Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 31, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

'United Nations' is a name[edit]

'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)

you are right, we would never write "the United States of America" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Matcalfe (talkcontribs) 20:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

More updates after the elections of the new IPCC Bureau are needed[edit]

I made clarifications regarding the election of the new Chair and the role of the previously acting Chair, but more his needed in this regard : all indications regarding the Bureau are now wrong - even the number of members of the bureau is wrong since it was increased following a decision taken at 41th Plenary. It may be wise to keep the names of Bureau members that served during the 5th assessment report, but also to add the name of the new bureau members (elected as the same time as the new chair, see here (new IPCC Bureau elected in October 2015). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarbaix (talkcontribs) 15:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked all the links, and they all work. Charlesreid1 (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Why no degree goal?[edit]

Why does this and other WP articles on this topic not mention numbers? For example the 2 degrees Celcius goal, and perhaps the 1.5 goal? And numbers on emission reduction? This is a natural science topic, not only a political topic. See sources like https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/pr_wg3/20140413_pr_pc_wg3_en.pdf (which was removed from the article), http://www.wri.org/ipcc-infographics and many others.Mange01 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

By "this topic" do you mean just the IPCC? Or global warming generally? As I said in my edit summary, the "2 degrees Celsius goal" is not about the IPCC, which is the topic of this article. It might be a notable point for one or more the ARs. As to the various articles "not mention[ing] numbers": that is demonstrably incorrect. (Look around.) If you think the "2 degree" (and other proposed goals) should get more attention, then you should raise that at more appropriate articles that get more attention, such as Talk:Gobal warming. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I mean IPCC, according to the sources. THe conference in Paris referred to IPCC for the two degree Celsius goal. IPCC is the authority that coined the 2 degree goal. I think article should not only be about political process, but natural sceince.Mange01 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
IPCC is the authority that coined the 2 degree goal: no, it isn't. article should not only be about political process, but natural sceince [sic]. Pardon? This article is about the IPCC organisation; and about the reports it produces. The article which talks about the 2 oC limit is United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Note also that your edit [1] is incorrect: Researchers in the IPCC 2009 reached a consensus on that the global warming must be limited to two degrees Celsius by 2100 is wrong, and unsupported by refs William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
To put a fine point on what William said: the IPCC is the (rather skeletal) organization that coordinates the Working Groups that organize hundreds of scientists to produce the Assessment Reports. Which is to say that "IPCC" has a large span, and the article here covers only the organizational aspects of the IPCC itself, not the reports and findings developed at a lower level. More to your point, I doubt that the IPCC "coined" either the term or the concept of a "2 degree Celsius goal", as I vaguely recall it being discussed in the 1980s,before the IPCC was formed. In that this goal has current notability it might warrant its own article, but that would need some deep study on its history. You might take a look at Avoiding dangerous climate change. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

IPCC is does not warrant the words 'scientific organization' in the first sentence[edit]

'IPCC' is, by its own definition, simply an inter-governmental panel. This makes it primarily a political organization. They review, summarize and report on 'scientific' literature/studies but do not perform scientific studies or research that would distinguish them as a 'scientific' organization. Removing the work 'science' from the first sentence of the wikipedia entry for IPCC is to make more accurate what they do and what they themselves claim to do. I would prefer to put the world 'political', but then I know I would get the wrath of others. It is an 'organization' of governments, not specifically an organization of scientists. The sentences that follow the first sentence in the wikipedia entry makes clear how the organization uses science. There is no need for it in the first sentence, as it simply overplays and confuses the reader as to exactly what they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.172.94 (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you're being silly William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
And he is running right into a 1RR. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay folks, let's cool it. To quote from the IPCC's own web site [2]:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.

The user at 172.97.172.94 raises a valid point - the IPCC does not describe itself as a "scientific intergovernmental body," but as an "international body for assesment of climate change." However, it describes itself as an international body whose purpose is to provide a "clear scientific view" of climate change. It does not describe itself as a "political body," and describing it as such will immediately open this article to charges of being biased and start more edit wars. Let's not have edit wars over this - let's discuss it. Charlesreid1 (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Just for the purpose of transparency, this precise issue around the word "scientific" has been raised, and discussed, before. It has turned into a flame war several times. Here are some references so that folks can check it out:
First, in 2008. Again, in 2009. Yet again in 2009. And again, in 2010. And again, in 2011. As is often the case on Wikipedia, people with patience and persistence, rather than consensus, seem to have won the day in each case.
Charlesreid1 (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Charlesreid1, if you read a little further down [3] you'll see it says "Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC...", thus describing itself as having both a scientific and an intergovernmental nature. So I don't agree that 172.97.172.94 raises a valid point. TimOsborn (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Good point. "Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature" I've changed the wording to match the source. It's clearly an international scientific review process producing a synthesis of current science, then negotiating a summary for policy makers with intergovernmental representation: together forming a scientific and intergovernmantal body. . . dave souza, talk 15:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)