010
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
Biography Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Environment: Climate change Stub‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Template:Community article probation
India Stub‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Trains Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Not a Nobel
The way article's Nobel Price section is written is as if Pachauri got the prize. It is rather more based on effort of entire IPCC over the years and not just current head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.51.6 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Pachauri is not a Nobel Prize winner - he is just the current head of the organization which has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize for this year. Just because he accepts the award on the organizations behalf does not make him a Nobel Laureate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genius1000 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Vague credentials
I don't see a link to his credentials as a scientist. All I can find is that he has a Doctorate in economics. I can't help but notice his educational background is completely missing. I wonder why? Traumatic (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- There was a section on his education which an unregistered user seems to have deleted without anyone noticing. I've now restored the section. It could do with a few more references. Dahliarose (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I till don;t see any credentials as a climate or environmental *scientist*. Does he have any dgerees in thos subjects or formal training? if not his bio should not be puffed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.12.10 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The academic background of Mr Pachauri is quite hard to figure out from the article. It has degrees, but not the areas of expertise. "Was educated at...", "appointed professor in October..." is vague. Finally, we have the economics and industrial engineering. All this could be more obvious. I am led to conclude that Mr Pachauri is nothing but an administrator. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- If he were a skeptic, he'd be derided as a cranky know-nothing without any qualifications or expertise in climate science and "links to" the fossils industry. But then, so too would be Al Gore.82.71.30.178 (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Suggest adding current activities/quotes: China, India, Brasil, South Africa vital for climate deal
"UN: Climate Deal Depends on India, China, Brazil, South Africa" [2] http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/UN-Climate-Deal-Depends-on-India-China-Brazil-South-Africa-79988117.html
"China, India, South Africa vital for climate deal" [3] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jonTQv-XfLSb-A_U63qtXofmqt2gD9COVQ700 (AP) ... post-COP-15 99.54.142.91 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi admins,
I would like to add this person to the category, Category:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but I cannot because the page is fully protected.
Could one of you do it?
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Article probation
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) 13:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Discussion on text on conflicts of interest resolved Richard Tol (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Conflicts of interestClimategate: with business interests like these are we really sure Dr Rajendra Pachauri is fit to head the IPCC?Is this something to consider adding? "This is the real reason why so many big businessmen, bankers, politicians, scientists – led, of course, by Al Gore – are backing stiffer, pan-global governmental legislation on carbon emissions. Because there are such stupendous quantities of money to be made." [4] (archived 2009-12-14)? Nsaa (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Has this been researched? Is this the same person? http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/290167/ Old World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs India Habitat Centre on 23 August, 1996 JUDGMENT K. Ramamoorthy, J. 144 In the light of these facts I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that these three Officers Mr. Bhatnagar, Mr. Pachauri and Mr. Dinesh Mehta have suppressed material facts and they have sworn to false affidavits. <snip> And I am afraid, that the affairs and the efficient management of the Centre are not safe in the hands of officers like Mr. K. K. Bhatnagar, Dr. R.K. Pachauri arid Mr. Dinesh Mehta and they had ignored that the officers have to function as a public functionaries within the parameters of the Constitution.24.87.71.192 (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Business and Profesional InfoI believe is worth reading the following article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngcb (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Rv Monckton: whyI've removed [5]. Monckton is a far-out GW skeptic; the fact that he disagrees with RKP is neither surprising nor notable. The "open letter" is trash. We should not be linking to it (except on Moncktons page, if necessary) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok i have looked at wp:blp and i can see noting in there which says that just because you think lord monckton is a bit "far out" then his letter should be discounted as a valid referance source. It also does not matter if the letter has not been picked up by the MSM, that is besides the point. You have yet to make a non biased and reasoned argument for undoing my edit. While looking over the rules i came across this one [[6]] Does this rule not mean that you should not edit any climate related articles as you have a vested interest in AGW? I cite your work at hadley cru and your affiliation to real climate. mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I have asked you a question on your talk page alex. However i do not see how i am adding controversial material to the article. Just the truth. Also what is your opinion with regards to williams conflict of interest regarding climate change? mark nutley (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC) GoRight's edit here to put in a piece of information from The Daily Telegraph news (not a blog or sub-article) to say that a hereditary peer and an australian senator are calling for his resignation because of conflicts of interest seems reasonable to me. I came here and just linked a couple of names and seemed to have got caught in some kind of ongoing thing. I reverted this reversion because the rationale "per GoRight" is obviously false, GoRight did not undo his inclusion of this material per the first difference I've provided. I undid the second reversion because the summary "rv per WP:BLP; Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" is obviously false - the source is from The Daily Telegraph news (not a blog or sub-article) and BLP says be very firm about the use of high quality sources, which TDM surely is. I won't touch it again for a bit though I do think it should be there.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry that makes no sense at all. p has set up carbon trading offices world wide. Therefore there is no surprising claim that he will make money. If you honestly think it is ok for the chairman of the ipcc to profit from the science he pushs and not consider it a conflict of interest then there is no reasoning with you is there? Your pushing of your personal point of view on this issue is plain to see and i feel my original edit can stand. I have yet to see a non biased reason as to why it may not. Also, you told me blogs may not be used in blp`s as sources. However you wrote something entirely different in this talk page [[7]] So please clarify, can i use a blog to support edits if accompanied by other sources? Thank you mark nutley (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Then by that logic the edit should stand if it reads "There has been an open letter written by lm and the senator calling for his dismissal" Also it does not matter if Lord Monckton is regarded as an "extremist" by others, for that is a point of view. This seems to me to be correct view with regards to this issue. The facts are the facts after all, Both your and wmc`s personal [[8]] is blatantly obvious to all and sundry. However i am willing to learn from this and shall consider the matter closed once a non biased pov is put forward clearly stating why this should not remain in the article. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Once again willy you are allowing your bias to overcome your supposed neutral point of view in wikipedia. Might i suggest you refrain from editing climate change related pages due to your inability to remain neutral. You say, "it`s trash" However is is entirely factual and just because your pov does not like the facts does not mean you should edit it. Goright has agreed with me that the sources were reputable. Explain please from a neutral pov why they are trash? Thank you. mark nutley (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
No you won`t stop your editing or no you won`t give a valid reason for doing so? mark nutley (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough :) However you have still to give a valid reason for this particular edit. It would appear to me that you are still pushing your pov on this section. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I am not a wiki-editor, it has taken me a while to grasp the complexities of the rules and systems. From what I have seen today I am unlikely to contribute as I now convinced that there is a systemic problem with WP itself being edited by those who are well resourced and co-ordinated enough to promote a non neutral, mainstream POV. In this instance, there are what I consider to be heavy enough voices in five continents repeating the conflict of interests (Business Standard, The Australian, Times of India (publish his public renouncement of the claim), India Express, China Views, The Telegraph, Canada Free Press) and the fact the conflict is raised this time by Monckton and Fielding appears to be used as a diversionary tactic by these people. If one takes the time to look a little closer it appears that they are editors with the resources to generate 1000's of (often well considered) edits per month that promote a POV which is clearly aligned with the so called 'normal' views punted by the mainstream media. A identifiable variety of tactics are used to revert and discredit views and if one tactic fails another is used until the required POV is expressed. I cite my edit today, where ChrisO misuses the BLP rule but is rapidly supported by another editor using a different tactic. Other examples numerous and widespread. On this topic the battle to mention the term 'Climate gate' let alone call the article by its more popular title. Again the 'normal' POV is promoted by the misuse and apparent promotion of the term 'hacking' (over the more accurate AND neutral term 'cracking') and please note that 'hacking' is used even whilst there is *no evidence* of actual 'cracking' yet (which most significantly leaves the possibility of the email release being whistle-blowing rather than criminal). I am most distressed by this this threat to WP neutrality on important current issues and pray that WP can find a way to cure what appears to be a systemic problem. I can only hope that the WP foundation takes note of the tens of thousands of editors who have already left in protest this year due to this problem and that this problem is widely publicised and that as a result WP:Foundation strive to find a rapid solution so that good editors can edit without having to do battle with those that *somehow* have the resources to promote their own agenda. 94.168.189.5 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC) In dealing with these issues one has to recognize that there are organized campaigns for and against various people and Pachauri is in the spotlight. The article as it reads is neutral, merely setting out the details of his life and career without any part saying that he is an angel or a devil, which is probably a good place to leave it. joshua halpern
But the new addition to the article was reliably sourced chris. So what is it you are objecting to here? mark nutley (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair Enough, looking at that i see you wrote
As the material i inserted into the article is reliably sourced then what is the issue with it`s inclusion? Even if it is negative on tone according to your own words as it is reliably sourced it can be included into the article --mark nutley (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
good effort. but lol. 89.16.175.187 (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Name-calling Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that the bad names will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a group or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of facts. Name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against the an idea or belief on its own merits.[7]24.87.71.192 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
On December 15th 2009 in an open letter, [1] Lord Christoper Monckton, [2] and Senator Steve Fielding, [3] called for his removal as head of the IPCC. This was due to his conflict of interests in being the head of the IPCC and his involvement with carbon trading company`s, [4] [5] He has strongly refuted the allegations in an interview with The Times of India [6] Does anyone have any objections this time? --mark nutley (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I would also point out that in this thread the majority of those commenting wanted this in, that is a consensus mark nutley (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
What happened to assuming good faith? [[9]] There you go. Just looked through wp:consensusand nowere in there does it say that WP has rewritten the meaning of the word consensus, i would recommend you look up the actual meaning of a word if you wish to bandy it about :) --mark nutley (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I do not understand this discussion at all. It is an objective fact that Pachauri has been accussed of having conflicts of interest, that he has denied any wrongdoing, and that there has yet to be an investigation. The article should state that. It is significant, because Pachauri may well have to resign if the allegations would be true, while Monckton, Fielding and North could well lose a libel suit if the allegations would be false. The potential consequences are speculative at present, but the allegations and denial are not and should be included. Richard Tol (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
[outdent] There will defiantly be another expose in the Telegraph this sunday coming, i suspect the other majors in the msm will pick it up this time, they are always a few weeks behind the blogs and for some reason the telegraph. It was the same with scamalot after all :) --mark nutley (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC) revert to previous version
Thank you for your help. Why are you so sure it will not happen? I assume the truth will prevail over your pov after all :) --mark nutley (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC) No william, i just want the truth in the article :) Having looked over the options on reaching a consensus i believe that as the majority of reverts were done by those who believe this edit should stay six in total i believe [[13]] As opposed by the four who believe it should go. Therefore i can assume the consensus is that it should stay. May i have your arguments as to why it should not stay please. --mark nutley (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I assumed as much goright, it is painfully obvious that these editors will refuse to debate the issue. However i believe it is important to try and reach a consensus so as to prevent the same thing happening again. If of course they continue with their blatant bias then i suppose it`ll have to be taken further :) Thank you mark nutley (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
How can it be a false rumour? He said himself he has taken up all these posts. He has set up carbon trading outfits worldwide. I don`t see how it can be a rumour mark nutley (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Reliably sourced claims being removedThere appears to be no justification for removing the conflict of interest criticisms. They are reliably sourced and therefore not a BLP issue. Since this article is on probation, I am discussing here before adding it back in, but if there are no compelling arguments for removal I will add it back in the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATren (talk • contribs)
Is this material still being removed? I'm shocked! I thought that was settled some time ago. It is reliably sourced and balanced since it includes Pachauri's denial. His denial is also a sign of notability of the topic and therefore the WP:WEIGHT it should be afforded for inclusion. --GoRight (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
[outdent]Sorry tony, i see no compromise coming from connolley, he refuse to give a valid reason for this inclusion, I am not complaining about good faith edits, i am complaining about wholesale reverts for no good reason. This text is well sourced, it is notable as it has been mentioned in a dozen reliable sources, I ask connolley again give one reason within the rules which means this can`t be in the article. mark nutley (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
(e.c.x3!! reply to Kim, earlier) The claim that there is no consensus for inclusion is dubious. Three editors here are arguing for inclusion of some reference to the claim. So far the arguments against have been primarily WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I've spent much time on the GW skeptic bios over the last year, and on any of those pages, this would be a slam dunk for inclusion. As I've pointed out above, the Ian Plimer article (specifically, |this section) has plenty of criticisms where the only criterion for inclusion was that they were reliably sourced. These criticisms include a left-wing pundit calling him a "denialist poster boy" and an entire section about Plimer's debate with George Monbiot, sourced entirely to Monbiot himself. In fact, the current version actually has a claim that Plimer was "soundly thrashed" by Monbiot in the debate -- sourced to Monbiot himself! Now, to be clear, I've generally supported inclusion of such material in skeptic bios because they were reliably sourced. And Plimer is just one example, I can find more. I am simply applying the same standard here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATren (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I see my earlier comments are being cited here. The contentious material is unquestionably reliably sourced - though Monckton's open letter should not be used as a source, being both a primary and a self-published source - and Pachauri himself has responded to the claims in The Guardian only 3 days ago. If it is to be included then Pachauri's rebuttal must be included. The question is basically one of how much weight one assigns it. I'm dubious of the justifications for including this material; I agree that it seems like undue weight on the views of a fringe commentator, which have attracted only limited coverage. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
[outdent]@ Kim, one can hope :) I think atren`s proposal is a fair compromise, along with the links to the letter and the pieces about the allegations plus of course both of pachauri`s statments and perhaps the one from TERI. --mark nutley (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with notability or sourcing. It's a question of due weight. --TS 13:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
(unindented somewhat) Look, you've had a good go at finding something comparable to this calumny in the biographies of skeptics, and so far the best you've come up with is that someone heard in email that Plimer was "soundly thrashed" in a TV appearance (which I agree shouldn't be in the article on that basis) and some stuff like someone's opinion that Plimer is a "denialist poster boy" (which is, of course, a matter of opinion, and may or not be appropriate in context). These are serious, and apparently baseless allegations against Pachauri, and so far appear to be sourced to a disinformation campaign by a few bloggers and the like. Unless something serious turns up we will not be rebroadcasting these false allegations, even to note that they have been refuted. This is quite close to "Richard Gere and the hamster" territory at the moment, and we shouldn't be stooping to that level of scandal-mongering. We wait and see what develops. . --TS 17:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Meaningless BreakWe all know that BLP allows reliably source criticism from independent sources. The criticism here meets that standard whereas the criticism on Plimer's page clearly does NOT. Yet the criticism on Plimer's page is being allowed to stand whereas the criticism here is being blocked for some as of yet unspecified reasons. Appealing to WP:CONSENSUS is not a valid reason when the only reason that I can see that some people are objecting is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This latter point is NOT a valid reason. So please put up some valid policy based reasons for exclusion otherwise this should be a no brainer for inclusion based on the policy analysis done so far. --GoRight (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The COI allegations have appeared in multiple reliable sources -- I'll come up with linkies later -- and are highly relevant to Pachauri's role in public life. To me, it would be irresponsible not to mention them in the article, along with Pachauri's denial. ATren's wording above seemed to be fairly balanced to me. J. Langton (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Links to news articles about COI and the open letter
More to come. --mark nutley (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The way it looks now is that some people tried to get up a conflict of interest case in an attempt to derail the Copenhagen conference, some newspapers carried it, Pachauri issued a forthright denial and the story died. There seems to have been little or no significant coverage of the allegations so far this month. This is, as I suggested earlier, looking like one of those "Richard Gere and the hamster" stories. Things could always change but I think for now we should not put anything into the article about these discredited allegations. --TS 08:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC) They have not been discredited tony, just refuted, I just googled "pachauri" btw, the most recent hit gives a date of 29 Dec 2009, so were are you and kim getting these numbers from of recent stories which do not mention the coi? --mark nutley (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
In all honesty there isn't a lot of material for a RFC. This was a nine-day wonder and unless the allegations surface again--and with a lot more prominence and widespread coverage--we won't be rebroadcasting them even to note Pachauri's refutation. Dirty tricks and mud-throwing campaigns happen, they're not all worthy of a place in a biography. The clearly calculated intent to cause harm and the absence of serious concern (so far) weigh heavily against inclusion. This could all change next week, next month or next year, but for now the allegations have sunk without trace. --TS 12:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a big problem citing stories in which Christopher Monckton is involved. He's an obvious loony who asserts that Obama and the IPPC are plotting to introduce a communist world government. If his allegations are to be included, so does rebuttal pointing out that he is a loony. And, if he is in, why not the Larouchites and others who have been running conspiracy theories much longer, and for whom we can find more references.JQ (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It is worth our while having a general discussion about the neutrality of Wikipedia articles on climate change, because the standard is lamentable. In this particular case, however, the best solution is to wait until Monday when the list of "reliable sources" will be too long to ignore. Richard Tol (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC) (Unindent) @KDP: "From what i've seen so far, people are trying to make NPOV mean 'equal time'." This may be an issue in, for example, the Global Warming page, but I don't think that's relevant to the discussion here, which seems to me to be more about applying a consistent standard for what type of information is worth including in CC-related BLPs. I would hope that this type of consistency is desirable regardless of one's stance on the merits of AGW theory. You might be right that this page isn't the place to have that discussion. If so, is there another forum which would be more appropriate? Or do you believe that internal consistency should not be a concern? J. Langton (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
RFCThe issue here is whether to allow reports of Pachauri`s conflict of interests into the current article. This is the disputed text which was in for Ten days before it was removed. The actual issue of having any mention in at all however has now dragged on since 21 December 2009 . "On December 15th 2009 in an open letter, Lord Christoper Monckton and Senator Steve Fielding of Australia called for his removal as head of the IPCC.[7][8] This was due to allegations of a conflict of interest in being the head of the IPCC and his involvement with carbon trading companies.[7][8] Pachauri has strongly denied the allegations.[9] Writing in The Guardian, he stated: "My institute, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), has no links with the Tata Group, other than having been established through seed funding from that group as a non-profit registered society in 1974, much like several other non-profit institutions of excellence set up by the Tatas for the larger public good. As for pecuniary benefits from advice that I may be rendering to profit making organisations, these payments are all made directly to my institute, without a single penny being received by me." He characterised the attacks on him as being the work of climate deniers who were seeking to "do everything possible to maintain the status quo."[10]" Below are the links to reliable sources which show how widespread this story is. Most recent story is dated 17/01/10 which means this story has now rumbled on for nearly two months. --mark nutley (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC) More links are being added and the 17/01/10 date is no longer the last date for a story about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Section for comments from uninvolved usersThere seems to be a conflict of interest at the heart of the claims, an important issue which should be aired in the article. Peterlewis (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC) The letters column of the Daily Telegraph is a blatantly unsuitable source for anything, let alone a BLP article. Please go through the sources, carefully check them against WP:BLP and strike those that fail. . . dave souza, talk 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Dave the India Today link above not only mentions the telegraph story it is also an investigative piece as well Take a look mark nutley (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Section for comments from involved usersThe paragraph should be updated, as other voices (Booker, Delingpole, North, Pielke, Singh) have joined Fielding and Monckton. But it should be included. Richard Tol (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
My view is that there probably is enough now to justify including the claim and rebuttal. Clearly the Telegraph is going hard on it, and if Pielke is willing to back it, I guess it is likely to become part of the standard anti-science line, rather than just a piece of Monckton/Fielding nonsense. But we should be ready to cut it if the Tele gives up, and turns out to be another short-lived talking point. JQ (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The subject's COI is established by many sources and it can be reasonably attributed without harm to the public figure. Good job Marknutley! (And with ignoring ChrisO PA too.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The allegations have been reported in multiple reliable sources -- news articles, not blogs/op-eds -- as has Pachauri's denial. The allegations are directly relevant to Pachauri's role as a public figure. Therefore, I would argue in favor of inclusion. J. Langton (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Proposed textAs there seems to be increasing support for inclusion, let me propose a text. In order to prevent edit warring, let's draft the text here. Richard Tol (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC) In a series of articles, the Daily Telegraph reported on potential conflicts of interest between Dr Pachauri's role as the chairperson of the IPCC and his roles as an advisor on energy and environment to a range of companies and organizations.[11][12][13][14] This led to a call for his resignation by Steve Fielding and Lord Monckton.[15][16][17][18][19][20] Later reports focussed on Pachauri's membership of the board of ONGC and research grants for TERI,[21] financial irregularities in TERI Europe,[22] and TERI's research on the implications of rapidly melting glaciers in the Himalayas.[23] Dr Pachauri has denied all allegations.[24][25][26][27][28]
Let's not start all over again. The call for resignation has not been widely echoed so can be left out. Then Delingpole can go too, because he only echoes what others said. (Delingpole saw the piece by Booker and North before it was published.) Richard Tol (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Second proposal In a series of articles, the Daily Telegraph asserted that Dr Pachauri has a conflict of interest between his role as the chairperson of the IPCC and his roles as an advisor on energy and environment to a range of companies and organizations, including Pegasus Capital Advisors, GloriOil, the Chicago Climate Exchange, Toyota, Deutsche Bank and NTPC.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Later reports focussed on Pachauri's membership of the board of ONGC and research grants for TERI,[38] financial There are 16 references to show weight, which was the main concern of many of the commentators. Richard Tol (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
As Cla68 now also had a chance to comment, I put Dave's text on the main page. I added the list of advisory functions to the top of the "career" section with a reference. Richard Tol (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It would be good to archive this discussion if someone knows how. Richard Tol (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks guys, nice to see this finally done and dusted :) --mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Side issue resolved. Collapsing to promote further productive discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The proposed addition begins On December 15th 2009 in an open letter,, yes MN asserts that this story has now rumbled on for nearly two months. There is a basic calendar problem that needs to be addresed William M. Connolley (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Updated it to stop further complaints, it is ten days you are obviously not counting the first and last days it was in, i am counting the days here kim not the minutes and hours, sheesh --mark nutley (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC) |
ubiquitous cows of India
I'm confused by this entry: HEC Paris appointed Pachauri Professor Honoris Causa in October 2009.[7] He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment.[8]
Would it not follow then that Pachauri would favor the elimination of cattle in India? They contribute large quantities of methane which is harming the environment. Would it not in fact be better for the environment if these cattle were killed and shipped to Africa or other places to feed the poor? As a bonus, the food the cattle were previousyl eating could instead be converted into bio-fuel to replace the coal that India is burning to polute the environment with CO2.24.87.71.192 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890646,00.html#ixzz0b3sPeSg4 India's ubiquitous cows — of which there are 283 million, more than anywhere else in the world — are assuming a more menacing role as they become part of the climate-change debate. By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide.24.87.71.192 (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Further controversy
This was reverted [24] with "rv: not even close to NPOV". How would it be better put into a NPOV, please? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Here is the disputed text:
- "Pachauri was recently in news about IPCC's incorrect prediction of Himalayan glaciers melting completely by 2035. The Environment Minister of India slammed IPCC of not having done "due diligence" and slammed Pachauri for "scornfully" dismissing doubts raised by Indian government agencies. [1] . Pachauri later apologized for the misleading data [2]"
- May I suggest the following revisions:
- "Pachauri has appeared in recent news items regarding IPCC's predictions of the complete melting of Himalayan glaciers by the year 2035. Following revelations that this prediction was based on speculation rather than scientific evidence, the Environment Minister of India criticized the IPCC for failing to follow "due diligence." Pachauri has conceded the error, but maintains that it does not have a significant impact on the overall body of evidence that AGW is occuring."
- (Citations in the appropriate places, of course.)
- I think this sticks pretty closely to the facts -- the IPCC was in error about this particular issue. So I think my version follows NPOV. I'm not entirely convinced that an article about Pachauri is the appropriate place to add this, though, as Pachauri's involvement in the whole thing is somewhat tangential. I could go either way on that issue.
- Not to stir up any trouble, but I'm a bit concerned about reversion of this kind of thing with no attempts to discuss or improve first. Having language like "X slams Y for blah blah blah" is pretty clearly POV and strikes an inappropriate tone, but that doesn't necessarily justify unilaterally striking the entire paragraph. Just my two cents. J. Langton (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pachauri has not actually said sorry, a spokesman for the ipcc did. I am writing up a section about this for the ipcc article. I think it belongs over there.
- The text is obviously unacceptable; Following revelations that this prediction was based on speculation rather than scientific evidence is wrong. It is all clearly written up in Criticism of the IPCC AR4, if you don't know what has happened William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, the glacier-error belongs with the IPCC. The discussion of Pachauri's role is confined to blogs. Delingpole sums it up here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022694/syed-hasnain-rk-pachauri-and-the-mystery-of-the-non-disappearing-glaciers/ It'll be a few weeks before other journalists have woken up. Richard Tol (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is correct; this really isn't directly connected to RKP William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I`m glad to see you agree that this belongs in the IPCC article WMC, Rtol i am writing up a section about this, would you be interested in helping out? mark nutley (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- @WMC: Your link is dead; did its target get deleted or something? From the news sources I've read, the issue appears to be pretty cut and dried: the IPCC included a claim regarding the rate that Himalayan glaciers were melting. That claim is erroneous, and will likely be retracted. See, for example, [25]; in particular: "Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was 'speculation' and was not supported by any formal research." Which sounds pretty much just like what I said.
- I'm still somewhat ambivalent about whether or not this belongs in the article. One could make the case that it's worthy of inclusion, given the intensity with which Pachauri defended the initial suggestion, and the fact that there are RS's [EDIT: specifically, the India Times, in news articles rather than blogs] specifically documenting his role. But it was a pretty minor role. J. Langton (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've invisibly fixed it :-). Reload the page. Follow the link to find The WP:TRUTH William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- As of right now, this issue is tangentally related to Pachauri, and would be better explained in the IPCC #4 article as noted above. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've invisibly fixed it :-). Reload the page. Follow the link to find The WP:TRUTH William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Since the gent in question chairs the IPCC, the topic is directly relevant to that person. Is Wikipedia going down the google route to censorship? Did George Orwell really write about this very problem??Peterlewis (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- The "gent" didn't write the WGII report, nor did the "gent" oversee the peer-review. While he is the administrative head of the IPCC, he doesn't oversee every little detail. Yes, it was an error, Yes, it has been reported, and Yes, we also describe this in Criticism of the IPCC AR4, where it belongs. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- But he is responsible for the output, so this section should be included. How much else will be exposed? Why are you trying to hide the detail? Peterlewis (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it (as your link also described) was an error in a single sentence in an several thousand pages report. Putting this up as a problem with Pachauri, or the IPCC in general is undue weight to the extreme, since as your link also describes, this error is one of the very few found, despite sceptics "scrutinising every claim made by the panel" for the last two years. As a side-comment: you may want to turn down the accusational tone and claims of "censorship" and "hiding", it isn't really beneficial for your argumentation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did not use a link so this is a straw doll. "one" error understates the problem this gent faces, and I can't see why Wikipedia should bury this and other controversies associated with the IPCC and its current boss(such as data manipulation, bias and so on). Why are you so busy trying to hide inconvenient details? You should try to keep a neutral stance in your arguments (argumentation is not a word I recognise). Peterlewis (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- The link is in your revert/edit[26], specifically it was this one perhaps you should read it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should respond to my critique and the serious issues of censorship, and burying bad news.Peterlewis (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think i've already explained it. It is undue weight. Your personal opinions that "understates the problem this gent faces" are irrelevant here, and original research. Unless you can find some serious reliable sources to describe this (and Watts up with that is not such a source). You have misunderstood Wikipedia's concept of a neutral point of view, so i suggest you read up on this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should respond to my critique and the serious issues of censorship, and burying bad news.Peterlewis (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- The link is in your revert/edit[26], specifically it was this one perhaps you should read it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did not use a link so this is a straw doll. "one" error understates the problem this gent faces, and I can't see why Wikipedia should bury this and other controversies associated with the IPCC and its current boss(such as data manipulation, bias and so on). Why are you so busy trying to hide inconvenient details? You should try to keep a neutral stance in your arguments (argumentation is not a word I recognise). Peterlewis (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it (as your link also described) was an error in a single sentence in an several thousand pages report. Putting this up as a problem with Pachauri, or the IPCC in general is undue weight to the extreme, since as your link also describes, this error is one of the very few found, despite sceptics "scrutinising every claim made by the panel" for the last two years. As a side-comment: you may want to turn down the accusational tone and claims of "censorship" and "hiding", it isn't really beneficial for your argumentation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- But he is responsible for the output, so this section should be included. How much else will be exposed? Why are you trying to hide the detail? Peterlewis (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You have explained nothing, and not addressed the issues I raised. This article has been overtaken by events, and the article should reflect the controversy. Otherwise, it loses credibility with users. Peterlewis (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not news, and any biographical information about living people has to be held to high standards, not reflect the latest hot gossip. . . dave souza, talk 08:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The news is hardly hot gossip and the man in question has issued an apology. High standards have to be kept by keeping the article up-to-date and relevant. Peterlewis (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- An apology on behalf of the IPCC, of which he is the head, not because of any direct personal involvement in that issue (as other editors have pointed out). -- ChrisO (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The news is hardly hot gossip and the man in question has issued an apology. High standards have to be kept by keeping the article up-to-date and relevant. Peterlewis (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- On the other hand, Pachauri has in the past weighed in rather forcefully in regards to criticism of this prediction being "voodoo science;" see, for example,
- It seems that this story -- specifically, Pachauri's involvement in "Glaciergate" (not that I'm particularly fond of that name) -- is being picked up by a number of reliable sources, Times of India and Asia Times, to name a couple. It's much less clear to me that it passes WP:WEIGHT than it was with the conflict of interest stuff, but I think it's worth keeping an eye on. J. Langton (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Now in the Sunday Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2 and in the Sunday Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
More in Der Spiegel of Monday. Richard Tol (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
2035/2350 TERI, IPCC nexus
A new article is claiming that there's a nexus between TERI fellow Syed Iqbal Hasnain who apparently started the ball rolling on the glacier melt date mistake, the IPCC AR4 report and successful TERI grant applications that rely heavily on the imprimatur of the IPCC AR4 prediction. The common thread is Pachauri who is prominent in both groups. There is also a relevant Times of India article on the subject. Doesn't this alleged nexus rate a mention under conflict of interest? TMLutas (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Himalayah Controversy
moved to improve flow Richard Tol (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Rajendra K. Pachauri is the current boss of Syed Iqbal Hasnain. This person brought up the idea of Himalayah glaciers shrinking down dramatically up to 2035. That statement was from a 1999 e-mail interview for a popular magazine, found its path to some WWF papers dated 2005 and later on even was included in the 2007 IPCC report. There is the protective claim that there was a report in preparation for showing that to be true, but it is said that is was found beeing not solid and thus got never published. Despite this single sourced set of statements found its way trough several papers that have a self understanding of only publishing hard science evidence. Just last friday Pachauri, Hasnain and Olafur Grimsson (President of Island) announced a cooperation claiming in their press release that Himalayah galciers "could melt away in only a few decades". recent research from the Indian government (ordered by environment minister Jairam Ramesh) did not find scientific evidence to back up the initial prognosis of radical glacier shrinkage in his neighbour region up to 2035. instead the glacier situation is just stable and there is no indication for any major trend, especially not a correlation with what is published by the IPCC for beeing the world climate. source: financial times germany - article: "Weltklimarat stolpert in Gletscherspalte" ("IPCC stumples into glacier gap") dated 21.01.2010. see also TP:Schlamperei im letzten IPCC-Bericht, in an english language article: Hasnain issues denial, IPCC admits mistake, and here the times online: World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown, 20.Jan.2010; a further link to the Carnegie Corporation of New York just winning the Nehru Prize, article with picture of Hasnain and contrary statements from him: Pachauri: there's money in them glaciers --Alexander.stohr (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- See "proposed extra sentences"
abovebelow. Richard Tol (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposed extra sentences
After "Pachauri has denied all allegations."
Pachauri vigorously defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 (ref to voodoo science, Times of India) before admitting that an error was made (ref to CNN). TERI won two research grants to study the implications of the erroneous prediction (ref to Sunday Telegraph). Although Pachauri argued that there was probably only error in the Fourth Assessment Report (link) of the IPCC, another error was quickly found (ref to Times of London).
Note that with all the digging that is going on, it is unlikely to stop here, but this has credible and reliable support. Richard Tol (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- support this inclusion, it is both properly sourced and pertinent to the article. --mark nutley (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- support --14:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.stohr (talk • contribs)
- Gutter journalism. As an encyclopedia, we have nothing to lose by waiting for the truth to emerge. --TS 16:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not my business to attack or defend Tony you wrote that just a few minutes ago on my talk page, yet here you are defending again :( Tell me please how the above is not true? --mark nutley (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not defending. I'm advocating that we wait and see what becomes of these allegations. I'm sorry you don't recognise the difference. --TS 16:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not my business to attack or defend Tony you wrote that just a few minutes ago on my talk page, yet here you are defending again :( Tell me please how the above is not true? --mark nutley (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Gutter journalism? I don't think The Times comes into that category, or The Sunday Times with its report today. An inclusion is needed very quickly. Peterlewis (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Classic synthesis (Pachauri early comments combined with current state) as well as POV writing ("revealing" that Pachauri stating one thing, and combining it with a latter speculation (the # of errors thing) to give impression of P being wrong). The "one error" thing is was about the past, the latter happened after the fact, thus there is no contradiction. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This is yet more confusing: defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 (ref to voodoo science, Times of India) conflates two different issues. This seems to be confusing a number of people: listen carefully, for I will only explain this many times: RKP's voodoo science quote, whilst regrettable, was directed at an Indian report - see [27] for details, if you care. That report had nothing directly to do with the 2035/2350 claim. Whilst "voodoo science" was unfair, RKP was correct to note that the report was a poor one, from a scientific viewpoint (it failed to cite many highly relevant publications with non-Indian authors; much of the observations were fine but the conclusions were unreasonable; it was part of some odd positioning by the Indian govt). I haven't seen a quote in which RKP defends the 2035 number: I have However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement." [28]. Or you could have The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas. [29]. But I don't see RKP defending 2035 (probably because he wasn't even aware of it). Somewhere must be his full statement, which NS quotes in part William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm open to alternative formulations.
- The juxtaposition I tried to create is between the following three facts: (1) error in IPCC; (2) TERI getting research grants based on that error; and (3) Pachauri vigorously defending that error.
- The second juxtaposition is between (1) Pachauri saying on Saturday that there were probably no further errors in AR4 and (2) the Times writing on Sunday about another error.
- The second juxtaposition is, I think, less important but it is more widely reported than the first one. Richard Tol (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- You are aware that your juxtapositions are WP:SYN to imply a specific POV right? And thus are unusable for wikipedia, save them for an Op-Ed :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Happy to rewrite it such that someone else made the juxtaposition (as Booker did, for instance) and WP just records. Richard Tol (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It certainly can't be Booker, since that is an Opinion article, which can't be used for BLP material (other than for Bookers own BLP). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Happy to rewrite it such that someone else made the juxtaposition (as Booker did, for instance) and WP just records. Richard Tol (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- You are aware that your juxtapositions are WP:SYN to imply a specific POV right? And thus are unusable for wikipedia, save them for an Op-Ed :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- WMC - the statements of the IPCC about the Himalaya were pulled back with NO replacement. Thats what i read this afternoon in the above archived and closed discussion. But "having an idea" is great for some folks - it might be anything but just not science. By the way, any contributions to the proposed text addition? --Alexander.stohr (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean here. Which statements were pulled? As to the "juxtaposition" stuff; yes that looks very WP:SYN William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Whatever-it-is
First call for Pachauri's resignation in a major, by an academic, not anonymous: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,673568,00.html Richard Tol (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- My german is poor. Translation needed William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Der deutsche Klimastatistiker Hans von Storch ist der Meinung, Pachauri solle den Posten zur Verfügung stellen, "um weiteren Schaden vom IPCC abzuwenden". = The German climate statistician Hans von Storch argues that Pachauri should step down "in order to prevent further damage to the IPCC". Richard Tol (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I thought it might be von S again. Sigh. No, not a good source. von S's biases on this subject are clear - hold on. Maybe you accept that? Or are you suggesting he is neutral? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your opinions on Storch are irrelevant. Richard Tol (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but then again von Storch is a rather dissonant voice in the general debate, perhaps because few "honest brokers" do state their opinions, but that is neither here nor there. I also note that Der Spiegel isn't actually quoting vS here, but instead paraphrasing, and they have presented his views wrongly before in this month. vS is unusually precise in his choice of words, so that the nuances are made clear, so to me a paraphrase is an alarm sign. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually my opinions on von S are relevant: as are yours, and others: because we have to evaluate him as a source. You are, I assume, evaluating him as a useful source: so you believe that your opinion of him is relevant; and somehow I'm not allowed to have an opinion? Odd. Anyway, I asked you a question: do you consider him neutral on this matter? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Storch is neutral on Pachauri and the IPCC. Richard Tol (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well from reading this WSJhe is kinda down the middle, gets flak from both sides. --mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thats unfortunately faulty logic, the implicit assumption being that the "sides" are equally big, and thus getting flak from both means he is in the middle. And we know (from surveys made by vS himself) that there isn't such a 50:50 separation. All that can be surmised from getting "flak from both sides" is that he isn't at either extreme end. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well from reading this WSJhe is kinda down the middle, gets flak from both sides. --mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Storch is neutral on Pachauri and the IPCC. Richard Tol (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your opinions on Storch are irrelevant. Richard Tol (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that we'll wait till tomorrow. We'll have an English language source then, and William has the chance to gather evidence for his so far unfounded claim that Storch has a grudge against Pachauri or IPCC. As it stands, William is just smearing Storch's name. Richard Tol (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
moved to improve flow Richard Tol (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well here`e one i never thought i`d see Pachauri must resign at once as head of official climate science panel By geoff lean of all people :) so how many`s that now want him sacked? --mark nutley (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- 4, and of these only one is potentially interesting (von Storch). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well here`e one i never thought i`d see Pachauri must resign at once as head of official climate science panel By geoff lean of all people :) so how many`s that now want him sacked? --mark nutley (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
We have
- Monckton (former advisor to the prime minister of the UK)
- Fielding (senator of Australia)
- North (freelancer)
- Lean (journalist)
- Storch (professor of meteorology)
- Pielke Jr (professor of environmental studies)
- Tol (professor of economics)
- Samson (member of Netherlands parliament) http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Wetenschap/256661/PvdA-erkent-geblunder-VN-Klimaatchef-moet-weg.htm Richard Tol (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Weaver (climatologist) http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/Canadian+scientist+says+global+warming+panel+crossing+line/2487264/story.html[he didn't say that[30] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)]
Verbatim: "A senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations' panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled." Now why is ITS CHAIRMAN SHOULD RESIGN not a call for resignation? Richard Tol (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Raina http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/ipcc-rajendra-pachauri-glaciers Richard Tol (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well Richard, this certainly tells us why we shouldn't just accept things blindly, and a good hint as to why WP:NOTNEWS exists. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
More tomorrow. Richard Tol (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Never believe the predictions of an economist: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,673765,00.html Richard Tol (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Sciencemag.org Covers the piece by storch richard and pielke.
- We will need some links on these, especially since Der Spiegel article doesn't say this (in the text - it does in the header though, but these are often added later and do not have the same editorial oversight). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Or is Der Spiegel link an Op-Ed written by you 3? The heading doesn't make that clear, and the content doesn't reflect the heading. (it is critical, but doesn't state that Pachauri should resign) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC) - nb. i see on Klimazwiebel that it is indeed an Op-Ed by Pielke, Tol & von Storch. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the question is less whether or not von S is a neutral source, and more whether he's sufficiently notable that his criticism of Pachauri is also notable. I would concede that he's not a neutral source -- this issue appears sufficiently polarized that I'm not sure that there is any such thing at this point -- but he is a notable climate scientist, and if he makes a public statement criticising the head of the IPCC, it's worth noting. J. Langton (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Kim raised a point of procedure: As I have now publicly called for Pachauri's resignation, I should not be involved in debating whether that should be reflected in Pachauri's article. Richard Tol (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough richard, i think however you should have mentioned you were a co-author on this piece from the get go. Should you find more links please post though. I believe given the amount of people calling for [RKP - PAs removed - Nutters, please don't use deliberately offensive diminutives William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)] to go we should put this newest one in the article given storch is a centerist on the whole issue so there is really no bias from him n this. --mark nutley (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I knew that this would be published only on Jan 24 around noon. Richard Tol (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- They did`nt give you much notice did they :) Are you freelance or do you work for an established paper? I saw one of your bits in an irish paper not so long ago :) mark nutley (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I knew that this would be published only on Jan 24 around noon. Richard Tol (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
'old on 'ere. So RTol has been pushing a piece calling for RKP's resignation and just happened to forget to mention that he had signed it? - oh come on, this is very poor faith. And clearly, you judgement on whether von S is biased is itself rather biased by his being a co-signatory to this piece. This is tawdry William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion was clear for all to see.
- Can you provide evidence that Hans von Storch is not neutral with regard to IPCC or Pachauri, or do you wish to withdraw your comments? Richard Tol (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your opinion on RKP was there for all to see, yes. But was everything relevant about your opinion of von S's reliability and neutrality out there for all to see? Most certainly not. You hid the fact that he was a co-author with you of the resignation stuff. It is hardly surprising that you consider your co-author to be entirely neutral; but that he was your co-author on this piece is really very relevant and you should have disclosed it at the start. Are you not arguing for higher standards and greater transparency from the IPCC? Begin at home William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Storch's opinion on Pachauri's resignation was indeed known to me before he announced it to the rest of the world. That's not the point. I never write about unpublished material. I would think that people are to be considered neutral until there is evidence that they are biased. You are the one who accused him of bias, so it is on you to provide evidence. Richard Tol (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your opinion on RKP was there for all to see, yes. But was everything relevant about your opinion of von S's reliability and neutrality out there for all to see? Most certainly not. You hid the fact that he was a co-author with you of the resignation stuff. It is hardly surprising that you consider your co-author to be entirely neutral; but that he was your co-author on this piece is really very relevant and you should have disclosed it at the start. Are you not arguing for higher standards and greater transparency from the IPCC? Begin at home William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- My post above shows his neutrality WSJ --mark nutley (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, I don't think the issue is whether von Storch is neutral, but rather whether he's a sufficiently important figure that his call for Pachauri's resignation is worth recording here. I would argue that he is, and it is. Regarding the neutrality issue, though, in what respect is neutrality to be desired? Neutrality regarding AGW? Neutrality regarding Pachauri? As it currently stands, the issue isn't particularly well defined. J. Langton (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- He is certainly well known, and i believe this should be in. We have reliable sources, a well known (and not a wacko) person saying he should step down, it is a notable event and should be recorded here. mark nutley (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- BBCThe chairman of the UN's climate science body, Rajendra Pachauri, has said he will not resign over its discredited claims that glaciers in the Himalayas will melt by 2035. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has also faced criticism over a claim that global warming is linked to worsening natural disasters. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chair of the IPCC, explains the organisation's role in tackling climate change Well he has responded to the calls for his resignation so i see no further problems with this inclusion now --mark nutley (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- No: he is repsonded, so it must be right makes no sense. As before, the judgement goes on Weight and NOTNEWs. This is not wikinews - go over there if you want to write up-to-the-minute stuff. We (you) need to get out of the habit of trying to rush stories in without leaving them to settle William M. Connolley (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well we now have eight people asking him to go, I`m afraid this must go in, whe nso many are publicly calling for you to be sacked it is WP:Notable don`t ya think? --mark nutley (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Got a reliable source? We seem to have an op-ed in German, which hardly implies notability or a suitable source for a BLP, and a few denialist politicians unsourced as far as this section shows. The proposed Telegraph blogger is hardly suitable, and the Radio 4 brief news item didn't match up to the words you quoted when I listened to it. "PLEASE NOTE: We are unable to offer transcripts for our programme interviews. Today is broadcast live and the running order is subject to change." So, has that been published somwhere more reliable than a brief news interview with Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (NOT Pachauri)? . . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- First of all this is breaking news and thus never should go in (WP:NOTNEWS), we should await the results of the news-cycle. And secondly 8 people aren't very many - since i will bet that 8 is a figure that can be reached for any person in a high-office, without serious problems. The major aspect would be the notability and influence of the people who are calling for his resignation. And here really none of these count, nor does the references reach notable levels. The only surprises here is vS (and possibly Samsom, who i don't know). The rest can be split up into extreme perennial critics (Monckton,Fielding) and moderate perennial critics (Pielke Jr, Tol, Lean). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC) [you may as well make it 9 since i'll bet Inhofe will join soon (that he hasn't is a hint on notability), just as the usual suspects in the pundit echo-chamber will] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 26
January 2010 (UTC)
@kim Samson is the Dutch environmental spokesman for the Labour Party, @ davethe bbc usually transcripts a day or so after a show, i`ll look it up then . mark nutley (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, i know who Diederik Samsom is. The question is how much influence he has, and i guess it is as little as his counterpart environmental spokesperson in the Danish opposition (which is extremely little). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Samson is the environment spokesperson of one of the parties in government, and in the same party as the responsible minister. Richard Tol (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Now that Weaver has called for pachauri to go shall we get to work on some text? --mark nutley (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the amount of sources calling for this is weight to be attributed to the call here, and no longer news. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm rapidly becoming extremely cynical about the entire GW lobby - the IPCC AR4 was supposed to be written to a very high scientific standard, and we mustn't dare sully the discussion with politics. I feel pretty negative to Pachauri.
- But that doesn't make it alright to attack him here, or re-cycle the attacks being made on him. There should be no mention, anywhere on WP, of these calls for whatever-it-is. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Except of course that Weaver doesn't say that Pachauri should leave - he says "Some might argue we need a change in some of the upper leadership of the IPCC, who are perceived as becoming advocates,","I think that is a very legitimate question.". Being a legitimate question doesn't make it his opinion, or a call for his resignation.
- But even if Weaver had been of that opinion - so what? My question is still what influence do these have on the question of whether Pachauri should resign or not? And the answer is: None. 9 people are still not extraordinary, and a figure that could be rounded up for every person in a high-office. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the amount of sources calling for this is weight to be attributed to the call here, and no longer news. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Now that Weaver has called for pachauri to go shall we get to work on some text? --mark nutley (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Samson is the environment spokesperson of one of the parties in government, and in the same party as the responsible minister. Richard Tol (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Verbatim (from the Windsor Star link that Kim crossed out): "A senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations' panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled." Now why is ITS CHAIRMAN SHOULD RESIGN not a call for resignation? Richard Tol (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Weaver is important because, unlike Pielke and Storch, he is an IPCC author. Unlike Tol, Weaver was in AR4, the subject of the current controvery. Richard Tol (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- If Weaver's opinion is so important, why didn't the source quote him as saying exactly what the spin piece says? Newspapers have a habit of spinning things and distorting statements, and more reliable sourcing is needed. If he's so influential, we should find out in due course, but this isn't the place for dubious speculation. . . dave souza, talk 22:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I unstruck weaver, he obviously says pachauri should resign. Dave why is it a spin piece? mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not so obviously, Kim is correct. Do please present a verbatim statement from Weaver, not a commentary from the reporter or editor. . . dave souza, talk 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weaver says Pachauri, the panel's chairman, should resign, not only for his recent failings but because he was a poor choice to lead the IPCC to begin with Looks like he asked him to go to me, if you think the reporter got it wrong i`m sure weaver will be screaming about it soon enough, don`t you? --mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not so obviously, Kim is correct. Do please present a verbatim statement from Weaver, not a commentary from the reporter or editor. . . dave souza, talk 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I unstruck weaver, he obviously says pachauri should resign. Dave why is it a spin piece? mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Contention
What is making the call to resign a BLP "contentious" issue? Please provide sources. The are abundant sources for public figure inclusion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just because there's mass censorship of these articles going on and this is yet another case of genuine referenced material being edit-warred out doesn't mean that such material needs to go in.
- This is one of the few bits of 'politics' which is fleeting, and practically irrelevant. The 'believers' still can't accept that the current iteration of the Global Warming Industry is holed below the waterline - let's spend our time documenting how bad it was not who needs to walk the plank. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
According to Google News, there are now 935 news articles with the words "pachauri" and "resign" in them. I realize Wikipedia is not a news site, but this issue has become more than news and is an issue of world politics. The lack of any mention of it in the article is an embarrassment and will certainly be referenced by others as evidence of the alleged "liberal bias" in Wikipedia editing. Marteau (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes Marteau, and we have an indian climatologist now asking for him to step down. It is time to write this up and insert it in the article.mark nutley (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Turns out he knew about the Himalayas before cop15, Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen I figure this should als orate a mention given the furore over the whole glacier thing. --mark nutley (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- The man's position as a leader has been, and is being, debated on a world-wide stage for weeks. But thankfully, people coming to Wikipedia will, at least know he is a vegetarian, even if they won't know he and his position are under direct and serious attack. Marteau (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Give him a chance, he only started thinking of coming clean on the 18th Jan 2010, according to the Guardian, seemingly unaware that the story broke in the BBC on 5th December 2009, long before COP 15. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- The man's position as a leader has been, and is being, debated on a world-wide stage for weeks. But thankfully, people coming to Wikipedia will, at least know he is a vegetarian, even if they won't know he and his position are under direct and serious attack. Marteau (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Relocation
The discussion has now moved here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Rtol. Richard Tol (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggest adding Emerging nations meet in India over climate change link
Emerging nations meet in India over climate change "... Speaking at a press conference on Saturday, the head of the UN's climate science panel R.K. Pachauri expressed hope that the BASIC nations (G4 bloc) would offer some chance of a binding pact in the near future." 99.155.158.125 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Links to those calling for Pachauri`s resignation
Given the mess the thread above has become i`m putting the links here to try and keep things tidy.
- Times Online Charles Clover, journalist and author
- The Guardian VK Raina former deputy director-general of India's Geological Survey and the man who wrote the glacier report dismissed by Pachauri
Windsor Star Weaver (climatologist)[31]- Samson Elsevier (member of Netherlands parliament)
- The Telegraph By geoff lean Environment Correspondent
- Der Spiegal Richard Tol, Pielke and Von Storch --mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- John Sauven director of Greenpeace UK
- Hartmut Grassl former director the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology and the World Climate Research Programme Richard Tol (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- John Barrasso, US Senator (R-WY) Richard Tol (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Pachauri was selected by the leaders of 139(?) countries, these are also the people that will take a decision regarding Pachauri, once some of these leaders come unto the playing field, then it becomes interesting. As before: That 10-20 people will call in the media, for any person in a high office to stand down, is hardly remarkable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes and no, if a sizable number of IPCC authors were to ask for his resignation, it would be interesting news as well. Since such a case is much more telling regarding potential scientific, procedural or management problems than the quibbling of politicians, whose decisions are often motivated by completely different things.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if and when that happens, we can review it again. The only AR4 author in the above, just got crossed out. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not quite kim, seems richard tol was one of the authors os said report :) mark nutley (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if and when that happens, we can review it again. The only AR4 author in the above, just got crossed out. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes and no, if a sizable number of IPCC authors were to ask for his resignation, it would be interesting news as well. Since such a case is much more telling regarding potential scientific, procedural or management problems than the quibbling of politicians, whose decisions are often motivated by completely different things.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
New text to be added to article here
Pachauri vigorously defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 (ref to voodoo science, Times of India) before admitting that an error was made (ref to CNN). TERI won two research grants to study the implications of the erroneous prediction (ref to Sunday Telegraph). Although Pachauri argued that there was probably only one error in the Fourth Assessment Report (link) of the IPCC, other errors were quickly found (ref to Times of London).
Removed call`s for resignation per consensus. Thoughts please on the remaining proposed text? --mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This was Rtol`s original text to be inserted along with the resignation stuff, make your proposed changes below please.--mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- (Remove my own suggestion for improvement and MN's thoughtful response). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pachauri vigorously defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 (ref to voodoo science, Times of India) - as I've said before, this is an error conflating two issues. The India report (not the Times of India) was indeed bad, though not voodoo. But that is a different issue William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- You say a report undertaken by the indian government by VK Raina former deputy director-general of India's Geological Survey and the man who wrote the glacier report was bad? How exactly is it bad? And do you have any actual WP:RS to prove your claims? or is this just based on your own thoughts on the report? --mark nutley (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, vair bad [32]. owever, you're missing the point: the error is conflating the two issues. Since we don't deal with the Indian report here, its badness and politicking don't much matter William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- You say a report undertaken by the indian government by VK Raina former deputy director-general of India's Geological Survey and the man who wrote the glacier report was bad? How exactly is it bad? And do you have any actual WP:RS to prove your claims? or is this just based on your own thoughts on the report? --mark nutley (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- So your criticism of the report is based on your reading of it. I actually fail to see how we are conflating the issues here, he said what he said, and was wrong i believe, i know you don`t agree with that but the Indian paper seems a little bit, shall we say better researched than the WWF one :). So tell me, whats your take on the proposed text? Any additions or removals you`d like to see? mark nutley (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Marknutley, your criticism of the criticism suggests that you haven't read the linked page, it includes useful links to other analyses, including a couple of news reports which count as rs's as well as to the report in question. Try it, quite interesting. WMC, thanks for the useful links. That gives the start of November as a time when the 2035 issue was being revived. So, the report acknowledged that glaciers were shrinking, but apparently denied this was caused by global warming, without any analysis to support this denial. Amusingly ironical that Ramesh made the denial while saying ""My concern is that this comes from western scientists", little realising that the 2035 figure came from Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and the India Environment Portal. . . dave souza, talk 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- No dave, one of the links from williams site is to a guardian page, that story is the one were pachauir called the indian government arrogant, the indian telegraph is linked in but supports the findings of the study, the other link is to simon donners blog, but he studies aquatic ecosystems not glaciars, plus he does not really put down the report, just says bloggers are reading to much into it. Perhaps i missed a link in there? Dunno, but we relly need comments on the proposed addition here so sorry for going so off topic :) mark nutley (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Marknutley, your criticism of the criticism suggests that you haven't read the linked page, it includes useful links to other analyses, including a couple of news reports which count as rs's as well as to the report in question. Try it, quite interesting. WMC, thanks for the useful links. That gives the start of November as a time when the 2035 issue was being revived. So, the report acknowledged that glaciers were shrinking, but apparently denied this was caused by global warming, without any analysis to support this denial. Amusingly ironical that Ramesh made the denial while saying ""My concern is that this comes from western scientists", little realising that the 2035 figure came from Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and the India Environment Portal. . . dave souza, talk 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- So your criticism of the report is based on your reading of it. I actually fail to see how we are conflating the issues here, he said what he said, and was wrong i believe, i know you don`t agree with that but the Indian paper seems a little bit, shall we say better researched than the WWF one :). So tell me, whats your take on the proposed text? Any additions or removals you`d like to see? mark nutley (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm pulling together links and evidence based on the various links and subsequent findings. Just to say at the moment that the review paper by the retired Vijay Kumar Raina, published by the Ministry of Environment & Forests and released on 9 November by India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh who made claims that the paper would "challenge the conventional wisdom" about melting ice in the mountains. Pachauri said "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement." Soon afterwards, Lonnie Thompson said "First and foremost this is not a peer reviewed report and nothing scientific can be claimed based on 25 glaciers out of over 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas.... if Jairam Ramesh can write up these results showing just how he came to his conclusion for a quality peer reviewed journal then he should do so. Otherwise the report certainly does not challenge the conventional wisdom." The dispute resurfaced in January; it's not clear when the the "voodoo science" remark was made, it's noted in NS of 11 January. No sign there that Pachauri was defending the 2035 date, he was clearly rejecting the claims made about the paper. However, the news reports refer to the IPCC predictions. So, a bit more clarification needed, but the first proposed sentence looks rather misleading. . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well the indians want him to say sorry :) Glaciologist demands apology from Pachauri for 'voodoo' remark and here is the report on the actual statement he made [33] Pachauri calls Indian govt. report on melting Himalayan glaciers as “voodoo science”
mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Dated 19 January 2010, but referring to a remark that seems to have been made as far back as 9 November,[34] and was certainly made before 11 January. The spat lingered. . . dave souza, talk 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry dave, i`m missing your point i think. What does it matter if the spat lingered on? How does that change what he said? mark nutley (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- The timeline clearly shows him attacking the non peer-reviewed "discussion paper" as inadequate for the claims being made about it, there's no evidence there of him defending the specific 2035 prediction, especially after it came into the open this year. Fortunately, the spat seems to have subsided a little: "Mr Ramesh, who had been at the receiving end of scathing attack from the IPCC chief reiterated the government’s support. 'The government backs Pachauri as the chief of the IPCC at the highest level. Past is past'." [35] . . dave souza, talk 12:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry dave, i`m missing your point i think. What does it matter if the spat lingered on? How does that change what he said? mark nutley (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Proposed changes to new text
"another error was quickly found" should be replaced with "other errors were quickly found" I've lost count how many errors have now been reported. Richard Tol (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done, it must be said the sheer amount of errors and reliance of advocacy group reports is beyond belief --mark nutley (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've just start checking all the references and has already found some inconsistencies. If you see something, please add it here or just correct it :-) Nsaa (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Which refs are inconsistent? --mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Two sources needed to be updated: This was no longer valid (why we should always use webcitation.org if the source accept it), and and this using a source from october 2003 to document a 2007 incident. Nsaa (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Which refs are inconsistent? --mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've just start checking all the references and has already found some inconsistencies. If you see something, please add it here or just correct it :-) Nsaa (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
After reading the long threads above, I agree that the calls for Pachauri to resign should not yet be included in this bio. I do believe that a single sentence, "Pachauri has been criticized for his support for the prediction in IPCC #4 that the Himilayan glaciers would melt by 2035, a claim since discredited."[extensive ref list]. This is a fair statement and not undue. Cla68 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)(move cla68`s proposal to here) mark nutley (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is a good compromise, until we see how things play out. J. Langton (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Redirect
The word "Pachauri" doesn't redirect anywhere. I don't know how to create a redirect and it seems that it should redirect here. Can anyone here point me to a page that tells me how to create a redirect? Thepm (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:REDIR there ya go --mark nutley (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Marknutley! I've done it. The excitement is a bit much. I need to have a lie down now. Thepm (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
NOTNEWs: why
Weaver says Pachauri, the panel's chairman, should resign, not only for his recent failings but because he was a poor choice to lead the IPCC to begin with Looks like he asked him to go to me, if you think the reporter got it wrong i`m sure weaver will be screaming about it soon enough, don`t you? --mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC) - but A recent article published on Jan. 27 in many Canwest papers suggested I believe that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled. These statements do not accurately reflect my views. I have acted as a lead author on chapters in the last three IPCC assessments, published in 1995, 2001 and 2007. The IPCC has, and continues to offer, policy-makers thoughtful and rigorous assessments of the science of climate change... I agree that these are legitimate questions to ask, but that does not mean that I am calling for the chair's resignation. [36] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lucky for me i did not put weaver in the new list above then :) --mark nutley (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for asking, but what is this about? (I'm quite new to this article and its talk page) I know I've seen WMCs claim about NOTNEWS before where it was unfunded (here: Talk:Stern_Review#NOTNEWs) Hopefully it's not the case here? Nsaa (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- No it`s about if weaver called for pachauri`s resignation, noting to do with stern --mark nutley (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Someone else did it for you then, i've crossed Weaver off both lists. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Malicious redirect
Extended content
|
---|
Editors familiar with the subject may wish to weigh in on this violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
|
More on the Himilayan issue
After reading the long threads above, I agree that the calls for Pachauri to resign should not yet be included in this bio. I do believe that a single sentence, "Pachauri has been criticized for his support for the prediction in IPCC #4 that the Himilayan glaciers would melt by 2035, a claim since discredited."[extensive ref list]. This is a fair statement and not undue. Cla68 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
|
NOTNEWS, food for thought
Apart from arguing strongly against inclusion of all this new controversy section per NOTNEWS in the first place, I have stayed out of this discussion, despite following the news developments themselves keenly. In my view, Pachauri is going to be forced to resign regardless of all other considerations. In light of recent developments, e.g. the bizarre story of his porn novel, his "voodoo science" blunder, his refusal to apologise and his arrogance; he's become a PR nightmare and a liability. He'll have to resign, and if he doesn't, he'll be pushed.
If I'm right, what does this mean for the reams of discussion we see above? The entire section will need to be rewritten, and replaced with a section explaining, historically, his forced resignation from the IPCC. On the other hand, if I'm wrong, then in twenty years this whole episode will likely be seen as a blip, and probably not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
To the editors of this page, can we not see how much wasted time, and conversation, and Wikipedia server space this is costing us? Wikipedia is funded by charitable donations. We're meant to be writing an encyclopaedia, not arguing about which daily news developments can be forced into Pachauri's Wikipedia biography in part of what appears, to me, to be actually a campaign to hasten his demise.
To admins, the NOT#NEWS guideline needs to be tightened. Who would seriously expect any of this stuff to appear in a real encyclopaedia when it still has the status of breaking news? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct alex, this is why i am dropping the resignation calls from the proposed new text. Which i believe is the current consensus anyway :) mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Best to wait until it actually happens. Don't get too excited William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Like Alex Harvey I foresee big changes in the whole Climate Change Industry, with players expected to be a lot more humble and rigorously ethical in future. However, I never saw the point of including whatever-it-was and in fact it was asking for trouble letting it in. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Controversy
Sorry to top-post but this section seems to have gone a bit screwy? Seems that the references from Pallab1234 were closed with "<\ref>" instead of "</ref>" and everything thereafter is gawn. If I change it myself, it looks like I've signed all the comments. Sorry, but I'm not especially technical... Thepm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC).
Thepm, please do not delete the sourced material. Editors can always improve the article by adding reputable sourced material. It is NOT necessary to discuss this in the talk page. Although discussing it before editing is indeed a good practice.
My sources are times magazine. Which is no doubt a reputable source. Please feel free to modify and make the paragraph more informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Marknutley, Please be specific. I am aware of NPOV and other wikipedia guidelines. Please tell me exactly how it is violated. Times is a reputable source and prominent source. It is important that the article contain a short summary of http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece. If other reputable and prominent sources say otherwise then please inform me about them. Actually in my summary I only reported incidents as reported by times and as far as I understand wikipedia works in this fashion. I particularly refrained from anything subjective. I hope to get a response otherwise I have to again revert the changes in few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hey man, this stuff you added is already linked in in the controversy section. If you look above you will see a section here in talk about adding some new text dealing with this issue, the article is under probation and all new additions really should be discussed first. Please remember to sign you talk posts with four tildes (~) Cheers --mark nutley (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Pallab1234. The paragraph that you added was partly covered elsewhere but mainly I reverted because it portrayed a very specific point of view. Phrases like "bogus claims" or "considered ludicrous" are emotionally charged and not suitable for an encyclopaedic article. Please don't take it personally and feel free to stay involved here and help to improve the article. Keep in mind that for articles like this one, which is both BLP and controversial, editors will be more likely to have success if their changes are carefully referenced and worded in a balanced way. cheers. Thepm (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thepm, thanks for your reply. Indeed "bogus claims" or "considered ludicrous" are emotionally charged. However these type of things may be written when it is clearly attributed a prominent third party, i.e. times in our case, and copied verbatim. It is unencyclopaedic if an editor says show, but reporting that some prominent source says so is not unencyclopaedic and actually explicitly mentioned in wp:npov. In any case I guess I will go with you in this point. We may not write these weasel words here.
However, I feel that a short summary about the nature of controversy should be added in the article. What is already written in the article should be expanded by adding a short (only few lines at best) summary of the times report.
Pallab1234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC).
Pallab1234. Three quick points. First, if you're quoting from a third party source verbatim, be sure to indicate such by putting in quotation marks. Otherwise you might be accused of plagiarism. Second, it's not necessary to add a new line for each newspaper article. If the article addresses issues already covered, you might just want to add it as an additional reference. Third, don't forget to sign off on all your posts with four tildes (this thing -> ~). That way we know it's you! cheers Thepm (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's also wise to say whom that comes with claims like "bogus claims" or "considered ludicrous". Fine points from (talk). Nsaa (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thepm, I surely agree with the verbatim thing. The point is that the article does not contain any information about the nature of controversy. That should be inserted in the body of the article. I think I may do it. Only a bunch full of links is not sufficient. Pallab1234 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I am going to write the following paragraph: "TERI claimed that climate change is likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. This idea is considered baseless by most glaciologists. This claim has been used to get a £310,000 grant from Carnegie specifically given to aid research into "the potential security and humanitarian impact on the region".[37] Pachauri said a personal apology on the glacier mistake would be a "populist" step. Greenpeace UK director John Sauven said that Pachauri to step down over glacier controversy.[38]. mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reformatted malformed refs for proposal. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is all a bit dubious. TERI isn't directly run by Pachauri, as I understand it, and they didn't cite the 2035 date according to The Times : the press release, author unknown, said "According to predictions of scientific merit they may indeed melt away in several decades." What looks like the press release in question describes a joint announcement, and quotes Pachauri as saying "Scientific data assimilated by IPCC is very robust and it is universally acknowledged that glaciers are melting because of climate change." It also quotes "Prof. Syed Iqbal Hasnain, Distinguished Fellow, TERI" who just talks about the proposed research. The Times seems to be making the spurious claim that "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus", when in fact the funding is for research into just how fast the glaciers are melting. If it finds they're not melting, I'm sure the Indian government will be delighted, but that goes against even the famous discussion paper. The Greenpeace director didn't say Pachauri to step down, according to the Daily Telegraph he said that he didn't think the IPCC would regain needed credibility under Pachauri, and "If we get a new person in with an open mind, prepared to fundamentally review how the IPCC works, we would regain confidence in the organisation." Not quite the same. . dave souza, talk 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Can we add the resignation stuff now?
It looks like the head of Greenpeace UK is joining the fray. At this point, it seems to me that the calls for Pachauri's resignation are sufficiently widespread, and have occurred over a sufficiently long period of time, that we really should include them here. We have more than enough to pass WP:WEIGHT. mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Langton (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- @ Pallab Carnegie has withdrawn the funding, Everything else you wish to add is being discussed above @ j langton current consensus is for the resignation calls not to be added, that link has already been added above btw :) please guys could you sign your comments with four tildes ~ mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't see this particular story above -- I think this one is new. Apparently the head of Greenpeace UK is also one of the people calling for Pachauri to resign. It might be one of the links above, but I'd argue it warrants a specific mention here. While I had supported the earlier consensus not to add the resignation stuff, I think at this point it's become sufficiently widespread that I'm changing my position. Multiple notable figures representing a wide variety of professional and political backgrounds have now publically called for Pachauri's resignation. Regardless of whether or not he keeps his job, I think it's becoming increasingly difficult to maintain that is story is just a flash in the pan. J. Langton (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Worth noting that the Indian government is asking that he stay.[39][[40]] . . . dave souza, talk 13:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Worth noting it was a political move as well But the support came after Mr Pachauri agreed to accommodate an Indian scientist from the environment ministry in the IPCC Bureau as the chair’s nominee while preparing the panel’s fifth assessment report. --mark nutley (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Fully agree there's been a lot of politicking on both sides in India, however, if we're getting into calls for resignation we also need to report backing up to the hilt, as Mark Antony said. . . dave souza, talk 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is a notable event for this public figure. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Now India's in, now India's out, the Torygraph shakes it all about
A paragraph on the Torygraph's claim that India was forming a rival to the IPCC was added. Since it missed what had been going on, I clarified matters a bit:
On February 4, 2010 the The Daily Telegraph announced under the headline "India to ‘pull out of IPCC’" that the Indian government was going to form its own climate panel because the work of the IPCC and Dr. Pachauri was considered unreliable. This misrepresented its own story reporting the formation of the Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment,[3] which had already been announced on 25 January 2010 as part of India's actions under the Copenhagen Accord.[4] By the morning of February 5, The Daily Telegraph had changed its headline to "India forms new climate change body".[3]
If we're covering this issue, we should also cover the statements from the Indian government fully supporting Pachauri's place on the IPCC. Seems a bit detailed, other thoughts? . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Can i get a link to the telegraph story please, i see no difference from what was written yesterday Telegraph— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since you ask, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-to-pull-out-of-IPCC.html is now a redirect to the current story. The original version was mirrored here:
"India has threatened to pull out of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is to set up its own climate change body because it "cannot rely" on the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri.
The Indian government's announcement is a snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he fights to defend his reputation after the disclosure that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035."
Some Wattsup blog also reported it. A few hours later we have:
"The Indian government is backing Pachauri to the hilt. Let there be no doubt on that. There is no wavering in the support of the Indian government. The Prime Minister and others in the government are supporting him as chairmen of IPCC. Let there be no two opinions on that," Mr Ramesh said."[41]
dave souza, talk 17:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)- Yes dave, i refer you to my post above in "can we add resignation stuff now" There`s backing to the hilt, and there`s backroom shenanigans mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since you ask, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-to-pull-out-of-IPCC.html is now a redirect to the current story. The original version was mirrored here:
- Thanks dave souza (talk · contribs) for removing it from the article. I don't understand why this is relevant for the biography. It looks more suitable in the IPCC article? Nsaa (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, there's coverage of the main issue at Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment. not sure if it's very significant anywhere else. . dave souza, talk 19:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks dave souza (talk · contribs) for removing it from the article. I don't understand why this is relevant for the biography. It looks more suitable in the IPCC article? Nsaa (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Alleged mistakes? Hah, However it still warrants a mention here, it is this guy getting the flax after all, this did happen on his watch. mark nutley (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is it something in this part that directly relate to this biography? Nsaa (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That India might pull out of the IPCC seems a Torygraph invention: see [42] for the PM supporting the IPCC William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also on the Beeb. . dave souza, talk 21:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- The Beeb is saying "The endorsement that Manmohan Singh has given to Rajendra Pachauri appears highly significant in two ways. For him personally, it is strong backing from a government that in recent months has been a harsh critic. For senior UN officials, support from their "home" government can be vital to keeping their jobs when criticism is in the air, as it is now. More importantly, Mr Singh's choice of words makes clear that despite the IPCC's recently documented lapse over the likely melting date for Himalayan glaciers, his government finds no reason to dispute the panel's core projections about the progress of climate change or its impacts. That appears to be the case among virtually all governments, with only some Chinese and Saudi officials expressing doubts."
- But there is still no reason to include any of this in the article until after it's settled. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like NOTNEWs. A good principle to apply elsewhere, perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Bollocks But the support came after Mr Pachauri agreed to accommodate an Indian scientist from the environment ministry in the IPCC Bureau as the chair’s nominee while preparing the panel’s fifth assessment report purely political this one --mark nutley (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like NOTNEWs. A good principle to apply elsewhere, perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have the time or patience to sort through all the deliberate obfuscation and minutia - but there sure seems to be a deliberate attempt here to censor global warming skeptics. On the efforts that Pachauri and his ilk - let's be clear, corrupt people pursuing a billion dollars of grant money in hopes of getting their hands on hundreds of billions of taxpayer money - is it surprising that other corrupt people would defend them? Enjoy yourselves guys, but money doesn't buy truth. You do know the word truth? Steve Harnish (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Help, help, I'm being oppressed! See WP:V and WP:NPOV. Unsupported opinions on The Truth are inappropriate for articles. . dave souza, talk 09:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Don't take it personally, Dave, I'm just having fun with you guys. If the shoe fits wear it, if not, then it doesn't mean anything. Let's face it, Dr. Pachauri is nobody on his own, he's just a figurehead in the massive global warming hoax, so any criticism of him is irrelevant to the larger view. Just the fact that the organization is IPCC and not IPGW is an implicit testament to the absurdity of the original claims, which have taken on a life of their own due to research dollars, political views, and the opportunity to scalp hundreds of billions per year off the backs of hard working people. Over decades this means multi-trillions of dollars - who is going to step in front of that train? What happens when someone with a pang of conscience speaks out? Do a couple burly guys in suits appear on the doorstep? Steve Harnish (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Help, help, I'm being oppressed! See WP:V and WP:NPOV. Unsupported opinions on The Truth are inappropriate for articles. . dave souza, talk 09:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that India's status in the IPCC is relevant to an article on Pachauri. J. Langton (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not India's status, it's that India said his work is unreliable because of all the falsity that has been exposed. Steve Harnish (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't talk this personally, Steve Harnish, but you're soapboxing and such comments can be deleted or archived in accordance with the talk page guidelines. If you have specific proposals, with sources, for improving the article, that will be welcome. . dave souza, talk 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I understand, really. But tell me, was Pachauri soapboxing (and with a financial motive) with his term "voodoo science"? I appreciate your diligence and hard work. Have a great day. Steve Harnish (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Saying that the Indian government is repudiating Pachauri is a claim that needs strong, strong sourcing to overcome our BLP guidelines. From what I'm seeing, that info should not yet be included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- At the moment we have a RS for the PM saying "India has full confidence in the IPCC process and its leadership and will support it in every way [43] so I rather doubt we'll get even a weak source for the opposite William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The wheels of justice (and arbitration) grind slowly, no way to predict the outcome, but the trend is in a downward direction. Steve Harnish (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the BLP policy is clear. The sources need to be very strong to support inclusion of any negative material about a subject in a BLP article. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good enough. Hey, did you guys see this one? Looks like Pachauri is doubling down (hope this link works): U.N. Climate Chief: Critics Should Rub Their Faces With Asbestos Steve Harnish (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, so Faux Noos didn't realise that the "critic" is a denialist who claims that asbestos is as safe as talcum powder, and Pachauri was rhetorically calling his bluff? . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Update: Critics apparently choose not to take the "asbestos" challenge. Telegraph 2/6/2010 New errors in IPCC climate change report Steve Harnish (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing there about asbestos, though it does list the Torygraph's subsequently debunked claims. . .dave souza, talk 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Update 2: The human toll of faulty science. Times Online 2/7/2010 I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones Steve Harnish (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- More like the human toll of relentless press pressure on scientists caught up in a political controversy, see the full article rather than the front page summary, and read more about David Kelly. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good enough. Hey, did you guys see this one? Looks like Pachauri is doubling down (hope this link works): U.N. Climate Chief: Critics Should Rub Their Faces With Asbestos Steve Harnish (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the BLP policy is clear. The sources need to be very strong to support inclusion of any negative material about a subject in a BLP article. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The wheels of justice (and arbitration) grind slowly, no way to predict the outcome, but the trend is in a downward direction. Steve Harnish (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- At the moment we have a RS for the PM saying "India has full confidence in the IPCC process and its leadership and will support it in every way [43] so I rather doubt we'll get even a weak source for the opposite William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Saying that the Indian government is repudiating Pachauri is a claim that needs strong, strong sourcing to overcome our BLP guidelines. From what I'm seeing, that info should not yet be included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I understand, really. But tell me, was Pachauri soapboxing (and with a financial motive) with his term "voodoo science"? I appreciate your diligence and hard work. Have a great day. Steve Harnish (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't talk this personally, Steve Harnish, but you're soapboxing and such comments can be deleted or archived in accordance with the talk page guidelines. If you have specific proposals, with sources, for improving the article, that will be welcome. . dave souza, talk 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
References section
Please add new comments above this
- ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ramesh-turns-heat-on-Pachauri-over-glacier-melt-scare/articleshow/5474586.cms
- ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/20/glacier.himalayas.ipcc.error/index.html
- ^ a b Nelson, Dean, "[1]" The Daily Telegraph, "India forms new climate change body", February 4, 2010
- ^ "Sci-Tech / Energy & Environment : Govt working on climate blueprint to be submitted to UNFCCC". The Hindu. 25 January 2010. Retrieved 2010-02-05.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help)
Recommend adding "Extended Interview: Climate Science Leader Rajendra K. Pachauri Confronts the Critics"
Recommend adding link to Science (journal) 29 January 2010: Vol. 327. no. 5965, pp. 510 - 511 (DOI: 10.1126/science.327.5965.510) "Extended Interview: Climate Science Leader Rajendra K. Pachauri Confronts the Critics" by Pallava Bagla; also, related article ... [44] 99.60.126.124 (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- The mood here is that no controversy exists because nothing has been proven. So why allow Dr. P. to respond - to nothing - if we are to be so neutral?. Steve Harnish (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Allegations of critics
The statement that "In addition, Pachauri has faced public criticism for alleged falsification of information from the IPCC to exaggerate the effects of global warming" was introduced, cited to the Guardian. It looks like a misreading of the newspaper's statement that Pachauri "has faced criticism as chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change following allegations of inaccurate statements in panel reports." As discussed above, he has responsibility as chairman, but did not write the incorrect reports, and they appear to have been in error rather than deliberate attempts to exaggerate. So, have removed that and restored well sourced information, as well as mention of a couple of appearances which should be discussed before removal . . . dave souza, talk 11:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Context - the human element. We have high standards for biographical information, but hey, why are people interested in reading biographies at all? Successes, failures, character strengths and faults. I.e., personal qualities are as much of interest as professional accomplishments, while of course being much more subjective and difficult to prove. So why not let Dr. P testify in his own words, and include his statement that his critics should rub their faces with asbestos? Seems fair, and lets him show his personal qualities. Steve Harnish (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Dave - I hate to break the news to you but this article in the Telegraph states that Dr. P was directly involved in the decision to select and present the most hysterical global-warming claims and got paid a ton of money in the process: Quote: "However, the story then got worse when Dr Pachauri himself came to edit and co-author the IPCC's Synthesis Report (for which the IPCC paid his Delhi-based Teri institute, out of the £400,000 allocated for its production). Not only did Pachauri's version again give prominence to Agoumi's 50 per cent figure, but he himself has repeated the claim on numerous occasions since, in articles, interviews and speeches –such as the one he gave to a climate summit in Potsdam last September, where he boasted he was speaking "in the voice of the world's scientific community"." Link African crops yield another catastrophe for the IPCC . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharnish (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please sign your posts. The Telegraph has a poor record for fact checking and accuracy in this subject, got any more reliable sources to back up this claim? . . dave souza, talk 17:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, Dave that was me. I know you're going to fight this every step of the way but the truth always will come out over time. Looks like the hockey stick is going out thr window too. Steve Harnish (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Dave the telegraph is a reliable source, you do not get to pick and choose which stories are reliable or not mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please sign your posts. The Telegraph has a poor record for fact checking and accuracy in this subject, got any more reliable sources to back up this claim? . . dave souza, talk 17:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- "The Telegraph has a poor record for fact checking and accuracy in this subject"
- Do you have a reliable source for this, or would it be WP:OR? J. Langton (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the comment above. "The Telegraph has a poor record for fact checking and accuracy in this subject" is a shocking quote to come from somebody who claims to be impartial. As far I am aware, and I have been following this subject in great detail, the Telegraph is one of very few papers to investigate and research this topic in depth, publishing detailed investigative reports. Pretty much every other news report I have read on this subject has been a watered down, and often inaccurate, version of the Telegraph's original reports. It's not the Telegraphs acuuracy and fact checking you should be checking, Dave Souza, but the IPCC's. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The Torygraph usually gets climate science wrong. Can you point to any report it has made that has been correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- A minor example of Torygraph errors is [45] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lol at wmc, you actually link to a blog which has lifted the story from your blog :) Yes such a reliable source :) mark nutley (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- And, since OR is ok on talk pages to a reasonable extent, a rather blatant example. Much better coverage of the story here, with the dates right and without the bizarre Torygraph spin that it's a new snub to the IPCC. . . dave souza, talk 23:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- @ Dave did they or did they not correct that mistake you point to? The telegraph is a reliable source, your and wmc`s personal opinions of it matter not a jot. mark nutley (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- @ mark, no they did not correct it. The current version is headlined "India forms new climate change body", conveniently omitting its formation last October, and the heading is "The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri." Oh yeah? And so it contnues, describing it as a "snub" and so on. Read it, and compare to an accurate version. And yesterday they seem to have been plagiarising denialist stuff about weather stations,[46] something already shot down by the NCDC.[47] Not a good way to report science. . . dave souza, talk 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I'd be rather wary about relying on the telegraph and the referred article above is clearly mixing opinion with reporting. However beside its style the actual facts it reports seem to be correct for the most part and I'd agree that formally the telegraph is "reputable" source as far as average newspaper source is concerned. Independent of that the telegraph article is about a false/unreliable IPCC prediction regarding crop yield in Africa and not Pachauri, i.e. it content is better used in an article on the IPCC report than here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- seem to be correct for the most part is damming with faint praise. The Torygraph has a long history of errors on these issues William M. Connolley (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- That phrase refers to article in question not he telegraph's reporting on climate science in general and it is hardly a "praise" of anything but a sober assessment. In any case there should be no problem to cite other newspapers for the same content, so there is no need to rely on telegraph anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- seem to be correct for the most part is damming with faint praise. The Torygraph has a long history of errors on these issues William M. Connolley (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I'd be rather wary about relying on the telegraph and the referred article above is clearly mixing opinion with reporting. However beside its style the actual facts it reports seem to be correct for the most part and I'd agree that formally the telegraph is "reputable" source as far as average newspaper source is concerned. Independent of that the telegraph article is about a false/unreliable IPCC prediction regarding crop yield in Africa and not Pachauri, i.e. it content is better used in an article on the IPCC report than here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- @ mark, no they did not correct it. The current version is headlined "India forms new climate change body", conveniently omitting its formation last October, and the heading is "The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri." Oh yeah? And so it contnues, describing it as a "snub" and so on. Read it, and compare to an accurate version. And yesterday they seem to have been plagiarising denialist stuff about weather stations,[46] something already shot down by the NCDC.[47] Not a good way to report science. . . dave souza, talk 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- @ Dave did they or did they not correct that mistake you point to? The telegraph is a reliable source, your and wmc`s personal opinions of it matter not a jot. mark nutley (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the comment above. "The Telegraph has a poor record for fact checking and accuracy in this subject" is a shocking quote to come from somebody who claims to be impartial. As far I am aware, and I have been following this subject in great detail, the Telegraph is one of very few papers to investigate and research this topic in depth, publishing detailed investigative reports. Pretty much every other news report I have read on this subject has been a watered down, and often inaccurate, version of the Telegraph's original reports. It's not the Telegraphs acuuracy and fact checking you should be checking, Dave Souza, but the IPCC's. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
We may consider including a subsection on Pachauri's temperament, with P's own words on Hitler, voodoo, and asbestos. Richard Tol (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like trivial gossip, so a very reliable source with expertise on temperament would be needed. Not someone like Booker, who notoriously argues that white asbestos is ""chemically identical to talcum powder" and smoking is good for you. . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with Booker and everything to do with Pachauri. I mean, c'mon Dave, you're insisting on a standard for Wikipedia that is far beyond anything Pachauri was concerned with. Anyway, the arguments are transparent because the "high standard" is only to be applied to the skeptics, who are dismissed as gossips and rumor-mongers, and not to the global-warming-defenders, while in the real world the uncovering of corruption continues on a daily basis. About as transparent as someone who arbitrarily removes facts and quotes that he doesn't like, and then threatens the "offending" party with Wikipedia sanctions because they plainly speak the obvious truth instead of fudging their remarks and hiding their biases in "Wikipedia-acceptable" language, while claiming the mantle of an established Wikipedia editor/authority. Steve Harnish (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody gets to be an authority here just because he claims it - or does he? What confers that authority, a flattering self-portrait told in the third person? And how does he attempt to exercise that authority? Maybe he will tell us. Steve Harnish (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with Booker and everything to do with Pachauri. I mean, c'mon Dave, you're insisting on a standard for Wikipedia that is far beyond anything Pachauri was concerned with. Anyway, the arguments are transparent because the "high standard" is only to be applied to the skeptics, who are dismissed as gossips and rumor-mongers, and not to the global-warming-defenders, while in the real world the uncovering of corruption continues on a daily basis. About as transparent as someone who arbitrarily removes facts and quotes that he doesn't like, and then threatens the "offending" party with Wikipedia sanctions because they plainly speak the obvious truth instead of fudging their remarks and hiding their biases in "Wikipedia-acceptable" language, while claiming the mantle of an established Wikipedia editor/authority. Steve Harnish (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The Telegraph is, in general, considered a reliable source. If some editors feel that it is not reliable on climate change news, then it's incumbent upon those editors to provide a reliable source to justify their objections. Otherwise, it's simply opinion, and we can't use that as a basis for excluding generally reliable sources. J. Langton (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- For entertainment purposes only, George Will has a few words about the controversy in this opinion piece: Blinded by science Steve Harnish (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- An amusing display of ignorance. Back on topic, regarding the Telegraph as a reliable source on global warming, see Press Complaints Commission >> Adjudicated Complaints >> Mr Bob Ward and note that The Sunday Telegraph published a number of inaccurate and misleading statements, and refused to publish a correction. . . dave souza, talk 07:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Er, nope At a late stage, it offered to publish a letter from the complainant, and to mark its cuttings with it in relation to the Tuvalu issue So were did you get they refused to publish a correction? Also and for the final time, The Telegraph is a wp:rs AGW proponents do not get to pick which stories are reliable. We put in the ref`s and the reader decides, this is how wp works mark nutley (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- "The complainant had submitted a letter for publication after these articles appeared, which the newspaper had declined to publish." Declined = refused in polite English. Since the Telegraph refused to correct its article until a late stage, we should reasonably show caution in accepting anything they publish on the subject until a similarly late stage, and in the interim check their claims against more reliable sources. All in accordance with WP:SOURCES. . . dave souza, talk 08:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's a stretch, Dave. First of all, the offending column was an opinion piece, which we would obviously wouldn't use as a source for anything except the author's opinion. Second, I doubt very seriously that you could find a single newspaper which has not, at some point, committed similar errors. If the Daily Telegraph isn't a reliable source, then neither is anything else.
- "The complainant had submitted a letter for publication after these articles appeared, which the newspaper had declined to publish." Declined = refused in polite English. Since the Telegraph refused to correct its article until a late stage, we should reasonably show caution in accepting anything they publish on the subject until a similarly late stage, and in the interim check their claims against more reliable sources. All in accordance with WP:SOURCES. . . dave souza, talk 08:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Er, nope At a late stage, it offered to publish a letter from the complainant, and to mark its cuttings with it in relation to the Tuvalu issue So were did you get they refused to publish a correction? Also and for the final time, The Telegraph is a wp:rs AGW proponents do not get to pick which stories are reliable. We put in the ref`s and the reader decides, this is how wp works mark nutley (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- An amusing display of ignorance. Back on topic, regarding the Telegraph as a reliable source on global warming, see Press Complaints Commission >> Adjudicated Complaints >> Mr Bob Ward and note that The Sunday Telegraph published a number of inaccurate and misleading statements, and refused to publish a correction. . . dave souza, talk 07:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Furthermore, you're looking at primary sources and extrapolating -- in one opinion column, an inaccurate claim was made and the paper dragged its feet in allowing a response, and therefore nothing that it publishes about climate change is reliable. That's OR, and not particularly well-founded OR at that. J. Langton (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, things here becoming very transparent. Steve Harnish (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see how the objections are made to this one, from the Telegraph, 2/23/2010: Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal "Dr Pachauri has rapidly distanced himself from the IPCC's baseless claim about vanishing glaciers. But the scientist who made the claim now works for Pachauri, writes Christopher Booker" Steve Harnish (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's an informative article, but I believe most of the information in it belongs in Syed Hasnain's BLP, if there is one, and the article about the Himalayan glacier melt controversy, if there is one. If no article, then it belongs in the "Criticism of the IPCC" article or the IPCC #4 article criticism section. If there is a battle between Paucheri and the Indian government, and it has been noted in more than one source, I think that could go in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's the alleged corruption that's most interesting. False data, a shell game being played with the sources of the data, and with a financial interest by Dr. P. behind it. (Just one of many such players now being exposed.) If corruption is proven, there could be criminal charges, maybe after a change in the political climate as a result of the continued melt-down. (excuse the bad puns) Steve Harnish (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's an informative article, but I believe most of the information in it belongs in Syed Hasnain's BLP, if there is one, and the article about the Himalayan glacier melt controversy, if there is one. If no article, then it belongs in the "Criticism of the IPCC" article or the IPCC #4 article criticism section. If there is a battle between Paucheri and the Indian government, and it has been noted in more than one source, I think that could go in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Christopher Booker's column is an op-ed piece, and therefore isn't generally considered RS. It seems to me that we have enough controversy from really solid sources (notwithstanding efforts to downplay those sources) that it would be best to focus our attention on those. J. Langton (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem. It will take awhile for the legal proof to catch up with the facts. Besides, this is the talk page, not the article, and what is said or not said on Wikipedia will in no way affect the prosecution one way or another. I just want to see what kind of risk to their integrity the "downplayers" are willing to assume as they try to spin this. Steve Harnish (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Glad you've found The Truth, integrity is essential. Hide the embarassment! . . . dave souza, talk 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to twist my mind into 16 knots in order to follow all the intrigue in that piece. If you have a point, feel free to make it. Corrupt science is corrupt science. Steve Harnish (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Glad you've found The Truth, integrity is essential. Hide the embarassment! . . . dave souza, talk 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem. It will take awhile for the legal proof to catch up with the facts. Besides, this is the talk page, not the article, and what is said or not said on Wikipedia will in no way affect the prosecution one way or another. I just want to see what kind of risk to their integrity the "downplayers" are willing to assume as they try to spin this. Steve Harnish (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Christopher Booker's column is an op-ed piece, and therefore isn't generally considered RS. It seems to me that we have enough controversy from really solid sources (notwithstanding efforts to downplay those sources) that it would be best to focus our attention on those. J. Langton (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Telegraph article.
I suspect there will be calls to include something from this article in the Telegraph today. I urge caution. reportedly, the meeting was secret, which presumably means the information about the meeting was obtained in violation of an agreement. This is not to say it automatically gets excluded, but it is suspect. In addition, the author seems unaware that non-peer-reviewed material is acceptable, so there are other red flags in this piece.--SPhilbrickT 16:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. No mention of the payments to Dr. P's firm for the disputed data. Steve Harnish (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- The new hockey stick Chart of global warming skepticism (GIF image) Scale is the percentage of people who reject man-made global warming hypothesis. Steve Harnish (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Wall Street Journal
Wonderful photo of Dr. P in this article of 2/26/2010: Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel Something of that asbestos remark comes to mind. Steve Harnish (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Rv: why
No reason given for re-addition William M. Connolley (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- What, apart from well sourced and it was agreed on weeks ago you mean? Please self revert the text is reliably sourced and an important part of his bio mark nutley (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- As well as the original source being wp:rs i have some more if required UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri 'got grants through bogus claims UN climate chief's research institute won grants after flawed predictions on glaciers Did ‘Himalayan blunder’ help TERI get lucrative grants? You may self revert and add these refs if you wish, thanks mark nutley (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- it was agreed on weeks ago - you say that, and indeed you asserted as much in your edit comment, but so far you ahven't provided a link to this "agreement". Please do so William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you can`t be bothered to actually read the section above with the wording thats` your problem, but regardless of that the text is reliably sourced and is a valid inclusion in this bio. Care to tell me why you reverted it for no good reason? mark nutley (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you're claiming a weeks-old consensus for inclusion, please point to the discussion where this occurs. Or withdraw the claim William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- You commented in the thread william, are you getting forgetful in your dotage? [48] The talk actually spread ocer a few sections but a consensus was formed. Now tell me why you think this reliably sourced text should have been reverted? mark nutley (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Leave out the dotage crap please. No, there is no consensus in that section, indeed, there are people clearly disagreeing with you, and then the matter drops William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Get a sense of humour for gods sake :), As i said it ended up being dragged across several sections, if you can`t be arsed to look thats your problem. It does not matter now, i see the text has been put back along with some new refs so problem solved mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- You commented in the thread william, are you getting forgetful in your dotage? [48] The talk actually spread ocer a few sections but a consensus was formed. Now tell me why you think this reliably sourced text should have been reverted? mark nutley (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you're claiming a weeks-old consensus for inclusion, please point to the discussion where this occurs. Or withdraw the claim William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you can`t be bothered to actually read the section above with the wording thats` your problem, but regardless of that the text is reliably sourced and is a valid inclusion in this bio. Care to tell me why you reverted it for no good reason? mark nutley (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- Stub-Class biography articles
- Automatically assessed biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Stub-Class Environment articles
- Unknown-importance Environment articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles
- Stub-Class India articles
- Unknown-importance India articles
- Stub-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
- Automatically assessed India articles
- WikiProject India articles
- Unassessed rail transport articles
- Unknown-importance rail transport articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages