Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

NOTICE: Per the probation sanctions logged here
this article is currently under a 1RR editing restriction.

A whole new gate

Judith Gate the blogs all all over this one, i suspect the MSM will catch up eventually, should this go in the crit part of this article? mark nutley (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are all over anything. When newspapers (the reporting section, not the editorial section) pick it up, come back and see us. See WP:RS. --Jayron32 19:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

From here, attributed to the original source Klimaskeptik.cz: "Satellites showed that the TSI (measured in watts) between 1986 and 96 increased by about one third." All else being equal, if TSI rose by a third, that'd raise the temperature by about 19C or 34F. -Atmoz (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that Wilson's analysis resulted in the change of 1/3 watts per square metre, not 1/3 of TSI itself. The disagreement (of the magnitude of fractions of watt per square metre) between Fröhlich (PMOD) and Wilson (ACRIM team) about inter-calibration between satellites is decades old. (See http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant for Fröhlich's view.) Probably no news at all. --Masudako (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a real issue, not logically for IPCC but for climate modellers: what record of TSI they should use as forcing to their numerical experiments to reproduce the climate of the 20th century. If they prefer making runs by various models comparable, they probably need to choose a certain set of records as their common input, even if some of them do not think it the best estimate. Probably they cannot afford to try all suggstions. And the issue for the authors of IPCC is what weights they should give to the results of such experiments. --Masudako (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You realize you are trying to use PrisonPlanet as a source, right? 122.172.58.95 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No i`m not, that`s so the guys here can see what i`m on about. It looks like the MSM will ignore this one as well though, no surprises there mark nutley (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Economist Critique

There is a great IPCC critique in The Economist this month. It seems to support the consensus; however, it heavily criticizes the IPCC management with recommendations for replacing the leader, a process to better handle conflicts of interests and recognizing a role for an ombudsman. I am searching for a better copy to source into the criticisms section. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.economist.com/node/16539392?story_id=16539392 --Nigelj (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's an excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Others, on recent report, and in the same vein [1], [2], [3] Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why such a narrow sample? Wikispan (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I supose this was a hit population weighted sample, at least this is how google reported relevance. Seems like the ball is rolling on new content. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

InterAcademy Council report

Some coverage of InterAcademy Council's recommendations: "Stronger enforcement of existing IPCC procedures will minimise errors", published today. --Nigelj (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19378-climate-panel-must-fundamentally-reform-to-survive.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11131897

It would be nice if we could avoid jumping in with knee-jrek press stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicer to include all notable and relevant views. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The actual document. NW (Talk) 21:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. We need to start adding a summary of their findings and recommendations to the article. If I have a chance today and tomorrow I'll get started on it unless someone else gets to it first. Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If we want IAC to look of some significance, someone should probably rescue the InterAcademy Council from being a redirect and add them to IAC William M. Connolley (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The CSM writes it up. --TS 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. The IAC appears to have basically and indirectly told Paucheri to resign by stating that the "chief scientist" should only be in charge for one report. If Paucheri refuses, the resulting controversy may be noteworthy enough to include in this article. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've cut a bit - this isn't the place to tell people where the IAC is housed William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone pointed out to me, the IAC report made it into Portal:Current_events/2010_August_30 but in a rather poor version. I've edited it to conform to what we have here William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've cut Pielke in favour of Nature, which is a rather more impartial source of commentary. Pielke's biases are rather well known. Feel free to add more text from there - I selected a quote somewhat randomly William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Pielke's biases, as the CSM article didn't mention them. Could you point to a reliable source that gives them, otherwise I don't see why his statement can't stay in the article, since it was reliably sourced. Cla68 (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't disappear down that rabbit-hole. We're managing a fairly good an balanced paragraph here. I could dump in the RC view to "balance" the Pielke view but I'd rather use clearly-no-axe-to-grind sources. We have Nature available, which is clearly a better source to use than Pielke, so let's use it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC, you could not dump in RC because it would be against policy to use a self-published, advocacy source. Pielke's quote was from the Christian Science Monitor. Now, unless you actually have a valid reason for not including his quote, I will be readding it, but I'll give you a chance to come up with a valid reason first. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Both Nature and CSM can be included. We don't have to choose one and exclude the other -- and shouldn't. Minor4th 00:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to readd the quote and put it and the Nature quote in a separate paragraph. Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, use of RC is fully within policy, as you know. Just like you know HSI isn't an RS but you persist in trying to use it. There is no need for the Pielke quote, and I've removed it again. The argument "this is reliably sourced, therefore it belongs in the article" is wrong, as you're fully aware. Please don't be tendentious William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Due to this edit war, I have requested full protection for this article. Cla68 (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this edit war on my watchlist, and so protected it for two weeks when I saw the above comment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like (yet another) trigger-happy prot (and request for same). If you ignore the two (blocked now) scibaby socks, there are precisely *two* reverts in this "edit war". If two reverts are now the trigger level for 2-week prots, then we're in trouble William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not an isolated incident; please work on the content on this section; there are other places to discuss the rights or wrongs of the protection. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a very odd thing to say, and a very weak defence. Where else should we discuss the prot than here? I tried to discuss it on your talk page: you agreed that you were trigger happy, but made no substantive comment and then promptly archived the discussion (has: I was wrong: in fact you didn't even answer until *after* you'd archived the discussion [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)). OK: so if you don't want to discuss why two reverts is now the threshold for an edit war here, or on your talk page, where would you like to discuss it? William M. Connolley (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC, I think the rest of us, or at least myself, are waiting for you to provide some kind of policy-supported reason why the Pielke quote cannot be included in the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You can continue to discuss it on my archived talk page, or on my new talk page, or you can appeal at ANI, or arbcom. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Cla, there are two issues here: one is, the content. The other is, since when do 2 reverts make an edit war? Both questions need to be addressed. JV is running away from the one that relates to him: since you asked for the protect, it concenrs you too, so you ought to answer too. Please do. Also: JV (obviously incorrectly :-) protected the article on the wrong wrong version. So all we need for unprotect is for you to offer not to edit war the text back in, and it can be unprotected, allowing people to work no other parts of the article if they so desire. So the protection appears to be doubly pointless.

As to the content, your question is a strawman. There is no policy that dictates whether the quote should be in or out. Asserting that the existence or not of every sentence can be rigourously justified by policy is foolish. In all of these things there is editorial balance. In this case, balance is that Pielke, who is strongly partisan, has no particular virtue and there is no particular reason to include him William M. Connolley (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The CSM article made no mention of any partisanship related to Pielke, and you still haven't provided any evidence of it from any other source, reliable or not. Cla68 (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You're still ducking the question of why 2 reverts make an edit war needing protection. as to Pielke: his partisanship is well known. If there aren't RS's for it, it can't go into his biog, but it can most certainly affect whether a quote goes into the article. You have no source to say that Gavin is partisan, but you're happy to dismss his quote on those grounds William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy supports the Pielke quote, but not the Gavin quote. Pielke's quote was in a reliable source, Gavin's, if it's coming from RealClimate, is from a self-published source. CSM apparently felt that Pielke's opinion on the IPCC was worthy of note, and we just report what the reliable sources are saying. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Still ducking the 2-reverts issue, eh? And still pushing your strawman: policy doesn't enforce inclusion of the Pielke quote. It permits it, but so what. Nor does policy prohibit use of the Schmidt quote, but then again, your policy is so poor that you think HSI is reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful comment. So far we have two editors in favor of using the quote and one against. Cla68 (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

*Still* ducking the 2 reverts issue. Come on Cla, this is pathetic William M. Connolley (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to argue over the inclusion of one quote in one newspaper article, it might be worth just taking a number of secondary sources and summarizing them. Here are a bunch that I pulled at random essentially that might be useful as a starting point:

• Kintisch, E (August 30, 2010). "Panel Calls for 'Fundamental Reform' of IPCC". Science. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
• Adams, Stephen (August 31, 2010). "IPCC 'must avoid playing politics'". The Telegraph. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
• "Climate-change assessment: Must try harder". The Economist. September 2, 2010. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
• Pilkington, Ed (August 30, 2010). "Rajendra Pachauri, head of UN climate change body, under pressure to resign". The Guardian. New York. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
• "Report: Climate science panel needs change at top". The Washington Post. Associated Press. August 31, 2010. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
• Biello, David (August 30, 2010). "Shades of "Gray Literature": How Much IPCC Reform Is Needed?". Scientific American. Retrieved September 5, 2010.

Also, with regards to Pielke's partisanship, here is a quote from The Washington Post article above: ""It's hard to see how the United Nations can both follow the advice of this committee and keep Rajendra Pachauri on board as head," said Roger Pielke Jr., a frequent critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The University of Colorado professor praised the review findings as a way of saving the climate panel with "tough love."" NW (Talk) 15:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I`m also in favour of using the Pielke quote can`t see why there is such an issue about it really mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of using the Pielke quote. It is reliably sourced by multiple mentions, supported by the secondary ones pulled by NW, and mentioned as a critic by the Post. All can be used. GregJackP Boomer! 03:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

PS, RealClimate is a blog, and not reliable. It should not be used. I also think that we have consensus. I count 4 editors supporting the quote, with 1 opposing, and an admin proposing additional language. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am just trying to mediate the discussion so that an agreed-upon paragraph about this can be written. Perhaps someone here could propose a draft of how they think the section should be written? I think about two paragraphs long at this time should be sufficient. NW (Talk) 03:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've unlocked the article as there is only one person (WMC) who objected to the Pielke quote. I'll relock it if edit warring restarts on this or another issue. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Calls for resignation of IPCC chief

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/IPCC+romance+novelist+must+resign/3484267/story.html

Teefortwo (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If Rajendra Pachauri goes, who on Earth would want to be IPCC chair? – a pattern is emerging of IPCC chairs being shamefully hounded from office by powerful forces in rich countries. Back in 2002 the previous chair, Bob Watson, fell victim to the oil company Exxon and the Bush administration after just three years in office. Corporate America regarded the British-born scientist as far too outspoken and potentially too dangerous to industry, and a stitch-up by the US administration and a few friendly developing countries saw Pachauri replace Watson.... If Pachauri goes – and the decision can only be taken by governments – two years into his second six-year term, then no future IPCC chair can ever feel safe. .... Ousting the IPCC chairman mid-term again would be the ultimate victory for scepticism of the wildest kind. .... The absurdity of the latest attack is that Pachauri himself called on the IAC report specifically to improve IPCC procedures. . . dave souza, talk 07:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

By

The IAC report did basically say that Paucheri needs to go based on a number of reasons. Perhaps we should wait a little longer to see how he and other media sources report on the issue. Cla68 (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a misreading of the report, according to Harold Shapiro. It's not about any one single person. The report recommends that "the whole senior leadership of IPCC – not only the chair but the senior co-chairs, in all, about eight or nine people – should serve for a period of only one assessment." And "It was beyond our charter to even look at whether the current leadership was adequate or inadequate". And "The current chair… I want to make clear it’s not a recommendation that he should resign." He makes the same point repeatedly -- it's not about Rajendra Pachauri. [5] Wikispan (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussed by Andrew Revkin at Leader of Climate Panel Review Discusses Findings - NYTimes.com . . dave souza, talk 17:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That short article doesn't discuss Paucheri except for a passing reference in the intro. Am I not seeing the full article? Cla68 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe dave is referring to the interview Michael Lemonick secured with Harold Shapiro, which Andrew Revkin found of interest, enough to establish notability. Wikispan (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Cla, Revkin flatly contradicts your presumption that "the IAC report did basically say that Pachauri needs to go based on a number of reasons". Revkin cites Harold Tafler Shapiro, the head of the IAC committee who would be reasonably expected to be an expert in what the committee meant, and says "In the exchange, Shapiro rejects interpretations of the report that asserted the committee was, in a sidelong way, calling for the resignation of the panel chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri." You're apparently basing your opinion on press reports that Shapiro rejects as baseless. Much of the press doesn't really have a very good track record in reporting this area of science. Conveniently, Revkin gives a link to the interview which is online at Climate Central. Given Shapiro's expertise, I'd expect that source to be ok as WP:SPS, but even if that's disputed, Revkin has considerable standing and the NYT meets WP:NEWSBLOG standards. Altogether, a view that carries more weight than a a rather ill-informed short opinion piece published in the Calgary Herald. Of course, we presumably want to give suitable weight to press misinformation as well. . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dave, we just report what the sources are saying. In this case, it appears that we would be saying something like, "In the wake of the report several observers in the media and government including [name them] interpreted the report as calling for Paucheri to resign. Shapiro, however, in an interview with [whoever it was], stated that the report was not calling for Paucheri's resignation." Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla, we just find a balanced NPOV of describing what the sources are saying. The issue in the report is the proposal that in future the whole senior leadership of IPCC – not only the chair but the senior co-chairs, in all, about eight or nine people – should serve for a period of only one assessment, press reports said this could be read as implying a call for Paucheri to resign, but Harold Tafler Shapiro, the head of the IAC committee, rejected such interpretations, stating that it was not part of their charter to examine the adequacy of the current leadership, and they had not recommended any change in the director’s position. That's the sequence, and we shouln't put inaccurate misinformation first. . . dave souza, talk 23:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dave, we just report what the sources are saying. If notable media sources and government officials said the report meant that Paucheri should resign, that's what we say. If Shapiro says that's not what they meant, then we add that also. That's called accurate representation of what the sources are saying. That's what we do. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla, we just report what the sources are saying, as stated above, taking care to avoid undue weight and the BLP violation you seem to be angling for. Pachauri wasn't asked by this review to resign, and misinterpretation by the press shouldn't be given undue weight. Please take more care over this. . . dave souza, talk 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation? I think the policy you're really looking for here is NOT NEWS. Now that Shapiro has made it clear that they weren't calling for his resignation, the calls for him to resign may disappear. If so, then it may not be notable enough in the long run to mention it. If the calls for his resignation by major media or public figures continues however, based on the IAC report, then we'll need to report what the sources are saying. By the way, was the conflict of interest discussion in the IAC report related to the allegations against Paucheri, or were they related to chief editors recommending inclusion of their own work in the IPCC reports, or both, or neither? Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Myles Allen

Myles Allen gives his view about the longer term developments. . dave souza, talk 07:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Source request

T. O'Riordan (1997). "Review of Climate Change 1995 – Economic and Social Dimension". Environment 39 (9): 34–39.

Can anyone find this article? I can't seem to locate it, and we don't even seem to have an article on the journal it was supposedly published in. NW (Talk) 03:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to post a note on GregJackP's talk page. He may have it Minor4th 04:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This [6] suggests it may be in "environment and planning a" (but that can't be because the volume numbers don't fit: http://www.envplan.com/allvols.cgi?journal=A). Mind you this [7] Tol paper says just "environment". R Tol is User:Rtol so you could ask him. Only 2 google scholar hits are to cites in Tol papers, so maybe Tol got the ref wrong? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

O'Riordan, Timothy (1997). "Economic and Social Dimensions". Environment. 39 (9). Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor & Francis Ltd: 34–39. ISSN 0013-9157. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help), "Unfortunately, involving these parties in the preparation of the final report politicized the whole IPCC process" (at p. 35), "many of the equity assessments and the highly controversial cost-benefit analyses" (at p. 35), and "This particular dispute lay at the heart of the outcry that followed the release of the early drafts" (at p. 38). The source both generally and specifically supports the statement it is cited for. GregJackP Boomer! 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Greg. Minor4th 15:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Doing further research, there may be a prob with Ebscohost. It shows a UK journal, but the ISSN points to the St Louis journal on WorldCat, so I don't have a clue which one is accurate. It could be the publisher is based out of the UK and actually publishes it in St Louis. Anyway, I was able to read the article. GregJackP Boomer! 15:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A CONVENIENT LIE

I have found actual proof of the corruption in the form of an IPCC report showing the changes made after government consultation. Anyone wishing to see my full debunking of the latest IPCC documents email me at "pahgcdt@hotmail.com".

In short, the IPCC cannot claim to be a scientific body as long as government has input into the decision making process. There is no good reason for government review and feedback during the generation of a scientific report. The attached document shows, government has no fewer than two opportunities to influence IPCC reports as they are created.

"I have found examples of a Summary [For Policy Makers] saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said," - South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, an IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

"The IPCC's editors could - and often did - reject the peer-reviewer's comments, a reversal of the normal practice in scientific peer-review." - Climate data analyst John McLean after reviewing the documents of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I.

"…it would not be surprising if working scientists would make special efforts to support the global warming hypothesis. There is ample evidence that this is happening on a large scale.... Data that challenges the hypothesis are simply changed. In some instances, data that was thought to support the hypothesis is found not to, and is then changed." - MIT Climatologist Richard Lindzen

"These [IPCC] Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts." - Physical chemist Dr. Peter Stilbs, chairman of the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm

More than 31,478 US scientists have signed a mail-in petition rejecting global warming as part of the Global Warming Petition Project,26 including 9,029 scientists with PhDs. Additionally, a minority report from the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has released a list of over 700 scientists rejecting global warming. This list is perhaps more significant because it includes biographies from the scientists as well as specific quotes. The list includes many current and former IPCC members as well as several Nobel Prize winners.

The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report states that of the nine variables that affect climate change, they have a "low" to "med" level of scientific understanding for seven, and only a "high" level for two. It is with this data that they program their 16 computer models. The IPCC's current stated level of confidence in their conclusions would not be enough to warrant scientific publication on other subjects.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies.

"Are there other possibilities to explain the temperature increase of the last 40 years? Yes! Current warming is consistent with the 300 year trend. Changes in solar activity could explain much of it. Then there is the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere 'hot’' zone that is supposed to exist over the tropics. Temperature measurements show that the hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!" - Steven M. Japar, PhD atmospheric chemist who worked on the IPCC's Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports.

"Even doubling or trebling (tripling) the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." - Geoffrey G. Duffy, professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ, who has published 218 journal, peer-reviewed papers and conference papers.

In 2007 a British court ruled that if Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was shown in schools the students would also have to be presented with nine factual errors in the movie.

The IPCC is driven by politics and is not an objective scientific body. Its conclusions are untrustworthy. There is still scientific debate about global warming. Computer climate models are unreliable. Earth's temperature has been warmer in the past. It is not hotter than normal. Changes in energy from the sun drive climate change on Earth, not carbon dioxide. Therefore, global warming has not yet been proven.

PAH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.44.51 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this news. Unfortunately, your publication does not meet the standards required by WP:SOURCES policy. You are of course welcome to propose improvements to the article based on suitable reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 08:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I noticed a trend in this section where the lede for example is a rebuttal to criticism (somewhat odd??) and the paragraphs that are positioned as "global warming skeptical" all contain rebuttals that are equal in size to the criticisms themselves, or larger. In contrast, paragraphs within the section that take the position the the IPCC underestimates, or understates the global warming effects and dangers seem to have none of the previously mentioned rebuttals? It seems to smell of NPOV 207.81.141.208 (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)