Discussion

NPOV

The "Reaction" and "Exclusions" sections are biased against the IPCC's findings. The content must stay, but it is necessary to discuss in more detail both those who agree with the report and those who dispute it.

I would also question whether it is necessary to split out the "Exclusions" section. This could be added into the 'Against' section of the "Reaction" heading.

Also, the comment on Exxon Mobil needs to be refined. Exxon Mobil is not the only party which funds the AEI. I feel that the use of a quote directly from an article is an attempt to weasel out of looking biased. 58.28.134.163 12:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue of "Big Oil" funding anti-green "research" needs to be discussed. That Exxon Mobil through the AEI got caught red handed trying to buy scientific opinion is very important. The Guardian quote should be ballanced with a rebutal/ explanation of what they were doing if they have done that. Hypnosadist 14:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be mentioned there are legit scientists who disagree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming by cause of greenhouse gases. -b 15:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try and find it and you will see its not so "legit", a few (less than 10) scientists dispute the Extent of Globalwarming as shown in this report OR whether it impacts their subject (tornados etc), thats it. But any legitamate criticism should be added if its notable.Hypnosadist 15:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said that "That Exxon Mobil through the AEI got caught red handed trying to buy scientific opinion is very important". I think it is only important if they succeeded. Did they? Just because someone is "buying" that doesn't necessarily mean anyone is selling. I think the fact that the Guardian was unable to come up with any examples of anyone actually saying anything that wasn't true in order to get Exxon money is also quite telling. --Lee Vonce 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it tells me $10,000 is not enough to buy an Honest scientist and that makes me very happy. The problem i have is with the AEI trying to Buy scientific opinion in order to protect its corperate funders, at the risk of millions of LIVES! Hypnosadist 15:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritative?

User:Lee Vonce make an edit removing the word "authoritative" from the article. I'm sure that it was made in good faith, and he raises a good point. Does that word belong here? Is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an authoritative source? I believe it is, but I will admit I am biased here (hence I am not editing the article). Nemilar 17:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because I don't believe that it is necessary or appropriate to insert an opinion in the middle of an article that should concentrate on reporting facts. The contents of the report are facts. Whether or not the IPCC is "authoritative" or not, is an opinion. I'm not saying they aren't authoritative. I'm saying what whether or not they are, it isn't really relevant here. If this article were about the debate surrounding the issue of anthropogenic climate change, then the relative authoritativeness of the IPCC would be a valid issue to raise and discuss. I'm sure the issue is discussed on the article about the IPCC, though I admittedly haven't read it yet. I just don't see how it belongs here. Fair enough? --Lee Vonce 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree. At the same time, I'm not sure that the question of the IPPC's "authoritativeness" isn't relative - it's vital information to the reader, and lends to the relative importance (or unimportance) of the report. I've been looking through policies (I'm new to being an editor) and the most applicable thing I can find is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Thanks for the explanation! Nemilar 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yeah, I agree, the facts should speak for themselves. It isn't for the author of an article to tell the reader what to think about the subject but what the facts are. Then the reader can decide for themselves. I would disagree that the question of the relative authority of the IPCC is "vital information" though. Whether the report is important or not isn't for an encyclopedia to say. It is for us to describe the content of the report, perhaps how the report came to be written, who wrote it... things like that. Whether or not the report is "important" is a personal opinion. If some notable person expresses an opinion on the importance of the report, then that might be worth including in the article. But for an editor to make an arbitrary judgement and say that the report is or isn't important would be outside the scope of his/her authority. Think of a newspaper and picture the difference between what is written on the front page compared to what is written on the editorial pages. --Lee Vonce 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to chime in with my endorsement of this strictly facts-based view. It's heartening to see people who seem to understand the Wikipedia:Neutrality policy so well, since it is badly misconstrued in other places. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let the so called facts speak for themselves. Stop injecting bias into every freaking article on Wikipedia. Just regurgitate the numbers and move on to your Manga, fringe charity, or whatever it is you all do. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yes this is authoritative, in fact there has probably been no more an authoritative scientific document in history. People who do not know the level of experience of each of the 600+ experts and the years of study need to be made aware of how much scientific wieght this document has. Hypnosadist 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That 600+ experts worked on the report is a fact. The individual scientific backgrounds of each of them is also factual information. The question of whether or not the document or the IPCC is "authoritative" is a matter of opinion. There are many reputable scientists who feel that the IPCC is a hopelessly biased organization more interested in promoting their political views than in getting at the truth. Their opinion is no less valid than those scientists who feel that the IPCC is the "gold standard" of climate science. --Lee Vonce 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this intergovernmental panel should be called "widely cited" or even "widely regarded as authoritative". However, the IPCC conducts no research of its own. It collects and synthesizes the work of scientists and issues periodic reports, parts of which have been criticized for political bias by S. Fred Singer, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, and others. --Uncle Ed 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, another round of the usual wars. How dull. At the moment the article sez National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative which is pretty well the wording Ed asked for. If LV thinks "many" people think the IPCC is wrong about the science, then he should provide the evidence; it looks like the std false-balance otherwise William M. Connolley 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the charge to not engage in speculation is quite significant. Much could have been said that was not if that prohibition had not been followed. Fred Bauder 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Level Rise

I believe that the discussion of sea level rise in this article is a bit too short. While it is true that the new report does give this range of numbers, this is for a specific calculation - which excludes the contribution of melting ice off Antarctica and Greenland. These were excluded for good reasons - no one really knows how to predict the rate at which they will melt or the dynamics of the melting. In other words, the actual sea level rise, including all effects, could be considerably worse. It's pretty hard to imagine that it could be significantly better. The authors of the report made this clear, but it has gotten confused in the media - and in this article.

See here, for example: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/

Mgolden 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was taking a look at the numbers here, and they seem to really oversimplify what the SPM is saying. I'll try and take a crack at it and see if I can come up with something better reflecting the AR4 SPM. --Codemonkey 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it, but I was wondering if someone could take a look at something related. Before my edits, the article mentioned the range of 28 - 43 cm, which is also what a lot of news reports say. Maybe my eyes are glazing over it, but I can't quite find that range anywhere in the SPM. Anyone else willing to take a look, see if I'm missing anything? The only 28 cm I can find is the sum of individual climate contributions to sea level rise for 1993-2003, Table SPM-0. And the only 43 cm I can find is the top level estimate for sea level rise in 2090-2099 for midlevel scenario B2, Table SPM-2. I really have a feeling I'm missing something here, so someone help me out here. --Codemonkey 09:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I was being stupid, and missed the super obvious because I'm tired. 28 is of course right in the middle of the 18 to 38 range for the low scenario, and 43 is right in the middle of the 26 to 59 cm range for the high scenario. Mystery solved. I need to get some sleep... --Codemonkey 10:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

I took he Landsea stuff out of "reaction" - "reaction" to means reaction to the published SPM; since Landsea was quite some time ago that seems inappropriate. If L subsequently comments on the SPM that would be different.

I also took the "exclusions" bit out, since it seems rather trivial, and is sourced to the highly partisan Inhofe who is not reliable.

William M. Connolley 15:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might not belong in the "Reaction" section; I don't disagree with you there. However, it should be in the article, so I'll create a "Criticism" section and include it there. In due course I'll try to expand the criticism section to include some more statements of this kind. We wouldn't want anyone to think that this article wasn't objective. --Lee Vonce 16:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't objective be giving equal time to each of the thousands of climate scientists? Why does only the one who objects over a minor point (but agrees with the main findings) get a paragraph? Sad mouse 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're not suggesting that Landsea is the only scientist who has problems with the FAR or the IPCC in general. This article needs a criticism section and Landsea's objections are certainly noteworthy. In time, I'm sure the objections of others will be added. --Lee Vonce 14:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries?

Is there a list of those 46 countries that have agreed to take action against global warming? 75.39.69.246 23:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, good question. What I've been able to find is that what they are pushing for is a "UN Environmental Organisation" or UNEO, which is supposed to be an upgraded version of the now current "UN Environmental Programme" or UNEP. I'll see if I can find something more firm than the now linked news story on this, and rewrite that section a bit. --Codemonkey 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crit section removed

I just rewrote the crit section as:

Dr. Chris Landsea withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report long before it was finalised, citing concerns that the IPCC had become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns. He has stated that he feels the Fourth Assessment Report to be "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and "scientifically unsound".^[1]; however Roger Pielke who originally published Landseas letter says that the actual report "maintain[s] consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts" [1]

but then thought that was so weak it was better removed, which I've done. Surely there must be better crit available that a years-old walk out based on something that turned out to be wrong? William M. Connolley 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the right decision. Just in case someone is interested, I made corrections to reflect more some of the actual quotes from Landsea, before the section was removed: Dr. Chris Landsea withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report citing concerns that the IPCC had become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns. The conflict centers around Dr. Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to "recent hurricane activity", which Landsea described as a "misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC". He has stated that he feels the Fourth Assessment Report to be "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and "scientifically unsound". Landsea writes that "the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author"Touisiau

I'm going to put the criticism section back. There's no reason to remove it. I'm sure no attempt to censor criticism of the report was intended. But someone of a more cynical nature might interpret deletions of criticism as such, particularly when the criticism comes from an eminent scientist like Dr. Landsea. I'll use T's version since WMC's version omits some key points. Also, to address a point raised by WMC, it doesn't matter when Dr. L chose to distance himself from the report. The fact is that he did and despite what others may claim about the state of the science, Dr. L has not retracted his statement. --Lee Vonce 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this deserves deleting, for the reasons I've given. Landseas crit is not of the report itself, but of something more obscure. He hasn't seen fit (AFAIK) to crit the actual report; and Pielke, who is an expert in this area and colleague of L, approves of it. Your snide remarks about censorship don't help, especially as you seem to have indulged in some yourself William M. Connolley 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you feel that Landsea's statements that the process of creating the report was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and "scientifically unsound" don't amount to criticism of "the actual report"? I'll do you the courtesy of ignoring your incivil remarks but, in the interests of clarification, can you point me to the examples of censorship in which you think I have engaged? --Lee Vonce 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chris landsea quote must remain in for NPOV reasons until better criticism is available (ie its going to be here a while).Hypnosadist 15:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You (LV) took out the piece I added about RP liking the report. You seem remarkably sensitive to criticism, given your own use of language. Landsea hadn't seen the actual report when he made those comments, of course, so they aren't a crit of the report. Since then he has had a chance to crit the report if he wants to, and hasn't. I find the idea that we need this, because we have nothing better, rather weak William M. Connolley 15:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, ignoring your incivility, the report is an inseparable part of the process - it is the final result of the process. L's criticism was of the process and this includes the conclusions in the report. You're apparently proceeding on the assumption that the information in the report didn't exist until the report was actually written. Also, my problem isn't with criticism but with your inserting your own views and opinions into the article. --Lee Vonce 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the Landsea section is appropriate per undue weight and it really being a notable enough criticism on the report proper, but I'll let the rest of you fight that out. However, the Pielke section that is there is kind of useless; half conjecture (Landseas departure was in 2005, well before the publication of the report, and threfore was not based on the actual contents of the report. The actual content of the report does not seem to have caused any problems.) and half an expressed opinion that is tied in a tangential way to the original expressed opinion without having any explicit to tie to Landsea or in any other way purporting to speak for the man. I don't think it should be there. --Codemonkey 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is useless conjecture. I removed it before. Has it found its way back in? (quick check of the article)... (sigh) It is back. --Lee Vonce 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... if you can think of a better way of expressing the fact that L hadn't seen the report before leaving, and hasn't expressed any crit of the report itself, please feel free to reword it. But without balance the section is not tolerable, since just the first para insinuates that L *is* criticising the report, which if course he isn't William M. Connolley 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to reword it. It conveys no factual information, merely the opinions of the person who wrote the words, which is to say... you. Landsea was criticizing the process of which the report is an inseparable part. To argue that he wasn't criticizing the report because it wasn't published until after he left is madness. He was criticizing the process that created the contents of the report. For the purposes of this discussion, the process and the report are one and the same. --Lee Vonce 22:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the process and report are very different. The report is a concrete object that we can all read. The process most of us know little about. Landsea knows little about it since he walked out at a very early stage, probably before the first draft was done. Landsea, I'm sure, has been phoned up by numerous reporters since the SPM came out, precisely because of his walk out. So where are his comments? Ah... here they are Landsea told Cybercast News Service his primary concern was with how lead authors representing the IPCC were interacting with the public and the media. [2] - which is to say, not with the actual report text at all William M. Connolley 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separating science from guesswork

On page 7 of the 21 page "Summary for Policymakers", the report states that their conclusions as to the likelihood over certain trends - specifically, the "Warm spells/heat waves, increased rainfall, intense tropical cyclone activity increases and the increased incidence of extreme high sea levels - are not based on any formal science but rather on the guesswork of experts. I used more neutral language in the body of the article, but I think it is vitally important to distinguish between conclusions that are the result of actual research and those claims being supported by the "because we say so, that's why" argument. --Lee Vonce 14:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my attempt to report the fact that parts of the FAR are based on guesswork rather than research are being deleted without any explanation. I'm still waiting for one. In future, please write the explanation BEFORE you revert. I'll remove the questionable stats in the meantime. --Lee Vonce 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, because it was worded poorly, and misrepresented and misunderstood what the SPM is saying. To address the paragraph I deleted (sorry I took so long to write this up, and sorry if any of it is a bit rambling; kinda tired atm):

However, the report notes that the "[m]agnitude of anthropogenic contributions" to these trends were "not assessed"

"These trends" that are mentioned in the WG1 SPM article section now are the future projections, based most directly on the "Projections of Future Changes in Climate" section and derived from SRES scenarios. See sentences like "It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent." and "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs." This is accurately reflected in the article's summary at this point. (Though some of the SRES projections are summarized in the SPM-1 table, third column.)

The page 7 sentence you're referring to is "(f) Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies." Which is about magnitude of an anthropogenic factor in an observed trend in the past, and the way you worded it, it would only be accurate if what came before it was referring to the observed trend in the past (which it isn't, it's referring to future projections). And even if the "trends" mentioned right before it were past trends, your write up of point f would still be inaccurate. (1) It is only referring to the events marked with f, and the distinction isn't made properly, (2) it fails to properly make clear the distinction of magnitude of human contribution assessment and likelihood of human contribution assessment (which should be clear with the full table and full footnote, but not in your paraphrasing), and (3) it would still confuse the likelihood of the occurrence of the trend in the past, and the likelihood of human contributions (which are two distinct things that, again, should be clear from the full table, but not in your write up).

and that conclusions as to the likelihood of many of these events (e.g. increasing heat waves, heavy precipitation, storm activity and sea level) were not drawn from formal attribution studies but rather based on informal conclusions drawn by some of the researchers.

This is completely wrong. conclusions on likelihood of future trends were drawn from SRES scenarios primarily. It is "likelihood of a human contribution to observed trend" that you're thinking of, and even there saying "informal conclusions drawn by some of the researchers" is misrepresenting the report which states it was "based on expert judgement". --Codemonkey 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. I agree with what you're saying about the difference between past trend and future trends. I would still like to point out that they're placing too much faith in guesswork - but that's just my personal opinion. I'm sorry, but "expert judgement" is just a euphemism for "guesswork" - it is an appeal to authority dressed up in academic robes. It doesn't impress me. Thanks for being civil though. Perhaps WMC will learn from your example. Is he always like this? --Lee Vonce 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope Lee it is Authority! You would be guessing, they are using their years of experience.Hypnosadist 19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A guess is still a guess. Einstein himself could be making the guesses and they would still be guesses. --Lee Vonce 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on user "Lee Vonce" modifying actual quotes from the report: vandalism ?

Please stop modifying actual quotes from the report, notably those on carbon dioxyde and methane. This can be called vandalizing. Touisiau 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they'd been identified as actual quotes, I wouldn't have changed them. I though it was just bad writing. I've fixed the format though, and it meets with your approval. As an aside, you shouldn't be so quick to suspect or assume vandalism. What happened to "good faith"? --Lee Vonce 16:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changing "exceeds by far" to "exceeds" is not a problem of "bad writing". It's a problem of modifying the report to reflect your own opinion. Touisiau 17:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a question of bad writing. The phrase "by far" is an expression of opinion. In the original version of the article, it wasn't clear that the phrase was a quote from the report and if it had been written by a wiki editor, it would be a perfect example of unacceptable editorial comment. However, since it is an expression of the opinion of the authors of the report on which the article is based, then it is perfectly acceptable to report as such. See the difference? --Lee Vonce 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you write "since it is an expression of the opinion of the authors of the report on which the article is based" .No. This is taken from the exact text of the report. And every word in this report has been carefuly reviewed and aproved by more than 600 experts. See the difference ? Touisiau

The EXACT words are very important and should not be changed in any quote on wikipedia. To do so is vandalism once you know, you now know Lee.Hypnosadist 19:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Originally, the statements weren't identified as quotes. Once they were, I was happy to leave them be. But, to address T's point, it is still bad writing. An opinion is an opinion. It doesn't matter how many people approve it. --Lee Vonce 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement wording nitpicks

The article's description of the report's conclusions states:

The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%
The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%

I'll address the 2nd one (90%) first. Here is the statement from the IPCC SPM (bottom of page 10):

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

The "most of" part of this statement was lost in the Wiki article. The "since the mid-20th century" may not be necessary, since we're attributing cause to the unequivocal fact that global warming is occurring. Occurring is in the present tense, so this is fine. If the statement were that global warming has occurred, I think the temporal context - "since the mid-20th century" would be important.

The 1st statement (the 5% one) is less clear.

Here are the actual IPCC SPM statements, again from page 10.

...it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.

extremely unlikely means <5% very unlikely means <10%

It is unclear to me what the difference between "external forcing" and "not natural causes" is. Even if we assume that 5% is the correct number for the statement being made, I think that it is important to qualify the statement with the use of the word "alone":

"The probability that this is caused by natural climactic processes alone is less than 5%"

In short, the statements together should say that it is >90% than human caused GHGs are mostly responsible for global warming, and that it is <X% that natural causes alone could have done so.

I won't make the edits myself because I'm new to Wikipedia.

Mishlai 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) The article statement: "Based on a model that excludes ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature,[6] it is estimated that sea level rise will be:"

implies that these conclusions were based on "a model", singular. Sea level rise estimates were based on an analysis of multiple models running the six different scenarios.

2) Additionally, I'm concerned that no reference is made to the (as I understand it) widely accepted opinion that these missing and not understood ice flows will likely make sea level rises worse than the report projects.

This quote:

"Hays: Right. What happened with this report is that the model projections we know don’t fully take into account the melting of the ice that we are seeing. And I think that the report dealt with this issue in a very a satisfactory way in that it reported the projections that the models have put out—and I should note that those models now have less certainty than they did in the previous report—but it deals with the fact that this ice is melting at a faster rate than we expected and is not accounted for in the models, by simply stating that. And it states it in the report very clearly and makes it clear that the projections are a baseline, so to speak, that we expect the melting to be greater. "

Is from this interview:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/bbc-ipcc-interview/

Sharon Hays was leader of the U.S. delegate to the talks that generated this IPCC SPM. Is this a strong enough reference to alter the wording or is more required?

Mishlai 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia Mishlai, those are two very good proposed edits and i think you should change the article to that effect. Hypnosadist 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I made most of the changes. Looking for further sources on the higher expected sea levels, and trying to sort out how to word that to convey the meaning without overstatement. Mishlai 03:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

This is a mess, and is suffering from a flurry of edits. I'd like to start the discussion by addressing Lee's recent changes. I'm not picking on you specifically Lee, the quality of this section needs to be improved generally. But I disagree with your recent edits for the most part, and rather than revert I'm starting a discussion.

1) It's appropriate to refer to Romm as an opinion more qualified than that of an "individual". Call him an expert, call him a scientist, whatever. The guy has a PhD in physics, is involved in climate studies, etc.

As an aside, not a criticism of Lee's edit, the whole thing is a piecemeal statement, as there are more people than Romm with that viewpoint. Criticism should perhaps be broken into "the report overstates" and "the report understates" sections.

2) RealClimate is a perfectly appropriate source. It is not merely "a blog", but a blog by climatologists who work in the field in question. The entire point of the RealClimate site is to have a discussion on climate change by people who are actually qualified to discuss it. They make points for and against both sides of the issue, depending on what science demands. It is not a personal blog, and is at least as reliable as a CNN interview of a single climatologist, which would have no problem being cited here. The contributing authors list on the site has more climate scientists that the list of authors on most scientific papers on the subject. In addition, I know that at least one member of RealClimate participated in the IPCC process for AR4, so their website is every bit as credible as Landsea.

3) The statement you deleted didn't say that the full report doesn't contradict Landsea. It said the SPM didn't contradict Landsea, which is absolutely true, and the statement should stand. The SPM also agrees with the joint WMO statement on hurricanes issued last year. All important points since Landsea left the process based on concerns about statements on hurricanes. When we have the full report, the full report can be addressed.

We all need to consider how to coherently represent the reactions and criticisms in an organized and readable fashion. Some people said it went too far, some of people said not far enough. As a unanimously approved consensus statement, most scientists agree with the statements made. Let's just get all that in there and let the facts speak. Mishlai 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is to be an entry using Pielke , it should not misrepresent his position by giving the impression he no longer supports Landsea's concerns and that he has no critism of the report , he does, you just chose to chop it out.

His point is that by careful wording and avoiding using any numbers they have made it less contentious.

He says the tropical storm comments are hypothesis because it is. There is no data showing a link , neither does the report claim that there is.

Also his final concluding comment in the article quoted refers to political influence. This is HIGHLY relevant since it is clearly part of the IPCC defined review process.

As the constant battles in maintaining content here demonstrates there are a lot of less than objective players in the whole process.

This critism section is supposed to add some balance to the entry by indicating SPM, AR4 adn IPCC not unaminous, uncontested scientific TRUTH. It is not supposed to be blow by blow discussion thread of arguements and counter arguements.

Also worth noting Landsea did not refuse to be associated with the latest cycle because he did not agree with some statements on hurricanes in the report. It was because of very misleading statments made to media by a Lead Author presented as representing the IPCC and above all the reaction of IPCC directors to that action.

"political influence" is this academic internal arguements or is this the influence of national governments such as the Saudi's and americans who have tried to hamper this process as much as possible. Hypnosadist 15:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is political influence in all sorts of directions. That is the important point to realise. The IPCC is an INTERGOVERNMENTAL panel with a review process that includes requests for change from any participating (and funding) government. It is not purely scientific.

Our non-signing anon makes some curious edits. [3] adds "expressed his opinion that by some skillful rewording the actual report...". I don't find this text in the article; "skillful rewording" is misleading. Its perfectly clear that Pielke thinks the report is an accurate reflection of the science: Kudos to the scientists involved. Despite the pressures, on tropical cyclones they figured out a way to maintain consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts...; And it is a fair representation of the issue.on the other hand score one for scientific leadership, as the IPCC narrowly avoided a major controversy. So perhaps the process worked after all.. The key point here is, does the SPM agree with expert opinion, or at least, does Pielke perceive that it does? And the clear answer is, yes indeed it does and he does. Adding He adds this is a "hypothesis" and not a "conclusion." to the article appears to be a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters, especially by omitting the next sentence: And it is a fair representation of the issue.. William M. Connolley 17:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what you've delete in one hit here.

1. The header refers to AR4 which is not out yet but you have incorrectly reinstated comments that relate to SPM under this heading which are in any case stated below.

2. I added a link to the actual SMP text (as would be std Wikipedia practice) , you removed the links. You seem to prefer readers accept your interpretation rather than let them have a link to the document.

3. I tried to clarify the difference between AR4 and the summary report. You have reverted this to incorrect information without any explaination.

4. If you prefer the whole paragraph:

So there might be a human contribution (and presumably this is just to the observed upwards trends observed in some basins, and not to downward trends observed in others, but this is unclear) but the human contribution itself has not been quantitatively assessed, yet the experts, using their judgment, expect it to be there. In plain English this is what is called a "hypothesis" and not a "conclusion." And it is a fair representation of the issue.

So , yes, this is very subjective as he points out with quotes from the report and he concludes "hypothesis" and not a "conclusion" is a fair representation of the issue.

He is clearly critical but you chose to read that some other way and misrepresent his position to fit your own beliefs. You want to pull out one sentence to give the impression he sees nothing wrong with SMP and by implication withdraws his earlier support for Landsea's position. This is false.

5. This is the critism section. A lot of his article is critical and highlights contradictions in the report. You also chose to delete direct quotes from the report that highlight these ambiguities.

At this point it would be best if you rename this subsection "How SMP is beyond question, no critismism is valid".

Your blanket removal of all modifications made to all sections of this entry because you do not agree with the Pielke mods is further proof of your lack of objectivity and impartiality. It is just this kind of non-scientific behaviour from those claiming to be scientists that Landsea and Pielke are crying out against. No wonder you are so keen to play down their words.

You are typical of the bigots pretending to be scientific that are undermining the credibility of science itself and with it the enormous volume of thorough , valid research that has been done on the climate recently.

Will you please stop evangelising your own personal beliefs and start acting like the scientist you claim to be.

I will now resubmit some of these changes , one by one , and with due notice of your comments above.

Please provide specific justification for any changes you feel necessary.

Slow down, take some deep breaths. The SPM should definitely be linked. It is appropriate to indicate that Landsea was critical of the process and withdrew. It is also relevant to that the a major reason for his withdrawal was a concern about overstatement of the connection between hurricanes and human activities. It is also, also relevant that the report did not, in the end, overstate this connection. All of that belongs in there. Also also also relevant is that the IPCC statements on hurricanes broadly agree with the joint statement by the WMO.

Criticism of the politcal aspects of the process is also totally appropriate, and this criticism is coming from both sides as hypnosadist alluded.

As for the rest, assume good faith. Everyone is working to make this article as good as it can be. Oh, and sign your posts, por favor. Mishlai 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

totally appropriate, says who ?! Next you will tell me that the UN is not a political body and the national goverments who are funding the IPCC are non political organisations and the review process involving inspection and change requests by goverment officials is purely scientific in nature. I'm sorry but this is nonsense.

I never made any comment on what direction any politics was playing , it is obviously complex. It is a very relevant critisism that there is political pressure and not to pretend the IPCC is some playground for free thinking scientists. It is not.

It's an INTERGOVERNMENTAL beaurocracy. This must have a detremental affect on the science. It's relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.113.77 (talk • contribs)

Almost forgot. The SPM is part of AR4. If the SPM says something, it's appropriate to say that AR4 said it. There is no "AR4" separate from the WGI, WGII, WGIII and SYR reports, and the SPMs are not expected to contradict these main reports. Mishlai 23:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SPM is the article's 1st reference. There's no need for it to be in external links too. Mishlai 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SPM at this time is the sole subject matter here. It should be linked directly upon it's first appearance. The reader should not have to scroll down and scan the refs. This wiki, not a scientific paper.

since it is linked you could drop the ref if you like.

Congratulations on all the hard work and a neutral approach, just be careful not to reproduce the whole report ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.113.77 (talk • contribs)

It's an INTERGOVERNMENTAL beaurocracy. This must have a detremental affect on the science. Ah thank you. Well if thats the most important point, why not insert it right up front so all your biases become clear? In the meantime, I'm reverting 90's changes: the ones to the lead just make it disjointed; the ones to the landsea section are deceptive, amking it appear as though Pielke thinks its wrong, whereas in fact he clearly thinks its compatible with the WMO William M. Connolley 09:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not insert that because it's not "the most important point". I said it was relevant , no more. Seems like you are prepared to quote Pielke to make it appear he has withdrawn his support for Landsea's whole critisism but not when it does not fit _your_ biases.

I point out again that I made no comment in the entry on what political influences may be in play but it seems important to note thier existence. It is cloud cukoo land to suggest this is pure, objective scientific truth.

Quoting an expert in the politics of science seems a reasonable justification.

Are you seriously trying to suggest there is no politics at play in an INTERGOVERNMENTAL panel setup and run by the U.N. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.113.77 (talk • contribs)

So far, those trying to poke holes in the AR4 have failed badly. What do we have, for criticisms of the *science* in it? Just about nothing. Landsea crits the process; but even those in his favour admit that the report accurately respects the science. Romm thinks it *underestimates* the effects, but then he has a book to push. Errm... and thats it so far. If you can find any reputable crit of the actual science, do please add it William M. Connolley 19:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of that is due to your constant removal of opinions you dont like, not the underlying arguements. However, I do not intend to get distracted into a blow by blow discussion here. I would rather focus my efforts on the importance of methane in all this. Since you have no comment to offer on the political critisism I will reinstate the quote from an expert in that area.

Once again here you deliberately avoid answering a direct question. If you wish focus on certain areas of science fine. That is where you claim some expertise. Expertise in one area of science does not appoint you as guardian of the truth for the whole of AR4 , IPPC, global warming and the politics of science. Please stop trying to veto modifications by others that do not fit your own _biases_.

So let's repeat the question:

Are you seriously trying to suggest there is no politics at play in an INTERGOVERNMENTAL panel setup and run by the U.N. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.113.77 (talk • contribs)

I am saying that no-one has made any credible assertions as to how politics have affected the results expressed in the SPM. Neither you; nor Landsea or Pielke. The hurricanes sections fits with current understanding; if anything else is wrong with it, please say. Instead of the vague allegations, you should present some facts. So far you are in the embarrassing situation of having a criticism section that is empty, apart from insinuation, from the skeptic side; and whose only real content is to say that the report should have been more alarming William M. Connolley 11:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again you try to narrow the issue. Now it's " results expressed in the SPM" . If you feel the section is "empty" this is largely your own work in persistantly deleting other content or carefully wording entries to play their significance or focusing on side issues.

Landsea's issue was not about numbers, it was about the action of the lead author and IPCC process. This IS important. He took a principaled stand , not because he's a bigot or payed by Exxonmobil, but because he was concerned about what was happening.

I dont see anyone trying to blow holes in AR4 here, but the whole point of having a critisism section is to make the whole Wiki entry more balanced and objective, not to pretend to do so by misrepresenting some critics and appending counter agruments.

I am largely in favour of AR4 and TAR but putting the reports and IPCC itself up on some pedastel where it is beyond critisim is as dangerous for the future as ignoring it.

You are clearly one of those of both sides of the arguments who regard this is some sort of battle of faith and act in an impassioned an evangelical fashion to further what you believe to be the truth.

I suggest, once again, that you start to act in a more objective and scientific manner if science is your main position. If you have other motives maybe you should declare them.

You keep misrepresenting the issue; the issue remains the science: there has been no change. Landsea has no objections to the science in the AR4 SPM. If he has any objections to the science in the draft chapters, he hasn't said so. This isn't a battle of faith, its about... the science. To which no-one has been able to make any credible complaints at all. All this vague nonsense about interference is meaningless if it doesn't show up in the final report. The criticism section, as it stands, is unbalanced because it fails to make this clear William M. Connolley 12:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again your self-appoint role of deciding what is "relevant".

Scientists do not determine future world energy policy (though some seem to think they have the right), polatitians do. That is why polatitians created the IPCC and why it is a political INTERGOVERNMENTAL body.

To maintain otherwise is not only naive it is simply, factually incorrect.

I would not wish to load this entry the enormous debate any specific critisism would entail. But I think it important to note that (sadly) this is not simply science.

^ Chris Landsea's open letter on why he was leaving IPCC, accessed 2 Feb, 2007

[1] Chris Landsea's open letter on why he was leaving IPCC, accessed 2 Feb, 2007

[1]

Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Archives