Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

POV on the citation subpage

I've tagged the citation subpage, since it mostly consists of one editor's view on how things should be. While everyone (probably) agrees that consolidating IPCC citations is a good thing, several critical choices have been made on that page, that makes it problematic:

  • It is proposed/addressed/reads this as if policy... and is put as such on several articles.
Sorry if that is the impression. It is meant as recommendation. -JJ
  • Page is in the wrong namespace. (if this is to be policy/MoS stuff - it should be in Wikipedia namespace).
The material is specifically on citing the IPCC ARs. Where else should it be? -JJ
  • Page has no talk-page, making discussions virtually impossible to find (or do)
This talk page seems to be adequate. I considered some other possibilities, but reckoned they would be too obscure. -JJ
  • Several choices regarding metadata and other formatting have never been discussed (or are only now being discussed).
I reckoned the option to not use templates a plus with some editors. At any rate, this "style" in no way precludes use of templates ("metadata"). -JJ
  • An editor is already changing citations in a way that makes it close to impossible to reverse.
Not impossible to reverse, but I understand your point, that it in some cases it might be messy. I believe the issue here is the removal of templates. This was done for consistency. If there be consensus to for consistent use of templates then this should be done as a forward looking change, not a reversal. And this can be readily done as all of the information need is present in the untemplated (formated text) form. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • ... etc...

I think a that there has to be a discussion about this, and that this should be from a bit more than a single persons viewpoints. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I think JJ has acted in good faith, since he has been fiddling with ideas and soliciting input since last fall and the discussion is only just getting started. I thank JJ for all the work and imagine the delay in getting substantive feedback and idea that the work may be re-done may be frustrating. I thank Kim for knowing enough about the subject to offer substantive feedback. I hope ya'll can set frustration with each other's past edits and past silence aside to work out a compromise. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, there is no doubt that this has been done in very good faith. I just feel that this is the time to pull the brakes, and reflect on what is being done, before we enter an area of no return. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for the kind comments. NAEG has suggested that I am pushing this too hard, so I would like to reiterate: it is not a policy proposal, only an evolving recommendation. And reflection/feedback is how we evolve it.
I am going to comment on Kim's points, but please understand: those are not intended as argumentation, but only as clarification as to why certain choices were made. Which is not claim that these were the best choices, only to show the rationale. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Views of scientists

Amusing to see, here and in at least one other article, an attempt to replicate misinformation from a recent WSJ opinion piece. Among the attention it's attracted, Peter Gleick's commentary at Forbes gives a reputable overview, with links to a better representation of scientific opinion: the letter from 255 NAS members should be cited in the "controversies" section, if it's not covered already. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

New IPCC report urging adaptation to global warming, looking for exact report ... ?

99.181.137.180 (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

I deleted the following because the source did not support the statement per Wikipedia:Verifiability which states that "Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable..."

National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[1]

I checked the cited source. It did not contain the information that was claimed (it contained at least one quote that suggested the opposite of what was claimed (A Greenpeace representative claimed President Bush was seeking to undermine the IPCC)). So I removed it. The removal was reverted (with a comment containing an unhelpful baseless accusation of partisanship which I did not appreciate).

The statement in question is unverifiable and appears to be POV pushing. By Wikipedia guidelines it should be speedily removed. Readin (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  As your familiarity with WP requirements seems to fall short of WP:CIVIL I would point out that your statement of "unhelpful baseless accusation of partisanship" is itself unhelpful.
  I was initially inclined to pass on your deletion, as the citation is not the best. But on seeing your very non-neutral POV at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Unreliable source I reconsidered the matter. And though I do not consider the source to be of the best, yet it does clearly state: "The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." That you missed this, and that you did not see fit to remove about 20 tagged dead links, several naked urls, and an "unreliable" cite from Fox News, let alone make any attempt to fix the many incomplete or improperly cited references, coupled with your expressed views re the IPCC, make a strong case that real reason you removed this one sentence was because it is contrary to your personal view re the IPCC. I call that a pretty solid base for suspecting partisanship on your part. And that the POV-pushing here is yours. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The source does clearly state that "The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." However, that was not the information the source was supposed to support. The source, which I read through completely, did not say "National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative." nor did the source say anything like that. The source was nearly 100% favorable to the IPCC, but one thing it did not say was that national and international responses to climate change regard the IPCC as authoritative.
Regardless of how you feel about me, regardless of what you imagine my motivations are, regardless of whether I'm civil or not, regardless of whether you are civil are not, regardless of whether I had time to review the entire article and clean up every single citation, Wikipedia is quite clear on saying that all information should be supported by a reliable source. I saw one piece of information that appeared to be biased, I checked the source and found it was not verifiable, it should be removed. When you find a source you can put the information back in. Readin (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
For sure, it could be an innocent coincidence, and nothing to do with your antagonistic POV re the IPCC, that you saw only the one problem, and chose to delete rather than fix it. But unlikely. It would be a showing of good faith, and possible enhancement of your education, if you found a better source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
So in order to prove that I'm not POV editing, you want me to decide on a POV and set out to prove it??? Readin (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not asking you to "decide on a POV and ... prove it". I am suggesting it might be useful if you showed that you can edit from the consensual view (that the IPCC is a reliable source), that you can see things from other perspectives even when you don't agree with them. It would also ameliorate your incivility. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I did acquiesce to the consensus that the IPCC is a reliable source. But that was on a different topic on a different page. The issue here is much clearer. The text to be removed from this page is not supported by any provided source, reliable or otherwise. Perspective has nothing to do with it. As for bad faith, it seems to be in very bad faith, in fact just plain lying, to leave a source for a statement that doesn't support the statement. Readin (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There was no lying, any more than I accuse John Derbyshire of lying, which I did not do. TWO editors had disagreed with you. In fact, there is no such a thing as "plain lying", for something is either a lie or it is not. Do NOT attempt to disrupt Wikipedia in order to make a point, if any; and I thank you. -- KC9TV 07:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I find the quoted sentence from the source to be convincing. However, as pointed out on "that other page", Scientific opinion on climate change has many other prestigious scientific organisations explicitly and implicitly endorsing the IPCC, including the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences and the United States National Research Council. So instead of trying to delete a statement that you should know is true, how about finding a source you are happy with? See e.g. the 2001 statement by 16 National Academies: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
It is one thing for the IPCC to have prestigious organizations endorsing the IPCC, it is a another to be considered "authoritative" whenever there are "National and international responses to climate change". Perhaps this was a situation where someone wanted to write "The IPCC is considered a leading authority on climate change" only to get slapped with a "who?" tag, so someone came up with a theoretical who. Why don't we just say who based on the source? We can say "Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, has called the IPCC "the world's leading authority on climate change". The information is conveyed, and more accurately, and is verifiable. Readin (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you are splitting hairs here. Look at Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming: "By 2001 the panel would turn its procedural restraints into a virtue: whatever it did manage to say would have unimpeachable authority. In the teeth of opposition from the immensely powerful fossil fuels industry and its many allies, the IPCC would issue what was arguably the most important policy advice any body has ever given, calling for nothing less than a wholesale restructuring of the world's economies and ways of living. Whether or not governments paid heed, in fulfilling its declared purpose of providing advice the IPCC has rightly been considered a remarkable success." (emphasis mine). It's online at the American Institute of Physics, the paper version is printed by Harvard University Press. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"Whether or not governments paid heed, in fulfilling its declared purpose of providing advice the IPCC has rightly been considered a remarkable success." So clearly this author is, at least in the passage you quote, unwilling to say that national (from government) and international ((usually from groupings of national governments) pay heed to the IPCC. With so many good things to say about the IPCC, why include something that isn't supported?
You seem to be making a very good case that national and international responses should treat the IPCC as authoritative, but the question here is whether they actually are (since that is what the article currently says). The source provided in the article doesn't say that. Neither does the quote you just provided. In fact, thinking about it now, it seems that most important national and international responses don't take the IPCC as authoritative.
The Kyoto treaty wasn't ratified by the world's largest economy. The restrictions defined in the treaty weren't followed by major governments that did ratify. It seems, given what the IPCC says about the certainty of AGW, that national and international responses would be more proactive. New negotations on how to handle AGW have stalled or simply not happened. Is the IPCC telling everyone to just relax and keep burning fossil fuels? Readin (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you are confounding two different things. I'm not aware that any of the major governments has not accepted the IPCC as authoritative. Indeed, that would be surprising, because they are already heavily involved in creating at least the summaries. Governments don't follow the advice, but that is something different. I accept as authoritative the general views about ice cream, chocolate, and fries. But that does not automatically reduce my waistline. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

oh very well, an attempt at improvement based on Weart.[1] . dave souza, talk 08:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dave souza's changes look good. Readin (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Purpose and procedures

The article understates the essential point that the IPCC was set up by governments to bring publicity on the findings of scientists under government control, with the scientists involved being nominated by member governments, and the summary subject to line by line consensus (not necessarily a positive vote) from all member governments. Spencer Weart covers this as the original purpose of the IPCC. There's a tendency to imply that the UN has set this up on its own, which is misleading. When time permits I'll try to improve matters, but can't do much right away. . dave souza, talk 07:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparing the past IPCC model projections to the actual observed data?

IPCC 1996 SAR Figure 3.20, or maybe IPCC 1995 published in 1996.

I would like to see a section here or on the specific assessment report pages comparing the past IPCC model projections to the actual observed data from the last 17 years. I would also like to know why no figures from the old IPCC reports are presented on the relevant wikipedia pages. Thank you 136.159.160.67 (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The figures themselves are copyright, I'd have thought. As to doing a comparison: well, has any WP:RS done the comparison? This is an encyclopaedia, not a research institute William M. Connolley (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Re figs, observe the license. Note that a user account is needed to upload files. Re RS, WMC is right that WP:NOR applies. . . dave souza, talk 16:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
In fact, there is a paper due to appear in ERL quite soon on just this topic. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5825/709.abstract is older but also what we want, I think William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I dunno, wouldn't it be legitimate to make a plot of several prediction scenarios from the early 90's and several temperature records? This I don't think is WP:OR so long as one a.) does the baselining properly b.) is careful to avoid drawing conclusions from the graph that are not tied to what is already in the reliable sources which might have copyrighted images of similar graphs. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It is OR. If the predictions and the results are close or far apart, it provides an implicit comment on their validity. We need to know whether the predictions were based on information available at the time and whether subsequent events influenced the final outcome. For that we need a commentary from a respected source. TFD (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing, I don't think. Creating the graph by itself is not OR. However, adding the graph to an article unaccompanied by commentary sourced to a RS would be. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
This is what I would add if someone could find papers commenting on the comparison of IPCC to say GISTEMP. I could do similar things for any of the other temp series that can be poked via woodfortrees. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Sailsbystars plot of IPCC models vs. GISTEMP
The implication of the chart is that the IPCC's projections were wrong, therefore their science is flawed. You need a source that makes this point and provides a chart. TFD (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Funny that I saw this on my watchlist. I just read Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise (ISBN 978-1-59420-411-1) over the past few days. The book is pretty decent overall, though the climate change chapter probably isn't one of his best (though it isn't nearly as bad as the following one). Pages 396-398 (section title "The IPCC's 1990 Predictions") discuss this very topic; somewhere in the ten pages prior he discusses why he is only looking at AR1. It's a book for the general public and not the best of sources, but I'm sure if this exists in Silver's book, it exists elsewhere as well. Silver has a number of sources cited in that section, but the only one really applicable to this conversation is Roger Pielke Jr.'s "Verification of IPCC Temperature Forecasts 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007", which should be out on the Internet somewhere.

    An excerpt from the book to reinforce a point by TFD: "The IPCC forecasts were predicated on a "business-as-usual case that assumed that there would be no success at all in mitigating carbon emissions... In fact, some limited efforts to reduce carbon emissions were made, especially in the European Union" NW (Talk) 05:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann was interviewed by Silver, and was very disappointed about the climate chapter. Wonder how Silver missed all those alternative scenarios. On the issue of how good these projections were, A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming – Greg Laden's Blog outlines findings from Wigley, T., & Santer, B. (2012). A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming Climate Dynamics DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1585-8 . . dave souza, talk 08:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Ha, much to my surprise the full paper is available free online from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8 it explicitly examines the controversial claims made by Michaels about climate projections: "The 2007 statement represents a central finding of the IPCC report. The scientific basis for this finding, however, has been questioned in Congressional testimony by Patrick Michaels.1 If Michaels’ criticism were correct, this would have serious implications for our understanding of the magnitude of the response of the climate system to anthropogenic forcing. Concerns have also been raised about the somewhat imprecise wording of the statement, such as the interpretation of the word “most” (Allen 2011; Curry and Webster 2011).". . . dave souza, talk 09:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Summary of the TAR

I am concerned that the section of the article on the IPCC Third Assessment Report is unbalanced. The section does not provide a summary of the conclusions of Working Groups II, III, or the synthesis report.

The section discussing the IPCC's predictions contains some minor inaccuracies (compare with the description of projections given in IPCC Third Assessment Report#Projections).

I believe that the summary of comments about the TAR could be improved. The US National Research Council report, which assessed the WG I report, is not cited, nor is the joint-academies statement made in 2001. The NRC report and joint-academies statement are cited later on, but I think that they should be referred to here.

The section includes comments by Richard Lindzen. A rebuttal by John Houghton is included, but Lindzen's comments are a fringe view in the scientific community. Citing the NRC report and academies joint-statement would improve balance.

The summary of the Castles and Henderson SRES critique is not balanced and should be updated. The summary does not to provide a suitable context for the SRES projections. The existing summary could give the mistaken impression that the SRES projections are biased upwards. An important point is that the SRES emissions projections are comparable in range to scenarios produced in the literature. Notable examples of high emissions projections are those by the US Climate Change Science Program (Part A), MIT, and International Energy Agency [2]. AR4 and a report by the CCSP (Part B, chapter 3) contain more recent summaries of discussions surrounding the Castles and Henderson critique. As the CCSP report shows, there are critiques/commentaries of the SRES which are not included in this article. Enescot (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Seven underestimations

If the underlying sources in [3] turn out to be reliable, it may provide some additional material not already included in the "Responses" section in this article, especially its "Conservative nature of IPCC reports" sub-section. I am planning to look through them and propose additions here on talk when I get time. In the mean time I am interested in any critiques of the underlying sources it links to. Neo Poz (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong place for this, this article is about the organization. And until you have a reliable source to rely upon, you shouldn't post this - WP is not a crystal ball nor a place to do original research. Finally, you fail to understand that shortterm fluctuations are irrelevant for projections that have low interannual resolution. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying some of the identical material in the "Responses" section from other sources is inappropriate here? If so, then where should it go? There are plenty of literature review sources which seem to make the same points. Neo Poz (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Section on AR4

I think that the section on the IPCC 4th assessment report (AR4) could be improved. At present, the article only mentions the main conclusions from the Working Group I report. I think that the main conclusions from Working Groups II and III should be included. In my opinion, the best way of doing this is to refer to the Synthesis Report. The synthesis report contains a section on "robust findings and key uncertainties" [4]. I think that this section provides an indication of what should be summarized.

The summary on sea level rise is inaccurate. The current revision states that according to AR4, "Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 centimetres". However, AR4 states [5]: "Because understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise." Enescot (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Experts

Leaving aside the Australian definition of an expert, (ex as in has-been, spurt as in drip under pressure), the idea that the blog of an expert in IPCC terms is not qualified to discuss the concept of expert as in IPCC terms is quite, um, oddly anti self referential. Edit in question is my addition of "self-nominated" which refed this http://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/drafts-reviews-and-leaks/ . Greglocock (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2013 (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".[2] 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 [6]. 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., [7] ("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)

Citation from above

  1. ^ Sample, Ian (2007-02-02). "Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study". London: Guardian. Retrieved 2007-07-24. Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change..."
  2. ^ "Article 2". The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved 15 November 2005.

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 [8] [9], or the IPCC's economic assessments of climate change (e.g., see [10] and [11].

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)

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)

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.[12]

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.[13]

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") [14]. 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)

More updates after the elections of the new IPCC Bureau are needed

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 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 November 2015 (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)

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

Why no degree goal?

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 [15] 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)

External links modified

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.

checkY 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.

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)

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

'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 [16]:

"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 [17] 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

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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External link deleted

Hi there, The last External link (text started with 'Kirkby') was to an article in Nature magazine about atmospheric aerosol nucleation. That is a fascinating subject but imho the link should not be on this ipcc page at all. Should never have been there. It is a completely different subject. So, I deleted the link. This link had been there since September 4, 2011. First appearance of this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&type=revision&diff=448319691&oldid=446027485 Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.196.186 (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"Appeal to lowest common denominator"

User:Veryapples has now twice changed the old "Conservative nature of IPCC reports" header, first to "Overstatement of Effects", which is roughly the opposite of the criticism discussed in the section, now to "Appeal to lowest common denominator" (which I reverted and he re-reverted), which, as far as I can see it, is not an improvemet. At most, the criticism is that the IPCC reports only report the "lowest common denominator" (and I'd still find that simile rather unsuitable). The current phrasing makes no sense to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The page is under 1RR; VA can be blocked for that. Or, just for being a sock; your antenna have grown rusty over the years William M. Connolley (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Navigation template

The German Wikipedia has a very useful de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Sachstandsbericht des IPCC navigation bar template for IPCC assessments and special reports used in these articles Erster Sachstandsbericht des IPCC and Sonderbericht zur globalen Erwärmung von 1,5 Grad des IPCC. Is there one for the English Wikipedia? If not, how do we request the creation of a similar template for English Wikipedia?Oceanflynn (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oceanflynn: Hi again! The German wiki template is at de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Sachstandsbericht des IPCC which translates roughly as "Navigation bar Assessment report of the IPCC". I went to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and checked What links here on the left toolbar, and selected the Template namespace which gives a dozen hits. (It's a good guess that the template, assuming it exists, will link to this article.) It appears that the en.wiki equivalent is Template:IPCC which is a small side box rather than a nav box. I'm guessing it was formatted this way to go in place of an infobox. It is present in this article under the section Assessment reports. There is also the much larger Template:Global warming which is a general nav box on that subject. Hope this is of help! – Reidgreg (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Conservative nature of IPCC reports

Cog in Wheel attempted to change a section heading from Conservative nature of IPCC reports to Errors in IPCC reports twice, despite WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. I am inviting this editor to explain why here. Peaceray (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"Conservative Nature of Reports" just means it is wrong. The previous editor had it right--the header should reflect the content of the body of the section.40.135.39.151 (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Criticizing the IPCC for reporting "only the 'lowest common denominator' findings" is not the same as criticizing it for "errors" in general. I have reverted to the longstanding previous version. Regards HaeB (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 Comment: Cog in Wheel has since been blocked indefinitely and may thus not be able to respond here himself/herself. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

On the of the publication of IPCC's

Re "On the of the publication of IPCC's" I suspect a word is missing between the and of. But I'm not sure what. ϢereSpielChequers 14:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

updating broken links to refs

In my revision of 23 Nov 2020 I've changed the refs to the "robust findings" all to the Summary for Policymakers, as it's not possible for links to go to a particular section within a chapter of the full report (previously they referred to sections 6.1 6.2 and 6.3). This is a simpler referencing, using shared links/refs (referred to as [1]. Alternatively it would be possible to have separate references for 2 or 3 findings and add in the reference text the number of the section.Jonathanlynn (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Criticisms section naming and organization

Not everything in the criticisms section appears to be criticism. A few of the the subsections describe controversies, public debates and calls for greater efficiency, and two ("Overstatement of effects" and "Conservative nature of IPCC reports") appear to directly go against each other. The latter is problematic because it makes the IPCC appear less accurate when in fact the arguments made in both are clearly of a different nature. The whole "hockey stick" subsection is vague and gives ample weight to past reactions by denialists to climate change research while intermitting this with outdated previous findings and their shortcomings. Some of the other sections contain very little content and appear to repeat earlier "criticisms". While there definitely is some valid criticism in this section, it's hidden well. I propose either a Controversy section is made with specific controversies that can be addressed, or the section is reorganized to better give an overview of what criticisms are against the organization's methods in general and what criticisms are simply against global warming research. Alternatively, separate scientific and political criticism / internal and external criticism. The two are not in agreement with each other. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to really comment at this high overview level but in general I appreciate that you are thinking about it and here are some questions to help develop this in more ationable detail
  1. is there anything you are proposing we simply delete from the article?
  2. after deleting that stuff, suggest making a very brief bullet list of points in remaining text and posting here, but sorted to the subheadings you think are best fit
  3. Include citations to reliable sources and {{reflist-talk}} to make a references section just for this thread.
Organizing this proposal this way, or equivalent, would really help me, if not others, understand the details. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

COI declaration

I'm the head of communications at the IPCC. Many of the links in the article on the IPCC are broken. This has been exacerbated by the launch of our new website a few months ago. Furthermore many links could be replaced by links to more up to date documents; many of those there seem to have been applied 15 or 20 years ago.

There are about 150 links in the article. Some are external but I would like to verify and update the internal ones.

I understand because I work for the IPCC this gives rise to a conflict of interest. Can I do this work? I don't know who else would do it.

Sorry I wasn't aware of the COI policy and I've already done some of them. I've also updated some updated information. You can see from the editing history that it's neutral.

Information to be added or removed: updating broken or outdated links Explanation of issue: see above References supporting change: see above Jonathanlynn (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

​ As fixing dead links is unambiguously uncontroversial, you can fix them yourself. But I would instead recommend that you copy the article over to your own userspace, fix everything there, and then request here that someone approve it. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, you may use the Checklinks Tool to assist you in updating the references (although no changes should be made through the tool, since that makes changes directly to the article). It's best to use the tool's color coded suggestions to assist you in determining which ones need to be changed. Þjarkur is correct that all changes ought to be proposed here on the talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  14:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. If I'm making a whole series of changes is there a way to save them so I don't lose them, as it would be too much to do in a single session? Or should i just do it bit by bit and request approval after each batch? Jonathanlynn (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

​ I have copied the article over to your userspace, see: User:Jonathanlynn/Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There you are free to make a series of changes and save them. After you're finished, you can request approval here. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm now ready to resume work on the broken links after 18 months. Has the version you copied into my user space kept up with edits to the article in the meantime or do you need to copy it across again? Jonathanlynn (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jonathanlynn, have you fixed those broken links in the meantime? I don't see why there should be a need to copy it to your user space, given that fixing broken links is not controversial and instead very helpful indeed. EMsmile (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleted further reading section

I don't think we need a "further reading" section, so I have deleted this. If any of these are very important, use them for inline citations or under external links? ++++

++++

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ar4 main observations was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

EMsmile (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hockeystick section

The hockeystick section under "criticism" uses a different way of citing sources. I propose to change that to bring it inline with the normal method. Currently it reads more like a literature review than an encyclopedia. It is probably also far too detailed and should be compressed and moved to the hockeystick article? EMsmile (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@EMsmile: Yes, I agree. Be bold and just do it. Arguably it should never have been in this article in the first place since it is about a detail of an IPCC report: this article is about the IPCC itself. More on that point below in a moment. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
John Maynard Friedman: in a first step, I have moved the content within the article. The next step should be to move it into the sub-article of the third report, like you said (see also below). EMsmile (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@EMsmile: The article is already looking a great deal better. Great work! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Too detailed in places? Too many bullet point lists?

I am wondering if the article is too detailed in places and uses too many bullet point lists? How do you feel about this? Should we look at compressing some of the content and using more summary style? EMsmile (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@EMsmile: Strong support. The article is grievously bogged down in detail, most of it off-topic wp:recent (at the time, now very dated) quibbling about the reports – and not about the IPCC itself. I don't have the time myself or I would just do it. The article badly needs to be split, moving the detailed material about particular reports into dedicated articles, leaving only a summary behind. If you can do it, please go ahead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you. Luckily the sub-articles for each report already exist, so it might not be that time consuming to move content across and then just use the excerpt function of the lead of the sub-article (like it was done for the 6th report). What scares me a bit though is the referencing style. I find it easier with the long referencing style when moving content from A to B. I have it on my to-do list to work on this but if someone else has time earlier, please go ahead. EMsmile (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, so I have now moved the content about the assessment reports to the sub-articles and replaced them with excerpts. This was quite a bit of work, especially making sure all the references are moved correctly as well. The next step would be to to the same for the special reports, many of which also have their own sub-articles already. EMsmile (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Original name

There seems to be confusion over what the original name of the IPCC was. It appears to have been originally called "The Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases". True? If so, when was the name changed to something that included the words "climate change" instead, obviously such as the "IPCC"? This is important because names are important. An accurate historical record of the name of this effort/group is important in helping people understand its purpose and has its stated purpose changed over the years. I only ask for historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.82.126 (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The name has always been Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, right from the establishment of the IPCC in 1988. See paragraph 5 of resolution 43/53 of the UN General Assembly in December 1988 endorsing the establishment of the IPCC by the WMO and UNEP that year: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/530/32/IMG/NR053032.pdf?OpenElement There were other groups and conferences in the run up to this. The Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG) is one such precursor body formed in 1985/86 by WMO and UNEP as well as ICSU, and with many of the same people involved. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0376892900035505 However the AGGG had a much narrower focus than the IPCC focusing on greenhouse gas emissions and their growth. It is correct that the name is important as climate change deniers have often alleged that those concerned by climate change had confusingly switched the nomenclature to "climate change" from "global warming", whereas climate change was in the IPCC name from the start, and conversely some of the marketing experts advising deniers had urged a shift in terminology to the more neutral "climate change" from the potentially alarming "global warming". Climate change is a broader term than global warming which is one, albeit very important, manifestation of climate change. Jonathanlynn (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
See-also Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename and update criticism section?

I also wonder about this section as per WP:CRIT. Should we perhaps rename it (as a starting point)? We are not supposed to have sections called "criticism" (in general). Some of those sub-headings seem superfluous to me as they only introduce 1-2 sentences. EMsmile (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I had made the above comment in March but am copying it to here as it got no reply back then. EMsmile (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Having read WP:CIT, I believe that having a section labeled "criticism" is not prohibited so long as "the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." I believe that the article would fall under what WP:CIT anticipated and having this section allows all negative material in one place. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The structure of the article seems unbalanced with overlong sections at the end on criticisms and reviews which focus on matters that are not so relevant 10-12 years on. These topics need to be covered of course, but I plan to shorten them with a focus on Himalayan glaciers/climategate, various responses, review of IPCC procedures and subsequent actions. In the spirit of WP:CRITICISM I'll try to embed this in the main article, otherwise will put into a new "Controversies" section. Any objections? Jonathanlynn (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you, Jonathanlynn and have boldly made some changes now. Mainly condensed material, removed outdated or poorly sourced or overly detailed material and moved some to the relevant sub-article as it was specifically for the Fourth Assessment Report, which even has its own criticism article: Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (from 2007-2010). I've explained my reasoning in each of the edit summaries. This is not yet complete but work in progress. EMsmile (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change/Archive_12&oldid=1164843927"