Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 2

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

This statement seems disingenuous or at the very least needs more citation. One individual cited as a source hardly constitutes "Nation and international responses...generally regard"

207.250.16.192 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)cjbreisch

I agree...and the guy that cites "the guardian" article as a source should read it again. Maybe he didn't understand it.200.55.68.199 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)necky.

Many scientists disagree with IPCC

Please do not remove from Wikipedia any evidence which shows that scientists disagree with the IPCC. I know it is an article of faith amoung enviornmentalists that there is a "scientific consensus" as indicated in the IPCC reports, in favor of the global warming theory, but this is merely the POV of environmentalists.

Whether or not there is a scientific consensus on global warming is not for Wikipedia to say. I'm going to keep putting in information about surveys, behind-the-scens trickery and so forth. Get used to it.

My desired outcome is an article which REPORTS the points of view of both sides:

1. environmentalists predict disaster and advocate Kyoto Protocol
2. many or most scientists disagree with point #1

--Uncle Ed 21:34, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 08:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)) The trouble is that you take your hopelessly sketpic views to be the starting point for balance, as exemplified by your 2 points above. Lets try it a different way:

1. skeptics and big-oil-business deny that climate change is occurring and advocate business-as-usual
2. we can copy over your point 2 word-for-word

Wiki should indiciate what facts are available. I find your modifications to the Keith Shine bit rather telling. To you its obvious (I suppose) that he was complaining that it was too enviro. But that is not clear at all, and is in fact probably wrong. He was probably asking that scientists get to write it alone.

"Big-oil-business" is not to be trusted but big government is? What a strange world you live in William. Likwidshoe 15:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say big govt should be trusted, and I wouldn't say it. After all it was govts that did the meddling to tone down the SPM William M. Connolley 15:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll use your language here and say something very similar that you say. The trouble is that you take your hopelessly conflicted-interest views to be the starting point for balance, as exemplified by your support of the "scientific consensus" of the IPCC. Big government supports the view that the climate is being fundamentally changed by man and proposes a solution that is nothing more than business as usual - more big government.

You're quick to deny claims made by "big oil" and that's that. No need to look much further because they're tainted. One wonders how you would be reacting if these wikipages involving climate change took the same approach to the government. It would be hard to deny the conflict of interest that is often present with these government reports. What makes a scientist paid with government money so much different than a scientist paid with "big oil" money? Are the self selected IPCC members (and the resulting IPCC consensus) above the 'bought and paid for' shenanigans?

I've done a lot of reading of your comments in these various wiki climate discussion pages, William M. Connolley, and I notice that you don't apply the same standards to views that you don't hold. I believe that you have an agenda and that agenda is not always the truth. But you and a few other AGW believers here are dedicated with a zeal that turns away most people from participating. This zeal alone is neither good nor bad, it is just an observation.

But don't kid yourself William. If there were more governmental opportunities to be had in denying AGW, the UN IPCC would have found that it doesn't exist. The UN doesn't spend money to find out that it is not needed for a task. Likwidshoe 15:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I do assume that my views are correct. Most people do, of their views. You certainly do of yours. I don't assume IPCC is correct because its IPCC; or because its a govt product, but because I've read many of the papers behind it and IPCC correctly summarises them. If you think I never crit "the other side" then try http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/01/sea_level_rise.php or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/01/grumpy_review_of_an_inconvenie.php. But fortunately those views aren't in wiki. You say I believe that you have an agenda and that agenda is not always the truth. Which I deny. I say that you have read so little of the real science that you have little idea of the truth in this area. OTOH, you don't seem to have much interest in talking about the science, only in talking about what people think about it, which is less interesting to me William M. Connolley 16:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

But alas, you don't know what I have read or know about "the real science" (whatever that means). You are shooting from the hip with that comment. Furthermore, I wasn't even speaking of what other people think about the science. I was talking about the dynamics of this whole global warming debate and specifically, your role in it in these Wiki pages. If you are not interested in how the debate carries on and your role in it, then we're losing something. It's too important to not care, because it sets the tone and the debate. Likwidshoe 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm judging you by the fact that you rarely if ever talk about the science. You're not doing it here, either. Neither am I, so I'll stop William M. Connolley 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So you make a conclusion in absence of facts. That's very telling. Likwidshoe 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, touche! Seems like the enviros vs. big business, with each camp claiming to be on the side of the angels. Anyway, I conceded that my "skeptical" views are not an acceptable "starting point for balance".

I agree that Shine seems to have been expressing the wish that what scientists wrote would have been left alone. Did I read you correctly on that point, at least? --Uncle Ed 14:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) http://nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience.asp

(William M. Connolley 15:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Pretty close. I think he was asking that sci be allowed to summarise their own work. I'm not too sure how reasonable that is. At some stage there is going to be some political input, inevitably. I *think* (but can't know) that the pol bit is limited (to the SPM) and fairly light.

I agree with Ed. ANY attempt by extremist Greens to censor criticism of the IPCC is absolutely unacceptable - just as it is unacceptable for the business community to censor the IPCC. What William doesn't seem to realize is that skepticism is not only an acceptable starting point when considering any claim that wants to be taken as fact, it is an absolutely necessity. Without skepticism, science cannot be scientific, it becomes religion. I love watching the enviro-loonies lapse into foaming paroxisms of rage when their "revealed truth" as handed down on the IPCC's stone tablets is questioned. Their zeaotry is revealed for all (but them) to see.--JonGwynne 01:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 11:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) It seems ironic that in a section entitled "many scientists..." we're discussing JG stuffing the article with skeptic POV from Lord Lawson.

I suggest you find a dictionary and look up the word "irony", you're not using it properly. Here is an example of correct usage: I find it most ironic that someone who claims to be a scientist should denounce skepticism as "POV". <VBG> --JonGwynne 12:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marco Krohn wrote: "rv to last version by 67.163.128.97 - reason: Timo Hämeranta has almost no scientific reputation (otherwise please give references and reduce length of critics"

Timo Hämeranta is not a scientist - so his reputation in the area is irrelevant. He is, so I believe, a lawyer. He was, however quoting scientists and their quotes as well as the conclusions drawn from those quote are perfectly on point. There is no reason to "reduce length of critics". In fact, the criticism section should be expanded and I mean to do so. The IPCC is not immune to criticism.--JonGwynne 21:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Indeed. But the criticism should in proportion. Scientific and political criticism should be clearly separated.

This is a stupid numbers game. I don't think there is an issue that everyone agrees on, that does not mean there are necessarily two even sides. Things are not as simple as finding particulars to disrupt universals. TheTyrant 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)TheTyrant

Here, here.Qualheim 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Stott; + 2 oC

(William M. Connolley 22:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I added: Stott says it was warmer by +2 oC, but this is not supported by any record. JG added, but these records are unreliable. But in that case... where are Stotts numbers coming from? Does he have some secret, reliable record that he won't show anyone?

IPCC author selection

I pulled this paragraph here for discussion.

Authors for the IPCC reports are restricted to experts chosen from a preselected list of "appropriate" experts, which is prepared by "governments and participating organisations". [1]

Seems a relevant point to include, but in its brief form it just looks like an attempt at discrediting the report. I would think that this could be expanded to be more informative about the process. Feel free to expand toward being informative rather than depreciative POV. -Vsmith 02:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's essentially all the information provided by the IPCC about the author selection list in the reference (included), where they provide it. If you can find more information somewhere else, then by all means add it. Until then, it's important to clarify who is being chosen to write this consensus, and how they're being chosen. Perhaps you would find it less POV without the word "appropriate" in there, but that is the word the IPCC chooses to use to clarify which ones are chosen, so I included it. Perhaps it "looks like an attempt at discrediting the report" because that information does at least redefine what the report represents. A report is not necessarilly a reflection of scientific consensus if the authors are chosen by politicians. Like it or not, that fact certainly needs to be brought to light. If the authors were not chosen by politicians, then please find information which contradicts the IPCC process description and include it. — Cortonin | Talk 06:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)) C seems to have done his best to phrase it in POV fashion. I've reworded it while leaving the information intact.

Undocumented POV

Compare and Contrast. Do we really need to fill out the 't' too, or are you going to conform to your own standards? — Cortonin | Talk 22:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VSmith, rewording the paragraph to call the respect self-evident does not change the situation much. What is even the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia calling the IPCC respected? Zero. It's just POV pushing. Compare it to another organization, for example, the American Physical Society, a much larger and more influential organization. Try to find the word "respected" on that page. You won't find it, because no one is interested in pushing any POV there, they're just describing what the organization is. We should be doing the same here. — Cortonin | Talk 02:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe the American Physical Society article should say something about respect? However, there is a crucial difference, the APS has not been subject to negative propaganda from those who dislike the conclusions for political or economic reasons. And the comparison is rather irrelevant since the IPCC and APS are totally different critters. Vsmith 15:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your questionable use of the nebulous encyclopedic value as a means of justifying your POV is rather tiresome. Vsmith 15:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we've hit on the critical point, when you said that you think, "there is a crucial difference, the APS has not been subject to negative propaganda from those who dislike the conclusions". Now, if you look at the IPCC article here, you'll see that there is no such negative propaganda in the opening paragraphs. However, despite its absence, you have PREEMPTIVELY defended the IPCC against such propaganda by pushing the POV that it is respectable. If you preemptively support an organization against a POV that dislikes it, then you are pushing and endorsing a POV in support of that organization. Do you see this? The opening paragraphs have a special position of defining the topic of the article, and you have chosen to define the IPCC as respected, which endorses the view of the IPCC. The neutral point of view, in comparison, would simply describe the IPCC, how it was formed, what it produces, and the comments and opinions of other prominent people or groups who have discussed the IPCC, and it would do that without making a judgment about the IPCC and without endorsing or dismissing the IPCC. — Cortonin | Talk 18:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thus I have removed the editorializing in the opening paragraph. The extent to which the IPCC is "respected" or "influential" is a matter of opinion. Even if it could be objectively measured, it isn't relevant.--JonGwynne 18:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WMC rv'ed it back in. I removed one adjective indicating a measurement of respect. Also note that even if the scientific respect section is removed, it does seem to be a fact that the IPCC reports have been influential politically. Hardly surprising, as the IPCC's role is to produce supporting documents for the political UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol. (SEWilco 18:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 18:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Calling the black helicopters... the respect of the IPCC is evident from their frequent citation in the scientific press; by various learned societies; and even by the fact that they are the benchmark against which even septics measure themselves. Many septics puff up their credentials by claiming the status of "ipcc expert reviewer".

You know, it's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you repeatedly call people "septics". It certainly doesn't shine forth as an example of clear and unprejudiced thinking. — Cortonin | Talk 22:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Your inability to answer my points is noted, as is (just below) what looks like JG falling back on excuse #2 now that excuse #1 is blown. Cortonin, are you really happy being JG's "brother" in his POV-pushing? Don't you have any self-respect?

Your insults and incivil behavior are a violantion of wikipedia policy. --JonGwynne 14:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not the IPCC is respected is irrelevant for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. This isn't the editorial page in a newspaper. What is relevant here are objective facts. Opinions about the subject are simply inappropriate. As are comments about "black helicopters" --JonGwynne 00:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it were irrelevant then why so much effort to cut it. Clearly some wish to dispute their scientific credentials. Do you?Dejvid 01:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why so much effort to cut it? Because it is irrelevant. Editorializing has no place here. --JonGwynne 03:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... again, seems our local skeptics feel strongly that respect is a no-no in their full fledged battle to discredit the organization. Vsmith 04:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GAH! Maybe if you stopped viewing everything as "us vs. them" you'd learn a thing or two about NPOV. Look at this edit. If this were on a climate change article you would jump in and say I was defending Pat Robertson. This would be ludicrous, as I have no desire to defend Pat Robertson about anything, as my personal opinions are very much not in his favor. However, I still removed a piece of undocumented POV, not because it threatened my POV, but because it was not NPOV to have it there. I also removed the line from that article which stated that his father had "close ties to banking interests", because this was also undocumented and just there to push an anti-Pat-Robertson POV. Even if I disagree strongly with Pat Robertson's views, which I do, I still think POV pushing like that should be removed from the article so that the article can be NPOV, as per the goals of the Wikipedia project. You, and many of the other environmental advocates here, seem to have no conception of this principle. Removing that has nothing to do with trying to discredit the organization, it has to do with making the article read like a neutral encyclopedia, rather than a group-edited advocacy blog. — Cortonin | Talk 04:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amen Brother! (lol) Sorry, I couldn't resist. Seriously, why do you think that certain individuals seem to feel that this is an "us against them" sort of battle as if those who criticize the Revealed Word are heretics to be silenced and punished? I was a journalist for a time and had a number of teachers/mentors who impressed upon me the importance of distinguishing between news and editorializing. I wish some of them could be here today to share their wisdom with some of the folk here who seem to have forgotten that an encyclopedia isn't a bully-pulpit but rather a neutral and objective reporting of facts in which the personal views of the writer have NO PLACE!--JonGwynne 04:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow - all that over one word. Quite a sermon. Hilarious but irrelevant. The respect is there, it is real and factual, and it is not POV editing to mention it. Vsmith 05:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The respect is subjective at best. Even if every single person on earth respected the IPCC, and that is clearly not the case (since not everyone on earth has even heard of the IPCC), the respect would still be subjective. Whether or not the IPCC is respected is irrelevant to the discussion of who they are and what they do. It is absolutely POV to inject subjective commentary into a factual description. Such POV is inappropriate for wiki articles. And I quote from the style manual "...use neutral or nonjudgemental language. Journalists view non-neutral words and unattributed statements of opinion as "editorializing" or failures of objectivity". In other words, whether or not the IPCC is respected is not only non-neutral and a statement of opinion, unless you're saying specifically who respects them, it is unattributed as well". Strike three. --JonGwynne 05:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vsmith, read these two paragraphs. If the respect is "real and factual", then describe it the way policy dictates, by citing it. Just saying it's respected because you and those you talk to respect it, that's just POV pushing. Now if you can find a quote that says some scientific society has said, "We respect the IPCC, its work, and its conclusions," then that might be something encyclopedic worth including, since it establishes a relationship and gives information, rather than pushing the validity of a perspective. NPOV does not mean "that which you think is true", so POV pushing is not okay just because you think it's true. Document. — Cortonin | Talk 06:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone demonstrate any reason to include the opinion that the IPCC is "respected" and show any support for this claim? If not, it stays out.--JonGwynne 16:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean other than the fact that the IPCC report is cited in just aboiut every scientific paper dealing with climate change? Guettarda 16:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the IPCC report is often cited. That's why the paragraph says, "IPCC reports are often cited as supporting material." This is perfectly acceptable NPOV. Where it loses NPOV is when phrases like, "is ample evidence of the respect they have earned," or "they are the baseline for the debate," are added. Those are not NPOV. — Cortonin | Talk 23:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Political Science

Influence upon politics is not an indicator of scientific respect. George W. Bush has political influence, so does he have scientific respect? Al Gore had political influence and published a book about climate, does he have scientific respect? (SEWilco 18:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Onward, cited references...

When considering citations, keep in mind that citations in "climate effect" studies do not support climate change itself. Studies on the effects of climate change are only examining what may happen, and do not deal with the science of climate change itself. (SEWilco 18:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC))

That makes this pseudoscience, right? 202.154.152.228 10:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lindzen quote

I'v just done what is in effect a revert but hav left the Lindzen quote but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it. For one thing Lindzen is already quoted - how much space does he need? Secondly it seems to me intentionally misleading spin. To quote#: "The public is being confused by not being permitted to distinguish between changing temp, which always occurs, and about which there is agreement, and man’s role in it, which is extremely uncertain and which there is very little agreement on." It is certainly true that that in the wider political debate both sides grossly oversimplify and imply that all tempreture change is down to humans or it is all natural. What is totally untrue is that the IPCC is to blame for this. That sentence is very cleverly worded so it is at the same time true yet , because of the context he surrounds it with, givs an impression that is 180 degrees from the truth.

Implied criticism

"Rv to WMC. The Hansen text is grossly cherry picked to imply a criticism that doesn't exist." [2]

• It would help to state what you think is implied, and why the implied criticism in your head justifies removing a list of individual comments. The sourced articles do contain the information listed, and this article is about the IPCC and not the global warming topics of the articles. Can we not use information about the polar aurora which is within articles about the magnetosphere? (SEWilco 21:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 22:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I find this comment rather disappointing, coming from you. If it was from Cortonin, or JG, then it would be nothing surprising. Can you really not see any cherry picking in the selected text?

You're not answering. (SEWilco 02:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 14:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Nor are you. The answer, which you really ought to be able to see for yourself, is that the section is doing its best to make Hansen appear opposed to the IPCC, whereas he is in fact a supporter.

The topic is the IPCC, not Hansen. Hansen merely has some specific comments about some IPCC topics. (SEWilco 16:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))

NPOV Dispute

Why did you revert out the NPOV tag here and here? That is inappropriate to do. — Cortonin | Talk 00:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slapping an NPOV tag on an article without specific explanation and discussion of the reasons is inappropriate. SEW added the tag @ 19:55 and has yet to amplify or explain his specific charges. Without that explicit explanation the NPOV tag is bogus. Vsmith 00:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? No. Have you never read through Wikipedia policy? Read Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, and find me the part that says an NPOV tag is invalid if the reason isn't given right after giving it. Instead, it says the NPOV tag allows someone to register their concern to allow a cooling off period. Removing someone's NPOV tag in the midst of a NPOV conflict is a special kind of low. It tries to cover up the fact that there's even an NPOV dispute to begin with, which obviously there is here. — Cortonin | Talk 04:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In addition, acting like you don't know which things are in NPOV dispute is just silly. Let me write it out for you. — Cortonin | Talk 04:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)