Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

UN

I really don't get it...IS the IPCC actually part of the UN or not? this article doesn't make it clear.72.80.193.114 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Of course the IPCC is part of the UN. Wikipedians who maintain alerts on these sorts of articles, do not want to make this clear because the likely result will be a beat-down of epic proportion. Why? Because since the IPCC's and Al Gore's winning of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Wikipedian's on these sorts of articles have been working overtime to keep anyone who disagrees with IPCC assessments, down on the farm, so to speak. This will get exponentially harder when the full IPCC fifth assessment comes out. As it is, the fifth IPCC report has been leaking like a sieve, likely leaked by overly political IPCC and UN types. Art Buchwald wrote what should be required reading, 'Washington Is Leaking', on this propensity for political types to leak like a sieve in order to cover their behinds when the stuff hits the fan. Happens all the time 10stone5 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned it in the intro. Int21h (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

I have some comments on the lead:

1. UNFCCC: I do not like the current description of the UNFCCC. I do not think a description of the UNFCCC is necessary since there is a separate article on the UNFCCC.
2. Peer review: The assertion that the IPCC's work is mostly based on peer-reviewed sources is inaccurate, see IAP (p.16).
3. IPCC advice: The lead states that "Governments have been slow to implement the [IPCC's] advice." This is misleading. The IPCC does not make policy recommendations. Rather, it provides a descriptive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of policy options available to governments.

Enescot (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(1) I disagree and think the UNFCCC descriptor needs to be expanded, because if A=B and B=C then A=C. That's what we have here. We should say

The IPCC produces reports that support the UNFCCC treaty's objective to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". IPCC reports cover "the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." (cite what is currently reference #4).

(2) A. 86% for WG1 certainly qualifies for "mostly", at least for WG1. B. That assessment was of the TAR - do we have any clue about AR4 or AR5?

(3) Fair point on policy requiring just some wordsmithing. We might say "Despite the IPCC reports, gov'ts have been slow to adopt policies designed to avoid dangerous climate change." And of course, RSs for that are abundant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

(1) I agree with your suggested text.

(2) I don't know if there's been more recent research on the 4th and 5th IPCC assessments. In my opinion, it would be better to revise the lead text to match IPCC guidelines on non-peer-reviewed sources (p.6), e.g.,:

The IPCC bases its assessments on the published literature, including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.

More detail can be provided in the later section on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#Scope and preparation of the reports

The responsibility of the lead authors of IPCC reports is to assess available information about climate change based on published sources. According to IPCC guidelines, authors should give priority to peer-reviewed sources (p.6). Authors may refer to non-peer-reviewed sources (the "grey literature"), provided that they are of sufficient quality. Examples of non-peer-reviewed sources include model results, reports from government agencies and non-governmental organizations, and industry journals (ref: IAP report cited previously).

(3) I don't agree. In my view, this article should focus on the IPCC's work. There already are other articles on climate change policies, e.g., UNFCCC, climate change mitigation.

The IPCC is quite clear in stating that defining "dangerous anthropogenic interference" requires value judgements [1]. The assertion that governments have been "slow" to implement necessary policies is a value judgement. It is also somewhat contrary to the more neutral tone adopted in the IPCC's top-level summaries, e.g., [2] ("notable achievements of the UNFCCC...").

Enescot (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(1)&(2) Agreed.

(3) I agree to temporarily not object, though I think the prose should link to the fruits of its labors. However, there's enough editing cleanup to do before WG1 is official Jan 30 so I can agree to put my opinion on this point in abeyance for now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Section on "Responses and criticisms"

I've read through the introduction to the section on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#Responses and criticisms.

1. In my view, the "and criticisms" does not need to be included in the section's title. Criticisms of the IPCC are a response to it. Additionally, most authoritative sources have actually endorsed the IPCC's work, rather than criticizing it. I think that the later section titled "Endorsements of the IPCC" should be merged into the "responses" section.
2. The section states:

"Various criticisms have been raised, both about the specific content of IPCC reports, as well as about the process undertaken to produce the reports. Most scientific experts consider that the content issues are relatively minor [followed by supporting reference]"

The sentence "Most scientific experts consider that the content issues are relatively minor" is inaccurate. There have been many commentaries on the IPCC's work. The supporting reference only refers to an endorsement relating to some of these comments. For example, it does not address comments on the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers, IPCC projections of sea level rise [3] [4], or the IPCC's economic assessments of climate change (e.g., see [5] and [6].

Enescot (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

1. I suggest that the statement by 250+ US experts either be (a) revised and moved to the "Responses to AR4" section of the article, or (b) moved to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report sub-article. My own preference is for (b), since there are already authoritative endorsements of AR4's conclusions contained in this article.

2. As I can see, there are three summaries of the InterAcademy Council's (IAC) review of IPCC contained in the following sections of the article:

(a) The introduction to the "Responses and criticisms"

(b) "Proposed organizational overhaul" sub-section of "Responses and criticisms"

(c) "InterAcademy Council review"

This information all overlaps and should be collated. I think that (a) can be removed. (b) contains some information unrelated to the IAC review, which should be kept. I think that (c) should be kept as the summary of the IAC review.

Enescot (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Chapter 8 Controversy

the wiki page "Chapter 8 controversy" leads here but in this page there is no mention of it, nor of the criticism and the letter made by Friedrich Seitz. How so?

please refer to: http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/Seitz%20-%20A%20Major%20Deception%20on%20Global%20Warming.pdf and to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz#See_also

- Ale from Rome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.12.21 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. That link is dead. You can find the information at IPCC Second Assessment Report#Chapter 8. Enescot (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done I fixed the redirect to point to the more relevant page. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Social Science

I removed the ozone section because there's no obvious connection to the IPCC. It's a 14-year-old case study from a single source, and not notable enough for a whole segment here. I also removed the comments from Curry's blog - Hulme's opinion seems notable, but Curry's comment on Hulme seems a bit much, especially when it's sourced to a blog. Guettarda (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

And Elzinga - I can't figure out why it's worth citing a book to say that the IPCC process was a "global attempt to find and orchestrate the findings of global (climate) change research". How else would they have carried out their mandate? Guettarda (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• William M. Connolley has erased the Comparision with the Ozone Layer Challenge and is about to erase Judith Curry, since he doubts her blog being a valid source and Guettarda doubts Elzinga notability.

• Elzingas study was already in the 90ties and is one of the first studies to deal with the IPCC from a sociology standpoint. So he's in for historical reasons. If User:Guettarda has a believe in TINA politics, so be it, but alternatives would have been - as shown by the Ozone case, to have three scientists alone deal with similar strong industry resistance and give them a Nobel Prize after they nevertheless succeeded in having regulation installed, and not before. The ozone case took much less time between finding the problem and addressing it, regulation happened long bevore the (science) consensus was established. It is stated at Grundmann as well that IPCC global approach does somwhat neglect regional gains and losses. Grundmann assumes therefore that the (global) consensus approach used by the IPCC is hampering actual climate regulation to happen where it belongs, on the local government level. Btw, thats an approach shared by e.g. the Roger Pielkes and Hans von Storch.
• Curry: Sorry for you, but Curry calls, in a peer reviewed journal (CAB Reviews) as of 2013 the consensus being "manufactured" and doubts the ‘expert judgments’ about confidence levels by the IPCC as being dominated by unquantifiable uncertainties. I have quoted Hulmes similar critical assessments along her blog, however Hulmes original is online as well.
• With regard to the Ozone layer comparision, I agree that one might shorten the entry. But its out of question to dare to call a study on important IPCC aspects by a sociologist dealing with the sociology of climate change a "minor report". Thats research which was published in a major book about finding solutions for complex problems published by the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies. According the scholar, Grundmann, the architects of the IPCC took the Ozone layer example as base of the unified reporting and science assessement and used establishing a broad and international science consensus as base of authority towards policy makers. But the IPCC failed to solve the burden-sharing conflicts between different world regions and were not able or to come up with effective solution proposals beyound a set of mimimum goals. The ozone dispute was settled BEFORE a scientific consensus was found, its was just three scientists (not more, but the trio got the 1995 Nobel prize in chemistry) which identified the Ozone layer problem AND which suggested feasible case by case solutions for the policy makers. Grundmann speculates as well that since 2000 the "armistice", as it had been built up with the IPCC consensus work process before, has then been broken and an open scientific controversy is seemingly at hand since. The aim for consensus, Grudmann suggests, has not helped but hampered the IPCC to get its message accross. The paragraph contains crucial points about the larger picture of the IPCC successes and failures and belongs in the article. Serten (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the ozone layer comparison belongs here. The comparison, if one makes it, is between ozone and gw. Not ozone and ipcc. I think that's a useful comparison to make, but I'm not sure your text helps. Your author is certainly wrong to assert that the IPCC failed to solve the problem, since it wasn't theirs to solve. The observation that the ozone stuff was acted on politically at a level of scientific certainty far lower that that currently existing for GW is a point that many people make; but again, doesn't belong here. It might belong in politics of GW William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the politics of GW should contain some of the comparision. You and Guettarda more or less say, that the IPCCs mandates wasn't about e.g. regional issues, so no need to bother. However the chapter in the Max Planck book is not only about AGW versus Ozone, but about the capabilities of modern societies top cope with problems and it insofar uses the government dealings with the ozone layer protection issue as benchmnark for the IPCC, verbal quote google based translation of the summary at the max Planck site:(the book is about) how social self-regulation and governance influence the dynamics of development of modern societies and what problem-solving ability and democratic legitimacy of various forms of institutional control (governance) have. The authors who have influenced the relevant discussion in political science and sociology relevant, analyze different theoretical emphases the actor-related, institutional and structural conditions of collective action in complex societies. That said, the Grundmann chapter is valuable science and is dealing with the question, wether the IPCC mandate and basic architecture was a suitable and effective one. And based on the comparision with the Ozone layer Grundmann is of opinion that the IPCC didnt receive the right means for that very problem, will say the mandate was not a good one. While the Ozone layer problem was addressed properly, while the IPCC consensus process is - in comparision - a failure with regard to actual policy, which has its background in the mandate! In so far it belongs in the article. Feel free to come up with a wording suggestion. Serten (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about regional issues. I haven't even mentioned that. As to the rest, just because someone has written something about the IPCC, that doesn't mean it belongs in this article. People write many things that we inevitably don't include William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Right. However, as said, its not just someone, its valid research about the basic features and mandate of the IPCC. If you don't get the point about regional issues - try http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/main-conclusions-2/ PS.: I dont agree with a "we", as long as you seem to deny science not suiting your POV. Serten (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you directing me at Pielke? You said "You and Guettarda more or less say, that the IPCCs mandates wasn't about e.g. regional issues", I'm saying that I haven't mentioned regional issues. How can whatever Pielke may say be relevant? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I had used the point I as refering to your claims my sources being not relevant or shared by others. The contrary is the case. That the IPCC global mandate is not helpful for the needed regional climate assessement is an important finding in the max Planck book chapter and in as well in line with findings of high cited scholars. The IPCC reports do to take Pielke serious, as for his studies about landuse patterns of relevance being important got into chapter 11 (AFOLU, not banking ;)) and had an impact on the wording of central parts of the summary for policymakers (quote: "The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change" - the latter is quite regional). Your fixed opinion is your private issue, but I would prefer if you read the actual IPCC reports now and then and use a more respectful tone for a scientist with a say there. Serten (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

He's right William, we really should be more respectful to people whose work is cited in Chapter 11 of the IPCC report. Those people must be treated with deference. And the people with two cited papers? Those people should probably be treated like gods! Guettarda (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Lay your burnt offerings before me, that you may yet live. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Verbatim copying problems

(edit conflict)I have removed what's left because it includes verbatim copying from the original source, without quotes and close paraphrasing. For example

Serten's version:

the drive for consensus within the IPCC process, and the public marketing of the authority of the consensus, has becomes a source of weakness rather than of strength.[7]

Hulme's original:

The drive for consensus within the IPCC process, and its subsequent public marketing, has becomes a source of scientific weakness rather than of scientific strength in the turbulent social discourses on climate change.[8]

Serten:

Hulme therefore recommends for the future IPCC process to include ways of accommodating dissenting or minority positions to have a better correlation between scientific evidence and public policymaking

Hulme:

The relationship between scientific evidence and public policymaking is sufficiently underdetermined to warrant large-scale assessments such as the IPCC finding multiple ways of accommodating dissenting or minority positions. They would be the more authoritative for doing so.

[Emphasis added] Guettarda (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Guettarda, you have used the claims about the statements of Hume, which were quoted and assigned to HUme, as it should be to erase the complete section, which were not at all about Hume. You have completely erased the complete entry, after Connelley reverted one paragraph some minutes ago. As this page is under a 1 revert rule restriction due to the climate change topic community probation, youre to abide not to make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period or you may be blocked from editing for a short period. Thats a breach of the article probation and I insofar ask a sysop to block you for a short time ot give you a clear warning at least. Furthermore the claims about coattrrack and blogging is irrelevant, youre erasing valid content based on scientific sources of high standing. Better revert yourself. Serten (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

More problems (managed to track down the source for the Curry bit, which was incorrectly linked to a completely different post on her blog) Serten:

Climatologist Judith Curry refers to the complexity of the climate problem and doubts the ‘expert judgments’ about confidence levels by the IPCC as being dominated by unquantifiable uncertainties.

Curry & Webster

Given the complexity of the climate problem, ‘expert judgments’ about uncertainty and confidence levels are made by the IPCC on issues that are dominated by unquantifiable uncertainties.Word File, downloads automatically

(Note the use of curly quotes in both versions.)

Serten: She acknowledges the existence of the IPCC consensus findings but assumes it does not help awarding substance to the conclusions. Curry & Webster:

... however, this argument leads to the conclusion that the consensus building process employed by the IPCC does not lend intellectual substance to their conclusions.

[Emphasis added] Guettarda (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have fully assigned the statements in question to her. In the length in question, one could have used as well verbatim quotes. Therefore a copyright infringement is out of the question. I regret youre wikilawyering and you dont discuss content. You need your pause, it seams. Serten (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC) CR infringements are related to a certain Threshold of originality and length, You claim verbatim, but you provide short statements fully assigned to the external authors. If youre prefering another wording, its awiki and you may change it. I interprete your claims as a WP:COATTRACK to delay the expansion of the article with real science findings, the claims do not allow for erasing the complete section. I ask to restore it, if some rewording and improvements are being added I see my legal rights as n author not being infringed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten (talk • contribs)

In conjunction with your careful reading of Wikipedia:Copyright violations you need to look at WP:NLT. Guettarda (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Dont misunderstand me on purpose. Point is, the stuff was reworded and doesnt belong in an extra section but is a part of the IPCC processes. I prefer less Baron Lawson of Blaby, and more about structural elements of the IPCC processes. Serten (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Conservative" vs. "inaccurate"

New user Goglognio has repeatedly changed "Conservative" to "Inaccurate". I can easily find sources for "conservative" (which, in this context, is taken to mean "cautious", "understated") [9]. I have a hard time finding "inaccurate" as an overall characterisation of the reports in reliable sources. Any opinions? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit was supposedly based on a summary of the section, but this uses the words underestimate and understated, not "inaccurate" which has a different meaning. If the heading's to change, it could perhaps be ok as "Understatement in IPCC reports" but am unconvinced a change is needed. . dave souza, talk 06:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate removes information and confuses it with other areas of the report. Conservative is the better word. Dmcq (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

'United Nations' is a name

'United Nations' is a name, not a description. 'International Business Machines' is another example of a name (as opposed to a description). The expression 'the United Nations' is therefore confused language, like it also would be mistaken to refer to IBM as 'the International Business Machines'.

It would improve the language of this article if United Nations were properly referred to by using its name as just that, a name. That is to say one should avoid referring to UN as 'the United Nations', and simply refer to it as 'United Nations'. --62.16.186.44 (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)