Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Template:Histinfo

These articles related to global change are a mess

The section title says it all. When one reads articles related to global change on Wikipedia he finds a redundant mess of opinions which leaves the reader confused, and witha slight sensation that the issue is not a scientific, but a political one. Which is exactly what DETRACTORS of the issue want: to degrade it from a risk worth to be studied and tackled till there's time to avoid disaster to a Communist mental jerkoff, forgive the profanity.

Instead of reporting any single word from anyone connected, those who carry the burden of editing these articles should carefully concentrate on solid facts. I'm not a stupd and know even too well that often science becomes matter of opinion or dogma (see the Big Bang and black holes mantra in cosmology, which is actually influenced by a Western monotheistic religious view), but this issue has to do with human basic survival. Global warming is only a piece of a more genral debate about a simple concept: we have only one Earth and cannot waste it. Resources are not infinite, and they'll soon finish if we go along this way still for some DECADES. And that's all. That's not ideology. That's mathematics.

User:Basil II 12:59, 12 October 2007 (CET)

I have to agree. Work needs to be done on these articles.141.155.133.231 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Basil have you considered the simplest solution? Maybe this mess is exactly what looks like? Have you considered the possibility that this article is entirely accurate when describing a redundant, non-scientific political mess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.232.174 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. And I concluded as above, that SOMEONE wants the matter to appear in that (dim) light. I'm not THAT stupid, and do not believe anything that is said easily, even in regards to global warming.

User:Basil II 12:59, 12 October 2007 (CET)

"this issue has to do with human basic survival..." This is not a place for world crusades whereupon you manipulate these articles to influence people with your opinions. This is an encyclopedia that ideally should state facts from a neutral standpoint. The one place where a reader can trust the source to have a neutral viewpoint (non-argumentative or opinionated bias). You clearly have a viewpoint, and your intent for editing these article is not for improvement content/quality of the article itself but rather for what you perceive to be "human basic survival". Please do not edit this article with such intentions in mind. --99.253.227.126 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts over "scientific" body

Please see the above section. Reliable sources like the Royal Society and the BBC call it a "scientific body". We could overreference this to death, but there really is no need beyond the one reference given. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC journalists are not matter experts and thus don't count. I don't see a link to the specific Royal Society endorsement of IPCC's scientific claims. --Unconcerned (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is a WP:RS and very much counts. See [1] for the Royal Society: "authoritative scientific organisations, such as the IPCC". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest you include the RS document as your external ref for the "scientific" claim in the first paragraph instead of IPCC's self description. The BBC news feature still doesn't count, sorry, I doubt Mr Roger Harrabin employs elements of the scientific method on a daily basis. And by the way threatening with a block or simply "being bored" with me will never count as solid arguments. --Unconcerned (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you doubt that the BBC is a RS, I suggest you take it up with WP:RSN. Of course a reporter is not a subject matter expert, but he is (supposed to be) an expert in getting the facts right. The IPCC itself is a reliable source, also for it's own description - after all, it has an international and public mandate, and a transparent process. That's why we deem that source sufficient. And I did not "threaten" you with a block, I gave you what I consider a polite form of a standard WP:3RR warning, as you seem to be unaware of that rule. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What Stephan said. Unconcerned's edits are meritless, disruptive, and contribute nothing to this article. Raul654 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care about the entire battery of acronyms nor the fact that some or all of the reverters are admins. I have exposed my rationale from the first edit and have the expectation to be met with the same courtesy. Disagreement is natural and unless you have the patience to provide sensible arguments, a simple revert is an act of vandalism. --Unconcerned (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If your point is that since the IPCC doesn't do research per se, it isn't scientific, it's clearly an obscurantist one. Not all scientific documents highlight new findings. There are many scientific journals which deal solely in reviews of the literature (i.e. no new science), and the IPCC's reports can be viewed as representing a (much) more tailored or specialised version of these. On top of that, the IPCC is drawn from the scientists that are doing the underlying work. Essentially, the IPCC is jobbing scientists summarising "proper" (in your sense) science (plus, of course, creating more simplified forms for political/general consumption). To remove "scientific" from descriptions of the IPCC will serve only to muddy the waters. Or is that what you're after? --PLUMBAGO 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientific reviews will necessarily cover the entire range of research, not just "papers that agree with me and my buddies". I don't see that range in IPCC's work. Nowhere else in Science do scientists form a political body to "interpret" the "proper" science in a "simpler" form for "political/general consumption". While they laudably admit to not doing own research, they wander in your muddy waters with other claims. Telling the story of one's research inquiry is not science per se. Long story short, I am only crossing t's and dotting i's in an attempt to clear your muddy water. Honesty will always weigh more than any unsubstantiated claim. Cheers--Unconcerned (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And you sure have a long list of peer-reviewed papers relevant to the topic but ignored by the IPCC? Do you know that all comments to the IPCC drafts are out in the open, with replies on how and why they were incorporated or discarded? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the red herring. Of course I don't have the complete, long list of ignored papers. This however does not make IPCC's work any more scientific. Have a good day. --Unconcerned (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(Decrease indent) Hmmmm, "papers that agree with me and my buddies"? Consult any issue of any major science journal and you'll see paper after paper that supports the IPCC and their buddies (directly or indirectly). In fact, you'll even find papers that say that the IPCC are dangerously conservative in their acceptance of evidence (as there have been over its predictions for sea-level rise). Were there any evidence against the broad case presented by the IPCC then scientists would be crushed in the rush to claim the fame and kudos from publishing such evidence. There are few things more tempting to a scientist than an apple-cart waiting to be upset. To suggest otherwise, to imply that the case made by the IPCC is a conspiracy of vested interests, is simply absurd, and overlooks both the accumulated scientific evidence and the plain self-interest of individual scientists. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several, very prominent climate scientists who are frequently publishing results that are not in line with the "consensus", yet --as someone put it-- their work gets discarded by this political body. I assume you have studied both sides of the "consensus" and already know who I'm talking about. A honest scientific intepretation of climate data will show what some well trained researchers call error bars, or confidence intervals. For some reason any attempt at putting IPCC's decrees in the perspective of actual uncertainty in data acquisition, data reconstruction and model extrapolation is discarded and never even mentioned in the final documents. The hockey stick controversy would never have become a controversy if actual science were used in composing that diagram. By not following simple science protocol, the messages our reputable climate scientists are trying to convey becomes simple political slogans. --Unconcerned (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources, anecdotal evidence, and common-sense arguments have all been put forward supporting the use of the adjective "scientific", with little more than a single editor's personal feelings against it. There is no need for this thread to continue. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 01:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no original research, nor personal feeling, in observing that not doing science is not science. I do however accept the Royal Society as a reliable source even if I personally disagree with their "scientific" qualifier. However, if you followed closely the editing dispute, that reference was missing.--Unconcerned (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Problem solved, ref fixed, case closed.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced text in 'Physical modeling debate' section

I've noticed that the section 'Physical modeling debate' seems to contain original research (in bold):

MIT professor Richard Lindzen, one of the scientists in IPCC Working Group I, has expressed disagreement with the IPCC reports. He expressed his unhappiness about those portions in the Executive Summary based on his contributions in May 2001 before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation:

The summary does not reflect the full document... For example, I worked on Chapter 7, Physical Processes. This chapter dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments – including those of clouds and water vapor. The chapter was summarized with the following sentence: 'Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapor, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport.'

The Summary for Policymakers of the WG1 reports does include caveats on model treatments: Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales.

These statements are in turn supported by the executive summary of chapter 8 of the report, which includes:

* Coupled models can provide credible simulations of both the present annual mean climate and the climatological seasonal cycle over broad continental scales for most variables of interest for climate change. Clouds and humidity remain sources of significant uncertainty but there have been incremental improvements in simulations of these quantities.

* Confidence in the ability of models to project future climates is increased by the ability of several models to reproduce the warming trend in 20th century surface air temperature when driven by radiative forcing due to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. However, only idealised scenarios of only sulphate aerosols have been used.

In my view, this is an unsourced commentary on Lindzen's viewpoint, and should be deleted. If someone wants to comment on Lindzen's viewpoint, then they should provide a source. For example, Sir John Houghton has given evidence to the House of Lords on Lindzen's views. Alternatively, you could simply refer to supporters of the IPCC, e.g., other climate scientists, statements made by national science academies, etc. and let readers make up their own mind.Enescot (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Looks like somebody has taken care of the problem by removing the lengthy excerpts and just using a quote from Sir John. Definitely an improvement. Thanks.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken Ref

Link 98 "NRC Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions p. 11" is broken202.78.240.67 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Please add new topics at the end (you can use the "New section" button). Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We need discussion & resolution of the self described "Scientific" vs. "Advocacy" characterization

The problem relates to the first sentence of the article as it appears as of 12-12-09 emphasis added:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity.

Should the term scientific be used to describe the IPCC, notwithstanding the fact that the IPCC itself goes to great length to characterize themselves as such: "The IPCC is a scientific body."[2] But we find what appears contradictory in the same article:

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[4] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change.

and

The IPCC is only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP.

It doesn't seem right to call the IPCC, a United Nations body, a self described intergovernmental body, as a scientific body. It also seems wrong to deny the central purpose of the UN, influencing policy and conduct of its member nations. Let's consider by analogy, the publishing arm of University is not a scientific body. The credit union which provides banking services to members of a University is not a scientific body. Perhaps they are regulators, or a policy think tank. I don't dispute that they are commenting on the scientific reports and data of some scientists, academics, & researches. Clearly the operation of the IPCC has had affects on politics, policy, and perhaps legislation around the globe. I would like to suggest that the word scientific be removed and inserting "policy influencing" or "advocacy" at the same location. Obviously this particular issue has had some attention with less than a perfect record of civil discourse. So Please let's discuss this in a civil manner. The issue to discuss in this role is not Global Warming, but how to accurately characterize the IPCC. These are two separate questions one for the deletion of an adjective, one for the inclusion of an adjective. 1) Is it a scientific body? 2) Is it a body for policy influence or advocacy? This article needs some sort of organized resolution of these two questions perhaps with the assistance of some experienced editors / administrators. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes. 2. It is a body whose results are used for political purposes, just like lots of other scientific research, but which is itself largely non-political William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, since it's composed of scientists. There are interests behind almost every scientific study. They're payed for by governments, companies and advocacy groups. They will always get their money from a particular group of people with particular interests. That doesn't mean they won't follow scientific principles and methods. 2. It's a scientific body whose results are used for policy influence.--camr ^nag 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Sure. Al-Jazeera, Sydney Morning Herald, BBC, Guardian, Royal Society, ... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. No. Some of the lead authors are economists, not scientists e.g. Kenneth Arrow. 2. Judging by the contents of its public reports, it is focussed on advocacy - note for instance http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/10th-anniversary/anniversary-brochure.pdf - the summary of each IPCC report has a followup section advertising what impact that report had on the government COP meetings that followed. The IPCC clearly measures its performance against its influence on those meetings. Cadae (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So, economy is not a science? Also, any scientific body that discovers that X is bad, would not cease to be scientific if they actually say "hey, X is bad". If doctors discover that smoking is bad for your health and recommend their patients to stop, then their licences should be revoked?--camr ^nag 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct - economy is not a science. Scientific bodies don't use the word or concept of 'bad' as that is a value judgement which is distinctly not science. 'bad' is, however, liberally used in the realms of politics and advocacy. Cadae (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, you've said it all.--camr ^nag 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Himalaya Glaciers

Discussion on this can be found here: Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report#The veracity of this report has been called into question.... The current insertion seems to be a spillover. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the reliability of the entire IPCC report is in question, evidence that the report was written in a biased or sloppy way is extremely relevant to this page. Vegasprof (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that the "reliability of the entire IPCC report is in question" is your personal opinion (which you are free to have as long as you do not project it into Wikipedia). But here we are talking about an error in one paragraph in chapter 10 (of 20) section 6 subsection 2 in the WGII report which is 1 of 3 main reports in the AR4 (which is the 4th report) from the IPCC - and that is grossly WP:UNDUE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the IPCC's scaremongering about Himalayan glaciers has permeated the collective unconscious of society then I find this to be very relevant. When I first added it you people didn't like the sources, so I changed them, and now you are inventing a new reason to limit the spread of information - the only way to destroy the urban legend that they invented. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Which again seems to be your personal opinion ("scaremongering", "permeated","urban legend"...). And again you are free to have that opinion - as long as you do not project it into Wikipedia articles. And i'm not "inventing" anything - please read and understand WP:UNDUE (which is a part of our WP:NPOV policy). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to pretend with me Kim. I know your record and that of your friends. Sorry, but my sources show that it is a plain fact that the IPCC was drastically wrong about the melting glaciers - the fact that such a myth has spread so far and wide is evidence of how significant their propaganda has been. If I actually saw you apply policy in a way that didn't massage the AGW perspective then I might be more inclined to respect your opinion. I couldn't live with myself if I behaved in the same way. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and [WP:UNDUE]] doesn't apply. We aren't talking about "viewpoints" here - we are talking about verifiable fact. And the fact of the matter is that the IPCC broke their own publishing rules by not using peer-reviewed literature which resulted in them making a glaring error about melting glaciers. Again, those are facts, not viewpoints - come up with a new excuse. Third times a charm right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE relates to all content - not just viewpoints. Simplified: Proportion of content must be in relative proportion to prominence in literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, so the question becomes whether this mistake (if it is indeed a mistake) is sourced as being of significant importance to the panel, its mission, its public perception, etc. Becoming a hot item among climate change skeptics and anti-environmental operatives is not in itself worthy of note, but if their agitation reaches the point where it is part of the story of the organization, perhaps. Also, if there is a child article relating to the report or to some scandal (or to the glacier in question, perhaps), the information is probably better centralized there. Also, to reiterate Scjessey's point below, please don't use article talk pages to criticize other editors, or any page to make simple personal attacks like the above. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I suggest you actually read the policies you love to cite as excuses to keep out information. It plainly states that WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints. I'm inserting facts and attempting to do so without bias. Facts are not "viewpoints." Here is an idea for you Kim, and I know it is radical, but consider this, encycopedias are like people - they are improved by knowledge - not ignorance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

More sources that confirm my edits and show how their importantance - [3][4][5] [6][7][8] - plus the sources I've already quoted. Is it your contention that these facts are unimportant? Is this not enough? Tell me this - what, in your mind, and be specific, would be enough, or the right kind, of evidence for you to concede that this information is important and should be in this article? TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The date error (2035 vs 2350) from a trusted source - the IPCC - has caused a fairly significant myth to be created. For instance, a Google search on the keywords "Himalayan glaciers melt 2035" gives 48,200 hits, whereas the number of hits for the correct date - "Himalayan glaciers melt 2350" gives 6,460 hits. Reliance on the veracity of the IPCC has been responsible for propagating seriously incorrect information. Here's an example of what can happen when one disputes the IPCC: http://www.france24.com/en/node/4921700. This is an important aspect of the IPCC and merits coverage on the wikipedia entry about the IPCC. Cadae (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that the entire section is just deleted, the entire reasoning given for this change in the edit summary being "per Kim"; as if said user somehow is the final authority on this subject, and that if he says so then that's the end of that and no further discussion is needed. The second edit summary has even less details, merely stating "no". I don't see how undue weight is an argument here, there's no denying that the melting of glaciers is a key example used to demonstrate the reality / severity of climate change, and grossly inaccurate reporting on it by an authoritative agency I think is certainly worth mentioning, especially considering (as demonstrated above) the fact this error hasn't gone unnoticed in the media and has even resulted in criticism from India's environment minister (see BBC ref. in deleted content). It's not like it's just a minor typo without real consequence. But I guess mentioning it would make the statement written just a little lower - "We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes" - seem rather silly. Infact that entire section seems rather silly, I don't see UNICEF getting a praise section for their work. I could obviously restore the section, but there's no doubt in my mind it'd be deleted again. BabyNuke (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As has alrady been pointed out, this stuff refers to one section of one report. Hence "The IPCC's 4th report has been criticized by..." is clearly too broad-brush. At the very least you need to re-phrase it to make it clear (assuming you know, of course) which report, and which bit. Even then the question of due weight still applies. I don't see how undue weight is an argument here - this may be a flaw in your understanding, rather than in the reasoning. Is melting of Himalayan glaciers presented as key evidence by the IPCC? I rather doubt it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

The ongoing edit war here has been mentioned on this thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and at this thread on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Could I suggest a bit more decorum and, at the very least, discussion on this subject, and less edit warring? --TS 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussions as far as i'm aware have been ongoing over the whole period - it started at the 4AR article (see above). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I could care less where it started, and I didn't even know it "started" at that article, but the fact of the matter is that your friend is using the EXACT same excuses to keep it out of that article too. The evidence demonstrates that you and your friends don't want this information in any articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

These assumptions of bad faith ("you and your friends," et al) are unacceptable. Please comment on the content, not the editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It a verifiable fact that they are friends from looking at their facebook pages - linked from their own profiles. It is also a verifiable fact that they've been citing every wiki-policy they can think of, for 6+ years, to "maintain the integrity of wikipedia." Of course, you automatically assume that I'm assuming bad faith - are these facts so damning that their revelation can only be "assuming bad faith?"

I'm glad you think so. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen has been repeatedly deleting the contribution from TheGoodLocust, citing WP:UNDUE. An article about the IPCC ought to cover the major aspects and characteristics of the IPCC. One of the most significant aspects of the IPCC is its accuracy. When that accuracy is called into question with good evidence to demonstrate a lack of accuracy, then that evidence is significant to the character of the IPCC, and WP:UNDUE does not apply - indeed the very opposite applies - this is signficant information about the character of the IPCC that needs greater weight than mere appendage to the section "Criticism of IPCC". Cadae (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this edit war still ongoing when there is a discussion here? The sources are well founded and the additions are pertinant to the article. I fail to see why there is a problem with this inclusion. mark nutley (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The point seems to be to make edits so difficult that they can only be accomplished with much hassle and outside mediation - I think it drives a lot of people away from wikipedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of Non-Peer Reviewed Sources and the Himalayan Glaciers

Here is the section that I wrote up to be included in the criticisms of the IPCC:

--- Use of Non-Peer-reviewed Literature and the Himalayan Glaciers

The IPCC's 4th report has been criticized by Professor J Graham Cogley for using three reports, by the World Wildlife Fund, UNESCO, and the magazine New Scientist, none of which were peer-reviewed, to make the case that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035. When the original source was tracked down he found that they had misstated both the year and the effect - the original source, by a M. Kuhn, states that the year was actually 2350, and that the Himalayan glaciers would be intact at that time. IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt, but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate.

The IPCC's assessment of melting Himalayan glaciers has also been criticized as being "horribly wrong," according to John Shroder a Himalayan glacier specialist at the University of Nebraska. According to Shroder, the IPCC jumped to conclusions based on insufficient data. Additionally, Donald Alford, a hydrologist, asserts that his water study for the World Bank demonstrates that the Ganges River only gets 3-4% of its water from glacial sources - casting doubt on the claim that the river would dry up since its primary source of water comes from rainfall. Finally, Michael Zemp, from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, has stated that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" on the subject, that, under IPCC rules they shouldn't have published their statements, and that he knows of no scientific references that would've confirmed their claims. ---

I encourage anyone who reads this to appropriately add the section if you think more people would benefit from knowledge than from ignorance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is still WP:UNDUE, you are still focusing on one bad information from a report that contains several thousands of such. There is no doubt that it is wrong - but it is a factoid projected far beyond its prominence. It could be mentioned in the article on Retreat of glaciers since 1850 where it would be on-topic and due. But certainly not in its current form which is extremely one-sided. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim is correct: both that the substance (2035/2350) is correct and that this is UNDUE. Also, the bit about the Ganges is not very relevant here. And you've been rather partial with your quotation from Zemp. Incidentally, the bit about not using PR papers is funny, given the spetic desire to re-instate fig 7.1c from the '90 report William M. Connolley (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry kim and will, this is not one sided, it is fact. Encyclopaedias deal in facts. There is a section in the article which praises this report, so were is the undue weight in a section which has found flaws in said report? It is called balance. Also undue weight is about viewpoints, not facts. This addition is well sourced and pertinant to the article. Once again you are letting your personal points of view get in the way. mark nutley (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia deals in pertinent facts, this is not such - it is not an indiscriminate collection random factoids. This is a cherry-pick blown out of proportion. And that is exactly what our policy on neutral point of view (the undue part) is about. Now there (as i said) may be articles where this is within due weight, but a general article on the IPCC (or the AR4) is not the place. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The pertinent fact at issue is the reliability of the IPCC and its reports. The incorrect dates indicate that the IPCC reports cannot be given the weight attributed to them. They must be viewed with some suspicion as the IPCC have not adhered to their own stated policy. This is pertinent to the characterisation of the IPCC, and WP:UNDUE doesn't apply. Defending the IPCC in the face of this error is not WP:NPOV. Cadae (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but an error in one paragraph is an extremely large report (several thousand pages) does not merit weight to this, nor does it merit that we "view [them with] some suspicion", especially not since we have most of the worlds scientific bodies backing up the reports (with none saying otherwise) What seems more the case here is that some are willing to "make a feather into 5 hens" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC have failed to adhere to their own policy, leading to an error of fact. This has significance beyond a simple factual error - it indicates poor management and a lack of process control - thus affecting the veracity of their reports. The very existence of this process break-down and factual error may well cause the "worlds scientific bodies" to reconsider their support of the IPCC reports. Your appeal to the authority of the "worlds scientific bodies" backing the reports is a self-serving argument - you've assumed your own conclusion that they won't give this error any weight Cadae (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, review failed for one paragraph of a several thousand pages document, that happens, so what? And i do get that you apparently have very strong feelings on the subject - but that doesn't make it more important. If the worlds scientific bodies reconsider their support - then we most certainly will report it (even if one scientific academy does), since that would be a pertinent fact - as opposed to this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The consequences of that review failure extend beyond 'one paragraph of several thousand'. The assumption is that the IPCC reports are highly accurate. This event calls into question that accuracy. Your claim of WP:UNDUE is like claiming we can ignore a murderer's single act of murder, simply because he has murdered only on one day of the thousands he has been alive. That one act of murder (or in the IPCC's case - failure to adhere to policy) characterises the murderer. We rightly highlight that one failure of character of the murderer in the courts, the press and wikipedia - similarly we need to highlight that failure of character of the IPCC in Wikipedia.Cadae (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A mountain out of a molehill. Sorry but the murder analogy is rather bad. It is a single mistake taken out of a context of tens of thousands points of data/facts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your 'mountain out of a molehill' doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The 'molehill' is far from a 'molehill'- it is nothing less than a question of the character of the IPCC as an unblemished reliable source, upon whose reports the world's economies will be spending trillions of dollars. There were several failures of policy and procedure involved. If this were a pharmaceutical report, the authors would be arrested and tried for fraud. Cadae (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly made your personal POV clear, and also why you want to include something that is rather clearly WP:UNDUE. Try with reliable sources instead of original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to my reasons for showing why WP:UNDUE doesn't apply, you ignore my reasoning and blandly repeat your WP:UNDUE claim without responding to my points. Your POV is also clear, but is backed only by the claim that it is only "one paragraph among thousands". I have repeatedly addressed this, but you continue to fail to engage with the points raised. It gives the distinct impression that the deletion of the section about the IPCC error is motivated by bias. Cadae (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So can Retreat of glaciers since 1850 be changed to reflect this new information? Is the WWF Report a RS since it was not peer reviewed? If it is not an RS, much of the Asia section under Retreat of glaciers since 1850 needs to be rewritten. Schonchin (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[indent] I don`t see how the wwf could ever be counted as a reliable source for anything. So yes the Retreat of glaciers since 1850 should most certainly be reviewed. mark nutley (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A hierarchical approach probably makes sense

The recent edit war was over whether to report on an error found in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in this article. A similar discussion is taking place on the AR4 talk page to see if the error should be reported in that article.

It seems to me that, if we can't agree to include a mention of the error in the AR4 article, we're unlikely to reach agreement on whether to mention it in this more general article. I would suggest therefore that it makes sense for us to all concentrate, at Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, on whether to discuss the matter as part of that article. If we decide not to go ahead with that, it seems to me, then it seems very unlikely that we would want to include it here. On the other hand, if we decide to include it in the AR4 article, the case to include it here will be a little stronger. So I advise a hierarchical approach. Discuss it at the AR4 article and take it from there. --TS 17:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The AR4 article focuses on the contents of AR4 and does not speak to the nature and characteristics of the IPCC. The error introduced in the AR4 report has significance beyond IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). As an indicator of a failure of IPCC policy and procedure it has significance independent of the error itself, as it speaks to the reliablity of the IPCC. It is thus less important as an item in the AR4 article than as an item about the IPCC itself. Creating a dependency between its presence in IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) to its presence here is a mistake. It can and should be considered differently in each context. Cadae (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point of view (though I don't agree with it). But I don't think you can make an argument that will convince people who are already dubious about the notion of discussing the matter at all even in the AR4 article. --TS 11:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this article not mention that the IPCC is not allowed to assess the "for and against" of global warming since it is signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which states that global warming is real and dangerous

Therefore they will only ever find global warming or they will al be out of work? mark nutley (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't because it is incorrect. You seem not to have read the report(s)? Take a peek, they are quite interesting and contain quite a lot that various people assert that they do not. (for instance about solar or natural variations, discussions of Svensmarks cosmic ray hypothesis, discussions of benefits of warming etc etc etc) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to TS - I'm not sure which POV you understand - the POV that the AR4 article and IPCC article shouldn't be dependent on each other, or the POV that the error is more significant in the IPCC article than the AR4 article ? If you comprehend my point, you will see that you have the dependency around the wrong way - the date error is less significant in the AR4 article than in the IPCC article. Even if it is not in AR4, it has more significance to the IPCC article, and exclusion of it in AR4 is no justification for excluding it from IPCC. Cadae (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble here is that I cannot begin to address your argument because I cannot make any sense of it. The error is in the AR4, so under what circumstances could it possibly be appropriate to mention it in this article but not in the article on AR4? --TS 15:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll restate the argument and try to make it clearer. AR4 is all about the AR4 report - it is not about the IPCC. Information about the IPCC itself is in the IPCC article i.e. information about the IPCC's characteristics, history, successes and failures. The date error (2035 vs 2350) is a significant failure of the IPCC to adhere to its policy and processes - this is of greatest import to the article about the IPCC itself, not the article about AR4. The significance of the failure is dependent on its context - it's even more significant in the IPCC article than in the AR4 article. Cadae (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: What does WP:DUE indicate regarding errors in an IPCC report?

A 2007 synthesis report by the IPCC (main article, sometimes referred to as AR4) included inaccurate statements on the rapidity of glacial melting in the Himalayas. This was based on literature that had not been peer reviewed, in contravention of IPCC's stated process. Choose just about any diff here to see the proposed text. Is it WP:DUE weight to include a section along these lines? Does it give WP:UNDUE weight to one aspect of the topic Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? What is the WP:PROMINENCE of criticisms of one report to the topic of the article on the Panel? For background discussion, see #Re Himalaya Glaciers and #Use of Non-Peer Reviewed Sources and the Himalayan Glaciers. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC text fixed for neutral presentation here. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Section for comments from uninvolved editors only

• I've looked around this and as far as I can tell the only purpose of including the text is to try to portray IPCC as unreliable, which in general they are not. It's not a criticism that makes the mainstream reviews of the subject I've read and seems to be considered massively important by the global warming denial community and nobody else. As such it looks very much like undue weight to me, something considered significantly only y a fringe minority (there are analogues in the debate around the big bang theory, some people seek to exploit minor debates around tiny facets of what amounts to an overwhelming consensus in order to overstate the extent of the dispute and the solidity of the evidence base). I guess I am reminded of the infamous hockey stick, criticism of which is used to deny the late 20th century temperature uptick which appears in so many different models that those using the hockey stick critique give a very strong impression of deliberately choosing the thing they can criticise in order to avoid answering an unanswerable case. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• No idea what the current status of the RfC is, but. The "Himalayan Glaciers" section seems to be about a rather small issue that is given too much weight/space. But the same can be said about all sub-section in the "Criticism of IPCC" section. I think it is important to present the criticism, but it is also important to inform the un-informed reader that there are also many scientists who agree with the finding (and all of these have not gotten their own 10-line description in the article). I also miss a description of the possibly-unfair criticism from politicians and others. To summarize, I think the criticism should be included but it is necessary to have a meta-description about what the general consensus in the scientific, and political, community is. Labongo (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I've looked at the edit history, and it looks as if the material relating to the apparent use of non peer-reviewed data is a clear case of undue weight. A neutral source suggesting that this might be a noteworthy problem for the report would be required, at least. What we appear to have is some decidedly non-neutral criticism coupled with an admission that the sourcing could have been better. I long for the day when Wikipedia subscribes to the standards of the IPCC. --FormerIP (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Section for comments from involved editors

• Include - The IPCC is not immune from controversy or criticism. The sources provided are clearly reliable for this material. --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Disclosure: I am not sure what "field of articles" refers to but in this case I am suitably independent of this article and it's talk page. My only contributions to this page were to place a {{fact}} on the claim that the IPCC is a scientific organization, to correct a broken reference, and to add a link to the see also section. I have now become an active participant.

• Too new / minor - on including some mention: this is a minor point in the WGII report, not in the more-known WGI report. It is also too new - wait a month, the view amongst WP:RS about this may settle. On including the text proposed [9]: it clearly violates WP:UNDUE and fails to understand the issue William M. Connolley (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's an extreme case of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. The cause is one error in the WG2 report. The effect is (nearly) as long as the whole section on the AR4 so far. Moreover, it mixes criticism of process with criticism of results, and significant parts of the later seem to be unsourced. And on the Meta-level: The RfC is horribly spun. You are supposed to at least try to make it look neutral. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on civil and productive discussion. See WP:Dispute resolution for alternative venues. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Google glacial melt 2035 and see how many hits you get. Look above for the rest of my arguments mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC) You are hardly uninvolved with this article Stephen. Oh, and TS, why'd you remove the list of those for/against? Was it because the talk pages show a clear case for inclusion? You also removed my editting to make my post look ugly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Additionally, you are quoting WP:COATRACK which is NOT wikipedia policy, and indeed, the talk pages show the vast majority of involved wikipedians voted AGAINST making it policy due to, among other things, its potential abuse for keeping relevent info out of articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC) As for "spin" I can only present the counterarguments that your side has made - like your quoting of non-policy. It isn't my fault that it looks bad. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC) We don't use votes for this kind of thing (hence I guess people are commenting not voting) we use arguments here WP:UNDUE is a heavy argument against including this, given how much coverage IPCC gets and how little this one has got. OTOH is is hardly something to get worked up about. --BozMo talk 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And again, not only has this gotten a lot of coverage, but an expert on the subject, as quoted and sourced in the inclusion, has said that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" - if it is "major" then it certainly isn't undue. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Expert meaning the red link above? Do we know anything about him? --BozMo talk 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Note after refocusing discussion: the red link above refers to Michael Zemp. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

He works for the World Glacier Monitoring service and is a doctor - here is a list of his publications. He is certainly far better qualified to determine how important this is than any of us. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This mistake was still being cited by the ipcc on on third of november.

(Jean-Pascal van Ypersele IPCC Vice-chair, said at UNFCCC, Barcelona, on 3 November, 2009):

ImpactsGlacial retreat in the Himalaya

receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming; in addition, high population density near these glaciers and consequent deforestation and land-use changeshave adversely affected these glaciers

the total glacial area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2(or disappear entirely) by the year 2035

Bearing in mind if the himalayan glaciers melt to 100k`s2 then it actually no loss at all is that is their current estimated size :) So it`s impact is still ongoing, google glacial melt and you would think that this was an accurate date.mark nutley (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark, Please assume that some of us are actually trying to understand you in good faith and don't use all these shorthands. --BozMo talk 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry bozmo, what do you mean by shorthands? mark nutley (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The last couple of paras here is written assuming the reader is deep in conversation with you and knows what you are talking about. What in this last couple of paragraphs is the quote and how does it fit with the point you are making (which is that some IPCC data used was not peer reviewed prior to use, I think)? Whose figures are which etc. What's the significance of the date you would think was accurate by googling glacial melt etc. All this is on the road to proving sufficient weight for inclusion I take it?--BozMo talk 20:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya sorry about that, the last part is a copy and paste. the google search is to show just how far this mistake has reached. mark nutley (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to William M. Connolley @ 09:58, 1 January 2010, once again i see the words "minor point", you fail to address the fact that this 2035 date was widely published and reported as fact by both the IPCC and the MSM. This failure of the IPCC to follow their own guidlines in no using non-peer reviewed literature has lead to a massive belief that 2035 is correct and not 2350. I also fail to see how balance can be achieved in this article if a section "Praise for the IPCC" can be viewed as ok and not be WP:UNDUE but a proposed section to point out major mistakes is called WP:UNDUE ? Sorry makes no sense. I would also like to point out from one of the conversations which has been collapsed, User:Stephan Schulz cites WP:COATRACK as a reason against inclusion, this is not actually WP policy at this moment in time. --mark nutley (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That glaciers are melting is major. That Himalayan glaciers would melt by a given date isn't. The idea that all Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 is ludicrous. I agree that date is in the PDF you've linked above; I disagree that anyone took it seriously (though that is hard to pin down; [10] (twice)) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry william i strongly disagree with your statement I disagree that anyone took it seriously

• Jean-Pascal van Ypersele IPCC Vice-chair took it seriously.
• The Telegraph took it seriously.
• The hindustan times reported on the indian government releasing a statement to help quell panic.

I can get plenty more examples from reliable sources which show that it was most certainly taken seriously. --mark nutley (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we all know you disagree. But you need better sources. Your Telegraph link sources the statement to "Indian climate experts", not IPCC. The third example is very weak too William M. Connolley (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, how about

• CNN
• The Guardianon 9 Nov 2009 (good one this as Pachauri slaps down india's environment minister and says, "his report is not Peer Reviewed", bit of a cheek that really :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 11:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Grossly biased

Fixed. Discussion collapsed for readability. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This RFC is so grossly biased that it will inevitably accomplish nothing. The first argument "WP:UNDUE Specifically is stated to apply to viewpoints - the proposed section contains facts." is so amusingly incorrect that it makes the cases against the authors viewpoint quite effectively. This discussion should be at the AR4 page - as TS has said. The text is clearly UNDUE; it is inaccurate (it speaks of the report instead of one of several); I don't believe the 3 sources stuff; etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Everyone is well aware of your bias Connolley. If there are any facts that need correcting then you are free to point them out. Anyway, you are welcome not to "believe" anything you like, but the sources we have say otherwise. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Just my 2c: The error isn't a mere typo, it's a gross error on a topic that's used as one of the main examples of climate change in the media. If it was a mere typo, I'd agree, it'd just be nitpicking. But there is more going on here, it's a mistake that's the result of sloppy work done by the IPCC and it also happens to have been reproduced frequently in the media; both the number being used incorrectly (as is mentioned above) as well as by media pointing out the mistake. The FIRST hit I get on google is a big player, CNN: "The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report." and another editor mentioned a BBC article that pointed out the error, so it's not just obscure climate change bloggers writing about these things. So yeah, this perhaps little mistake has had considerable consequence and has been picked up by the big players in the media, so it's well worth including. Considering the article even has a praise section for the IPCC, I think it's not throwing the article off from a NPOV either.BabyNuke (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC) You are aware that all that this shows is confirmation bias - right? If you look for something that you know is there, then when you find it, it shouldn't come as a surprise.... Yes, it is an error - No, it isn't important in this context. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Removed per undue wt. and full of errors. Should be in AR4 if anywhere. Vsmith (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC) If there are errors then list them and source them. The undue weight complaints are completely without merit. Also, the cry to put some information into satellite articles, where less people are likely to see the information and even fewer people are likely to discuss it seems like a tactic to keep it out of the encyclopedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying it should be in the ar4 article is pointless as those who oppose it here also oppose it`s inclusion there mark nutley (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets take it again this is: one error in one paragraph in chapter 10 (of 20) section 6 subsection 2 in the WGII report which is 1 of 3 main reports in the AR4 (which is the 4th report) from the IPCC - the proposed text presented above is larger than the paragraph with the error. => Grossly undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. The weight comes not from the number of words in the paragraph but in where the paragraph resides and the significance that it carries. The mere fact that it is an error in the IPCC report gives it far more than enough weight for inclusion. --GoRight (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Refuting errors often takes more work than simply making them - in the same way that deletion/destruction is easier than the creative impulse (the difference between destroying books and writing them). Also, the section explains the impact as well - and there are many areas on wikipedia that expand. Additionally, their error has been cited so many times in the mainstream media which increases its "size." TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and those warring to include can't even take time to correct obvious errors in the proposed text. Vsmith (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked you to tell me what the errors are and to source them - be specific. You can't just say there are errors without explaining yourself. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm by no means convinced that we yet have consensus or policy reasons sufficient for giving this proposed addition the kind of prominence it gets here. I have reverted pending a justification for the amount of weight, and the presentation. What happened to the idea of seeing if it can go into AR4? --TS 23:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

They won`t have it there either. @Kim, it does not matter if it is one small part of the main report. They used non peer reviewed papers and made statements based on them. Sorry but if a group like the IPCC make statements like "all glaciers will be gone in 2035" in will cause widespread alarm. This should be in here, they messed up and you guys seem to want to hide it mark nutley (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid even oblique personal attacks. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article gets more traffic, and therefore more outside opinions (as shown by the number of people who keep restoring the section). Anyway, we don't need policy to keep it in, we need policy to keep it out - and a reliable source has stated that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" - obviously it can't be undue if an outside expert thinks it is important (plus the other reasons against the UNDUE charge). TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Oh no, you're wrong there. We do need to establish whether there is consensus and policy support. I don't think the case has been adequately made yet. Edit warring to get it in won't work unless we establish consensus. --TS 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC) From a dictionary con⋅sen⋅sus  [kuhn-sen-suhs] 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 2. general agreement or concord; harmony. Currently the majority want this in, therefore a consensus has been reached. mark nutley (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC) The policy support is trivial. Please review WP:V and WP:RS. --GoRight (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC) We probably don't have consensus, else you wouldn't be having such a devil of a time getting it to stay. Vsmith, I, Kim, William, and Stephan have removed it. Some of those inserting it are scibaby socks (certainly Jong-C having now been permanently blocked as a scibaby sock). So it doesn't look like consensus at all. --TS 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC) And yet there are still more just on this talk page who want inclusion - and even more, obviously not socks, who've restored the text, but not gotten involved in the talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Who? I see Nutley, Bluefield and Goodlocust doing the reverts. All voted above. Please name the (non-sock) others and be very careful with such claims. There is such a thing as reputation. --BozMo talk 08:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC) I guess you missed GoRight, VegasProf's edits - also, Cadea and BabyNuke, said they want this included. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The main case against inclusion of the error has been assertion of UNDUE. The main proof presented that the error is UNDUE is that the amount of text it takes up in AR4 is relatively small! This is not a logical argument for exclusion. There are multiple reasons highlighted on this talk page why the error is important, none of which have had reasonable counter arguments presented. A majority of the editors want it in. Those opposed have used a set of technical tools to thwart its inclusion - and it's getting rather tiresome. Cadae (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I do think errata that have been published and criticised by acknowledged experts should probably be included in relevant articles. The problem I have here is that those people editing the article on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)--the report which contains these apparent errata--don't yet seem to have reached consensus to mention it at all there, and we have no consensus to do so here. I'd like to see editors make an honest case to include a description of their errata and their significance in the AR4 article, rather than this tiresome edit warring.

Another problem I have here is that the question of the significance of the errata doesn't seem to be treat seriously. Do these items mean global warming isn't happening? Obviously not, because the report in question is by Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability). Perhaps the errata mean that we don't have to worry about the Himalayan glaciers melting in our lifetime, or perhaps they mean something different. We need to approach this correctly or it just looks like we're saying "this paragraph on page X is wrong" and the next question is "so what?" We need to make sure the answer is clearly given from reliable sources.

But as I have said, I think the correct place, in the first instance, is the talk page of the AR4 article. That's where one might at least find people have more than a cursory acquaintance with the material.

Now I won't edit war on this because if we continued along that path we could easily end up making the atmosphere here very bad. Please respect this. Let's discuss the possibility of adding the item to AR4, at the relevant talk page. --TS 03:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is similar to Tony Sidaway's. If the appropriate way to describe this error (in whatever level of detail) has not been established at our article on the report which contains it, it seems a bit excessive to include a detailed description in this much broader, higher-level article. Specific errata (particularly if they represent very small portions of the report in question) don't warrant extensive, detailed description in this overview.

The bulk of the criticisms included in this article seem to focus on more general, structural concerns (plus the ever-popular and very high-profile hockey stick controversy). The glacier error doesn't appear to be anywhere near that high in profile, and certainly shouldn't make up a large part of an article on the IPCC as a whole. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The topic at hand is improvements to the article Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Discussions of the organization itself should be conducted in other venues. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Meh. This bit is a clear example of a breach in the much ballyhooed IPCC process. As such it is appropriate to list it here rather than bury it in the report. The weight of the issue comes from this fact alone. It derives it's weight from the weight of the IPCC process and the importance and the claims thereof. --GoRight (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Exactly, the IPCC and its proponents have always loudly shouted that they use peer-reviewed literature to make their assessments - this has now been categorically shown to be false. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Shall we produce a tally from the opinions above to make an orderly assessment of the state of consensus? Or will that be viewed as pointy and controversial? --GoRight (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Thing is we don't decide things by vote. Anyway, didn't you do that further up the page, but not including ones who made a change either way with edit comments? If you do a list please exclude socks, include article editors and mark me down clearly as "unable to generate a flicker of interest from anywhere deep within my soul on this issue". And if you get anything other than "no consensus" stand in the corner until you can recount straight. :-) --BozMo talk 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Why included article editors? The initial criticism was that the source wasn't good enough, but that criticism no longer applies. Also, some people appeared to just be reverting the edits of the sock. If someone wants to put their name on the list then they are welcome to do it, but we shouldn't count article editors who are unwilling to state and defend their reasons for reversion and who may have changed their mind.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries on consensus

Please could everyone stop claiming "consensus at talk" in edit summaries when it is clear that no consensus exists. Adding up opinions above (and counting me as "don't care"; I haven't read and don't think I edited this page unless on a vandal revert) I make it 6-6 on opinions expressed. Anyone who reverts without adding value (e.g. by proposing a compromise text) is in danger of an Edit Warring sanction. This page is also in danger of having to be protected. So no reverts, just improvements please. --BozMo talk 08:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I answered above - plus you counted wrong. There is a consensus for inclusion. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you quantify this consensus? I did a rough head count and it seemed to me that there was a slight majority for inclusion, but substantial objections, and reasons for holding off on declaring consensus (consensus on whether the item merits discussion at the AR4 article has not materialized). We don't normally treat this kind of situation as consensus--consensus usually means something like "very few objectors and no significant policy objections". --TS 20:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Including criticism from NIPCC

In 2009, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) published a report, Climate Change Reconsidered, which broadly critiques the IPCC findings. Coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers say this 880-page report "contradicts the IPCC’s central claims, that global warming is man-made and that its effects will be catastrophic". .

Connelly, please discuss why you reverted my edit and make a positive contribution towards compromise (Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary). This change, included above for reference, is neutral, factual and verifiable. As a summary of much scientific literature critical of IPCC results, it is useful to record here to avoid clouding the criticism section with a myriad of studies references. Julien Couvreur (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

They're just these guys. You're sourcing this to their website. Can I start a club and get my stuff into Wikipedia? --TS 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

unproductive sniping. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, I noticed you've edited the Real Climate article a bit - they are just a club that managed to get their stuff into wikipedia too. Perhaps we can ask Connolley about how to go about doing that since he was a member of the Real Climate blog and created/edited the wikipedia article for it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) You could try spelling my name right. If it is too difficult for you, WMC will be fine. I removed the NIPCC because it is a joke. It isn't science; it is a product of Singer and a few others. Is that in doubt? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC) "Is that in doubt?" Yes. --GoRight (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC) NIPCC doesn't have a wiki page, and that for a good reason [11]. Its views are of no interest, because they are just Singers views William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC) lol, they don't have a page because you tried to get it deleted! I noticed that the votes were actually to keep the page though. Odd how you got them deleted, but had no problem creating the page for the "Real Climate" blog you were a member of (and which has been quoted extensively on wikipedia) - that doesn't seem very consistent. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Lots of things don't have a wiki page. That doesn't make them irrelevant. The contributers are sufficiently credentialed to comment in such a report. --GoRight (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors Looks like more than just singer will :) mark nutley (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC) <sarcasm zone>Yes, and the other authors are remarkably well-known for their ... hmmm .... it should be science, shouldn't it? And they are all very respected ... hmmm .... that should have been scientists, shouldn't it? Hmmmm.... </sarcasm zone> --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC) <sarcasm zone>Isn't the head of the IPCC a railroad engineer? Hmmm...</sarcasm zone> --GoRight (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Yep, but he isn't an author. He is an administrator. I especially like the honored doctor in welding technology specializing in thermal cutting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC) It is sad to see how quickly discussions fall away from wikipedia guidelines (NPOV). The unsustantiated ad-hominem attacks on Singer et al. above help in no way to build a compromise. Are you suggesting to keep the report but with a clearer attribution? Julien Couvreur (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are two independent issues: whether the criticism is correct and whether it exists. We can argue whether it is correct, which is a matter of opinion and research, but it incontestably exists. This report is valuable to wikipedia in that it summarizes existing criticisms (Or do you question the referenced studies too?). In the spirit of compromise, how about a shortened formulation such as "Climate Change Reconsidered, published in 2009, is a critical synthesis of a number of scientific studies which differ from the IPCC AR4 findings"? Julien Couvreur (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Won't fly. Simple existence is not good enough, it needs to be notable. You being interested does not establish notability. The lack of a WP article is indicative of a lack of notability William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

All the sources I can find suggest that "NIPCC" is just this bloke and a few of his mates. Do we have any reliable source to say otherwise? --TS 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you questioning the expertise of the authors or contributors? Which ones? Just to take one author, Fred_Singer (see credentials and expertise), as an example, why do you question his reliability, as opposed to Stefan_Rahmstorf (I took a random source already included in the page)? Julien Couvreur (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Just look at their publication records William M. Connolley (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While WP:NOTABILITY generally refers to whether an article should exist, or not, allow me to borrow a brief passage from WP:FRINGE:

"A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."

Given the perspective here which is analogous to that articulated in the highlighted portion, and recognizing that a WP:NOTABILITY argument is also inherently a discussion of a topic's WP:WEIGHT, I would argue that this article more than adequately establishes the WP:WEIGHT of this topic in this context. --GoRight (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain this a bit further? I'm just not seeing the relevance of this self-selecting club and its website to this article. --TS 02:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. The existence of a source which describes the report as "self-evidently nonsense" should be taken as an argument for inclusion in this article? Actually, I'll quote the full context of that description:

"In concluding, We’d like to level with our readers. Some of us thought that the “NIPCC” report was so self-evidently nonsense that we shouldn’t even give it the benefit of any publicity. But it does give a great opportunity to give the RealClimate ‘wiki’ a test ride."

Hm. While references that debunk can be evidence of notability, that passage from WEIGHT shouldn't be misinterpreted as meaning that disparagement in and of itself automatically counts as notability. I'm not sure that it would improve our article here to include – based on these sources – a passage like "Criticism of the IPCC report^[1] by a fringe group has been described as "self-evidently nonsense"^[2] by a reliable source." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If it were "self-evident nonsense" they wouldn't have bothered to respond. The very fact that they took note of it means it is notable. --GoRight (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we really writing about "Notability" here? I thought it was a matter of Due Weight. "Notability" is a guideline that is used by some people to determine whether a subject is important enough to merit its own article. Here we're discussing whether a reference to criticism of the IPCC by an ignored and derided fringe organization would be merited, under our Neutral point of view policy, specifically the Due Weight clause. --TS 23:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A notability argument is inherently also a due weight argument. --GoRight (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor can reject the concept of "notability" (I do) without rejecting the neutral point of view. The question is whether to include an opinion when the only secondary source appraising it is a blog item and derisive in tone. That speaks to weight, not "notability". There isn't any weight to speak of. --TS 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please go back and reread this thread and pay particular attention to the argument being presented. --GoRight (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The NIPCC meets all notability standards for due weight here and the Heartland Institute publisher has a wiki article. The exclusion is abusive, the remover's offer no progressive compromise in favor of obtuse arguing, perhaps forcing escalation. The NIPCC can be attributed with faith in the reader (and little faith for article ownership). Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What on earth does "all notability standards for due weight here" mean? Notability is a content guideline and due weight is part of the Neutral point of view policy. Notability concerns whether a subject merits a separate article. Due weight as applied here determines whether we include the opinion of NIPCC. Since the only reference to their opinion we have is to a derisive comment on a blog, we're not going to be including it. It would be like including criticism by the flat earth society in the NASA article. --TS 00:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Absurd extrem POV ... if at least it would be like "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." as above in wiki guidance. Please notice the "OR" in the criteria. It is notable because it specifically addresses the IPCC. Please find a middle way to notability. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be an argument if you were to create an article about the NIPCC (which btw. has already been done - and rejected in AfD) - but not an argument for its inclusion into an article. The whole argument here is silly (sorry), it seems to be (correct me please):

A fringe subject might be notable enough to have an article, therefore any mention in another articles of this fringe subject is ipso facto due weight.

Say what? Please go read WP:NPOV again, pay good attention to the due weight section. If it is fringe then it shouldn't be included. Significant minority positions must be mentioned - but fringe is per definition not a "significant minority". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I read NPOV UNDUE and the first thing it says is "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The Heartland NIPCC report is well above fringe and even if it were, it would still be HIGHLY RELEVANT to this article. Please follow WP:ONEWAY and the toxic negativity vanishes with constructive progress. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

HNY. Ok, to move the conversation forward clearly you claim "well above fringe" which others here seem to dispute. So what is your argument for this not being a fringe source? --BozMo talk 09:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[indent]Well if you look at the credentials of the guys who run it i would say they are well above fringe. --mark nutley (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Fringe" doesn't mean "lacking qualifications in the field." It means "espousing ideas that have little or no currency." NIPCC are fringe, and if they hadn't cleverly chosen a name that sounds a bit like IPCC I doubt this thread would have gone on so long as it has. --TS 11:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes tony, although you are correct that their qualifications are not relevent i just looked over the wp:fringe rules, in this part [[12]] it cleary states "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."

So the wp:fringe rules clearly state that the NIPPC can be used due to the fact a notable group (The IPPC)has both referenced and disparaged the NIPCC mark nutley (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a bit dubious given the provenance of the debunking--RealClimate is a useful source on climatology, but it is by no means a "major publication". Note that even if it were, the very page you cite also says:

Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.

Really we're wasting our time even discussing this. It isn't going to happen unless major independent publications treat this idea prominently and seriously. That needs a bit more than a flippant dismissal on a climatology blog. --TS 15:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry tony, is that in reply to me? I did not cite real climate as blogs are not reliable sources mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I did misread you. Do you have a link for the IPCC addressing the NIPCC "in a serious and prominent way"? I've scanned this discussion and don't see any prior reference to this, but that could be a New Year hangover problem. --TS 15:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry no, i just had not said real climate :) however the following for independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. try the following

• The Washington Post
• CNS News
• The Telegraph

All reliable sources which connect the topics. --mark nutley (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post piece is written in a light-hearted way and doesn't present NIPCC as a serious organization. They obviously think these chaps are flat-earthers. CNSNews.com is not to be mistaken for a serious news organization. The Telegraph piece is an opinion piece by Christopher Booker, who for reasons amply documented in our article on the man, is not taken seriously on matters of science. --TS 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]Ok tony, you say the washington post is light hearted and think they are flat earthers, so under this part of wp:fringe References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, then they can be used. cnsnews, i fail to see a problem with them. They have a readership, those readers read about the nipcc. The Telegraph, yes it is an opinion piece, once again that does not matter you asked for independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. you got them. --mark nutley (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a credible organisation. It appears to be just more of the usual suspects trying to appear more significant than they are. You could change my mind by showing me peer-reviewed publications in major journals which cite this body as a significant authority in the anthropogenic global warming denial movement. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

These are not serious pieces. Read Wikipedia:Fringe and see if you can understand what they're getting at. The Post piece for its frivolity, the CNSNews for its provenance and its uncritical regurgitation of a news release, and the Booker piece for the man's abysmal reputation on science.

Note also the term "independent" here certainly compromises the Booker commentary, as he's been a partisan critic of the NIPCC and the global warming consensus for some time. --TS 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Man you guys are hard to please :)

How about Senator Hatch NIPCC Report

Climate Science International

The Register

I honestly think i have provide enough links to prove that the NIPCC meets wp:fringe requirements --mark nutley (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're down to suggesting that El Rego is a useable source, you're lost William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If all you can do is say dismiss just one of the links out of hand then it is you who are lost.

Who and why is "El Rego" not a useable source btw? And this is about wp:fringe and weather or not the NIPCC meets the criteria for inclusion based on it. From the links i have provided i believe i have proved the NIPCC can be used. mark nutley (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

El Rego is The Register. And i'm sorry to tell you that neither of your references are reliable sources. (your #2 link is incidentally from almost the same people as the NIPCC (check about us).

"Neither" ??? I have so far posted six links which prove the following or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." That is the basis of wp:fringe I have covered it quite well and all i get from you guys is you dismiss a few of the sources, you need to prove why they do not cover or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." as stated in wp:fringe --mark nutley (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your whole approach is faulty. By demonstrating that the NIPCC is WP:FRINGE, you will ipso-facto be demonstrating that it shouldn't be mentioned here (per WP:WEIGHT). I tried to point that out before. (notice btw. that the climatescienceinternational link that you provided is an astroturf group, that definitively *isn't* independent (take a look at the overlap between authors of the NIPCC and their "About Us" link. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]Sorry kim but no, the rules according to wp:fringe means they can be used as a source. However with regards to wp:weight it clearly states, Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. so given that neutrality requires we fairly represent all viewpoints means the NIPCC should be used to give balance as the sources are reliable. From all the links i have provided i believe i have shown the prominence of the NIPCC which also means they can be used. --mark nutley (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Argh! Stating that a source is WP:FRINGE automatically means that the source doesn't represent significant minority. Therefore you are biting yourself in the bum by trying to demonstrate that the NIPCC is fringe. (btw. i agree that they are). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, Why do you guys only respond to one point at a time, it doth lead to large and unwieldy threads. Someone above said they could not be used as they were a fringe group, i have shown how they can be used under that rule.

Now care to address my point about your weight argument? --mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ho hum, time to hop off the fence. However distasteful to some and for whatever self serving reasons, journalists and others may have given a little notability to the criticisms of a small group setting themselves out as alternatives to consensus. So what's the big deal about listing them with a small amount of detail about what they have said? Perhaps I am getting too apathetic but I thought Nutley won this thread somewhere back with the Washington Post link [13] and we should put something along those lines in here. --BozMo talk 20:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm baffled. That link just looks like the usual crud. Why is it winning? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Count me as baffled as well. An article that basically says that they are a fringe group, makes them suddenly have due weight !? Hmm? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We generally eg list any kind of marginal criticism of big entities as soon as they get any notability, even if it is saying they are fringe etc. When there are few critics there is a kind of weight from being one of few, as soon as notability gets passed, even if that means being noted as a pimple. And it helps to know how substantial critical groups are cos everyone has them. --BozMo talk 22:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So we just throw weight and npov out the window? "substantial critical groups"? How are they substantial? Sorry - but i'm as baffled now as i was before. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Long and not today probably. I am not suggesting throwing anything out of the window. This is a long article about a complicated organisation, not a science article. The criticism section looks long and thorough but is not, at present it has some rubbish in it including [this] which appears to be written by someone so stupid they do not even know what a lowest common denominator is (unlike any 11 year old still doing maths) but lacks mention of any of the groups which set out to discredit the IPCC. These groups exist, obviously, attract some interest because it sells papers, and once they meet a minimum level of notability to allow them to be mentioned have weight because they are exactly what they are; and rare and of interest because of it. So yes once enough notability is proven they should go in. No other anti IPCC group is mentioned. Their transparent feebleness such as it is can only be to their detractors glory. --BozMo talk 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]Bozmo, that link to nybooks leads to a page not found? Is it also possible to try and exhaust this current discussion before we continue the arguing in arbcom remedies below? We will get no-were if we keep jumping all over the place. --mark nutley (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So any chance of finishing off this discussion? I know everyone has jumped into the probation piece but i really think we should focus on one thing at a time if we are to get anywere :)--mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Remedies

This negativity has gone on too long in abusing due weight. It may be time to look at the ArbCom remedies here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Neutral_point_of_view_as_applied_to_science and Wikipedia:Scientific_consensus

The NIPCC is a notable reliable source published by a reputable Heartland Institute and validated by other reliable sources. The Heartland Institute expressed a conflict with the RealClimate bloggers [14]. Of which, the remover is self identified member. I suspect these conflicts have rolled over into Wiki and are disrupting the community for their POV and abusing a resolution to NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, your statements are simply wrong. NIPCC is not reliable (actually, it's not only not reliable, it arguably is not at all), and Heartland is not reliable on scientific issues either. You declaring things otherwise does not make them so... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Climate change is not a conflict between opposing blogs, nor is it a political choice. What to do about it is a political matter, and the Heartland Institute may have a say in that within the US. If the US right, in their ongoing efforts to do absolutely nothing about CC, feel they have to try to discredit the whole of science to make their point, that is up to them. But they won't be able to alter Wikipedia's fringe and notability policies to help them - there're too many people here who know what they're talking about. --Nigelj (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Schultz, which cited higher power gives you the authoritative strength to make your negative claims? Please affirm the community with links. Nijelj, please stay on the ArbCom topic. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah ZP5, are we all then born notable, reputable and reliable until negative media proves otherwise? Nay, rather we are born naked and helpless and the onus is on those claiming repute and notability and reliability to prove it with references I think. --BozMo talk 21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Verification and Validation: BozMo, I was assuming eds were faithfully following the NIPCC report discussion. 1) I verified the report to be RS [15] here, 2) Other NPOV seeking eds have agreed. The NIPCC report exists, 3) it was published by the reliable Heartland Institute, 4) theses independent reliable sources validate it's existence [16],[17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Stephan Schultz, the status of the NIPCC organization is irrelevant to the report's reliable source existence. Non-bias Wiki editors know a reliable source when they see one. (Note: I was born with the freedom to include reliable sources in wiki without NPOV disruptive teams). Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please try again ZP5. That paragraph does not make sense or match the meaning of the words. In particular I think you are using the word "reliable" in a manner a little special and not in the way in which Wikipedia does. I have now looked at these sources and none seem to provide much supprt for repute and notability and reliability--BozMo talk 07:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll make it simple for you, too: My point was that there is nothing for ArbCom to arbitrate here, just silly point-making from those who don't understand. --Nigelj (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, zulupapa5 has not asked for arbitration, he is looking at past findings by arbcom as a reference to this discussion. --mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, they haven't looked at this. Those links were about Pseudoscience and Scientific consensus; this is about a US political think-tank masquerading as a 'scientific' authority. --Nigelj (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm nope Neutral point of view as applied to science

1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of :::significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers

to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. So you see legitimate scientific disagreement --mark nutley (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Significant is the key word. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

How many signed the Manhattan Declaration? Is that not a significant alternative? --mark nutley (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Manhattan declaration does not give an "alternative" (in the scientific sense). Its a declaration of people sharing a viewpoint, and the people that have signed the declaration are for the most part not anymore qualified than you or I in stating such a viewpoint. It may be relevant in Global warming controversy though, if it is considered an important statement by secondary sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok if we ever reach an agreement here i`ll head on over there and we can begin the arguing anew :) I look forward to your reply on the above thread btw. --mark nutley (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

These discretionary sanctions Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions are significant if they are to receive consensus here for NPOV enforcement. Now, will the negative editors lay down the sticks and back away from the carcass, so that a NPOV may be achieved by attributing the source into the article? (The nihilistic stench is contributing to an ugly wiki environment.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment above is certainly not contributing to a pleasant environment. I invite you to remove it, and then this, in the spirit of a New Year William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed negativites, and reopend the reliable source discussion. Let's work for a NPOV in the new year. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Now we have the glorious new article probabtion, what about unlocking the article to see if Peace has broken out? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well before we do that how do you currently feel about the recent addition? [[26]]

I think we should trash out the current arguments over content before we unlock this article --mark nutley (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what I thought above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Can everyone agree on whether the Himalayan glacier section should stay in or be removed while the current RfC runs? If so, I (or someone else) will ask Jayron32 whether they think it would be a good idea to change the article status to unprotected with a very low tolerance for edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well naturally i think it should stay in regardless of the rfc run :) but i`m not fussed about it being unlocked, however i suspect ip only contributors or socks will revert like mad if it is unlocked and the disputed text removed --mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a view on it but Mark would you be broadly happy if it was in AR4 instead? --BozMo talk 21:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to worry about IP's if the article is semi'd; socks can be dealt with. I want the text out; I have the same objections (none of which have been addressed) before it goes anywhere else. The text is *wrong*; but dumped into the crit-of-ar4 article we could at least try to fix the wording William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it should stay in on this article for the reasons I stated above. --GoRight (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, however i would like to point out that when we tried to add it there the same people who will not have it here refused it there. I do believe that there should be a criticism section here to provide balance to this article, the IPCC make a lot of alarmist statements and i honestly this those should be brought into perspective. I can`t speak for the others who want this included here either so you`d have to ask them.Looking at WMC`s gives me pause for thought though. He says the test is wrong, but has yet to offer any compromise on it, he says he wants to fix the wording, sorry but for that i read "spin it to look better", perhaps i`m wrong on that only time will tell mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for the notion that the IPCC is widely regarded as "alarmist" then we can consider how to present that. I've seen the term "alarmism" a lot, but only from a relatively small group of committed global warming skeptics. I'm not sure this would merit a lot of space, but perhaps a mention might be merited. --TS 22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, lots of the "criticism" isn't really criticism in the IPCC section and some would be considered "UNDUE" based on the arguments about keeping out the section of the IPCC's use of non-peer-reviewed lit. The peer-review/glacier section contains some real criticism with some bite - and blows holes in the oft-heard argument that the IPCC should be trusted because they only use peer-reviewed science. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am generally sympathetic to the current criticism section being poor but I don't suppose you would like the kind of one which I might write either. What is in my view entirely missing is mention of broad brush dismissive critics as opposed to micro critics. If any of the full-body criticisms have notability (and I suspect some do) we should work out which are the most notable and include something about them. As above, I think the most notable will de facto have enough weight for some mention provided they meet notability. Meanwhile on glaciers I am on the fence, but if WMC suggests dumping into AR4 and fixing it there, which others have suggested above then I think the option is open to do it and I would support it there. --BozMo talk 22:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

When I initially wrote the "glacier" section it was titleed "Use of Non-Peer-reviewed Literature" - this is quite important since supporters of the IPCC always talk about how they use peer-reviewed papers. The glacier segment of it is also important, certainly more than other sections considering how often people talk about how the glaicers are melting because of global warming and other such nonsense, but it was added merely as a way to demonstrate the inaccuracies of using non-peer-reviewed sources, which we can all agree the IPCC did indeed do. As for being in AR4, there isn't really a good place for it there, and this criticism so strongly contradicts what supporters say of the IPCC that it makes it notable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Count me as a supporter of such a rewritten criticism section. I agree with your view, that the section in general is poor and focused on micro-criticism. What is needed is process and methodology criticism. My thoughts in that direction would be some of the recent criticism, stating that the IPCC has outlived its usefullness - i believe Tol, Pielke Jr. and others have levelled such recently.

As for the Glacier thing, i believe i have made my opinion on the extreme undue weight clear. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Something like this[27] would be a starter here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Here`s an idea, WMC says he is against the use of non peer reviewed literature section being in although he say`s if it goes into the AR4 article it would need to be rewritten.

So why does`nt WMC write it up in a way he deems it to be appropriate and then we can discuss that, currently all we have is "It`s got mistakes" or "It`s poorly written" but no actual alternatives being given. So any thoughts on this? @Kim i believe i refuted your wp:weight argument above, please respond there --mark nutley (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. Give us a good faith alternative that addresses the issue which you would find acceptable. We can't find a compromise if you don't want to help find some middle ground. --GoRight (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

See Criticism of IPCC AR4 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection level

Assuming that there is an intent to apply these new probationary sanctions even handedly, I hereby object to any change in the current protection level of this article unless and until a warning comparable to this has been issued here. --GoRight (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair to me --mark nutley (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rest assured, anybody who edit wars on this article is looking for a block. --TS 22:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll rest more assured after they issue the warning. I have noted a strange phenomenon regarding when the page protections just happen to be applied to various articles. It does not appear to be random. This page is currently an anomaly in that respect, and I note the lack of a substantive warning regarding the removal of contested material here. --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm....yes, I very much hope that page protection is not applied randomly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As an admin who has no involvement in this article, I can confirm that edit warring will result in a block. If a consensus forms to unprotect the page I will consider doing so and keep an eye on it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Might you also consider specifically warning people regarding the addition or removal of contested material, per my example above? It would put my mind at ease. --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Make it a 1rr - it makes it more difficult for people to skirt the rules with tag teaming reverts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To forestall further WP:edit warring, any editor who adds or removes contested material from this article without first attaining consensus here may be blocked from editing. To be clear: any edit which another editor has reverted in whole or in part is contested. --TS 23:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Tony, but I would prefer to have an administrator actually stand up and say this. --GoRight (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The probation notice is at the top of this page. --TS 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Membership

• This has nothing to do with the controversial issue. But the introduction is missing information about what kind of people (scientists?) are part of the committee and how they are selected. Labongo (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Having read the entire article I still don't understand how the IPCC members are selected/elected. The "Operations" section should be clarified with regards to provide information about who actually where selected rather than: "Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged". I also suggest moving the "Operations" section to above the reports. Labongo (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think all that is mandated is The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged. (I'm guessing that is from the charter). What actually *happens* is that governments get to appoint who they will to the *panel*. The panel (I think) will then appoint various working groups (which is why there are the WGI, II and III reports; of which WGI is by far the best). The way this goes is that the scientists get to write the science chapters (and as far as I know, in practice this actually happens) and then comes the process of approving the report (and traditionally the chapters of the report are left alone, in the full knowledge that only the very interested will read them; only the exec summaries and stuff get fought over). This is where it gets political. Traditionally the EU have been pro-science; the US (presumably no more) and Saudi (how odd) have been foot-draggers. The problem is that I rather doubt any of that is written down anywhere reliable, or even at all William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Article must Report that IPCC is Widely Criticized

In order to be correctly encyclopedic, this article must report the fact that the IPCC has been widely criticized, including by many scientists. (I have personally read many such articles.) A number of those criticisms are mentioned in the article already, and should stay there, along with appropriate refutations of those criticisms, if any. No one reading this article should get the impression that the IPCC is not controversial, because it is. Vegasprof (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you support your "widely criticized" with reliable sources? How do you define "widely"? And when you say controversial, then what is your basis for it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I answer that, Kim, let me ask a question: Do you claim that IPCC is not controversial? Vegasprof (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i would claim that the IPCC isn't controversial. Limited sections of the political spectrum, (primarily) within a limited number of countries, do consider it controversial though, but these are (to my best knowledge) not representative of any major political, scientific or NGO standpoint. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have seen only one poll that addresses the IPCC directly. A Rasmussen poll published last month that found only 22 percent of Americans consider the UN to be a reliable source of information on global warming. That less than a fourth of the public in the world's second-largest democracy (and the country that provides the largest share of the UN's funding) trust the UN on matters of global warming seems to argue strongly that it's controversial, regardless of whether ones believes the controversy is justified.

That said, it may be hard to demonstrate how many of those 150 million or so people have spoken out to "criticize" the IPCC. Do you have reliable sources to support the idea you are trying to capture? --DGaw (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a full source or a link for that poll? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but we are not here to discuss whether or not my personal opinion (which i gave in good faith) is correct or not. Can we get back on track? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Kim, I may have been unclear. My last, "Do you have reliable sources to support the idea you are trying to capture?" was directed toward Vegasprof. In the absence of an RS that says the IPCC is "widely criticized", I don't think that formulation can be added to the article. If he/she believes the contention contention that the IPCC is controversial is relevant here,he/she will need an RS that supports the idea--and will need to frame it in a way that is supported by the source.

As for the rest, it was meant to be on track. You said you were not aware of any major political standpoint holding the IPCC to be unreliable, and asked Vegasprof to provide support for the contention that the IPCC is controversial. I responded by providing evidence. Am I to understand you do not find that evidence persuasive? --DGaw (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i do not find the "evidence" persuasive. Public opinion polls tell us absolutely nothing about how controversial the IPCC is regarding the science or amongst policy makers. And the US is (i'm sorry to say) rather an outlier with regards to this issue, both in the sense of the public opinion or the way that this issue is politicized. It may be worth mentioning the publics opinion - but we'd need a summary over time (since the first report to now) as well as in space (rest of the world), otherwise it is too specific. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of discussion above and elsewhere on improving the criticism section. Do please provide some more sources about criticisms, it would be timely to help us rework it. --BozMo talk 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Vegasprof (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Sources for Criticism Section

Let's start gathering some possible sources. Feel free to add yours here too. Please just include the sources and a brief excerpt in this section. Discussion of the proposed use of these sources can be addressed elsewhere. --GoRight (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) Interview with Roger Pielke, Sr.

EcoWorld: What is your criticism of the IPCC?

Pielke: Mainly the fact that the same individuals who are doing primary research into humans’ impact on the climate system are being permitted to lead the assessment of that research. Suppose a group of scientists introduced a drug they claimed could save many lives: There were side effects, of course, but the scientists claimed the drug’s benefits far outweighed its risks. If the government then asked these same scientists to form an assessment committee to evaluate their claim (and the committee consisted of colleagues of the scientists who made the original claim as well as the drug’s developers), an uproar would occur, and there would be protests. It would represent a clear conflict of interest. Yet this is what has happened with the IPCC process. To date, either few people recognize this conflict, or those that do choose to ignore it because the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed, and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.

(2) Censorship Threatens Truth on Climate NOTE: We should try to find a more direct reference for this quote from Michaels.

As a UN body, the IPCC must not allow itself to be captured by one scientific faction or another. It needs to give fair representation to all views. Indeed, the IPCC is supposed to take into account all peer-reviewed literature, including dissenting views.

Is this actually happening? No, says Michaels. "The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable. These include articles from the journals Arctic, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions, Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Quaternary Research."

(3) ROYAL SOCIETY REBUTTAL - Probably not usable directly but may provide additional pointers to other sources.

(4) [28]"With the apparent solar :cooling cycle upon us we have a ready explanation for global warming and cooling. If the present :cooling trend continues, the IPCC reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of :science." - Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus - Geology, Western Washington University Nothughthomas (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion collapsed for readability, continue inside the collapse box if desired.

I think this is the wrong approach, This is once more micro-criticism and focusing on (the usual) individuals with minority opinion on climate change. There is a whole slew of social science/political science literature out there, that examines the IPCC processes and methodologies. That is where we should start looking. Pielke Jr (not Sr) would be the one to look at. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Well, KDP, I don't take a stand on that either way. You may well be correct. But this is my attempt to embrace the new era of probationary sanctions and to try and foster an actual consensus based on the sources available. You allude to the existence of sources that you feel are superior to those that we are finding. Rather than leaving us hunting for your needle buried in a hay stack perhaps you too could embrace the spirit of collaboration and provide them? --GoRight (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Kim, please give a definition of "micro"-criticism. And why do you say "minority opinion"? Scientific truth has nothing to do with majority/minority anything. Vegasprof (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Micro-criticism is criticism of small parts of a large picture. When looking at the whole it has very little substance or meaning. How do you determine scientific "truth"? Is Pielke Sr. stating the scientific "truth", or is it his peers, who are significantly in the majority? For Wikipedia we determine this not by seeking "truth" but by presenting the prevalent scientific opinion, and mentioning significant minority viewpoints. When Pielke Sr. is arguing that everyone else is wrong, then it may possibly be that he is entirely correct - but it is not our judgement to make... What we see is a single individual who is arguing a position which the majority of his peers do not seem to share. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I don't think that Pielke's criticism is "micro" at all. It is a blast leveled at the entire IPCC report. And what really counts is whether Pielke (or whoever) has the professional "weight" required for his opinion to be taken seriously, which he clearly does, and which Al Gore (for example) clearly doesn't. And, despite what you say, he is by no means the only "weighty" person who disparages the IPCC report. Vegasprof (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC) This is the right approach, GoRight. I have stuff to contribute, which I hope to post today. Vegasprof (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Per the terms of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, I'm placing this under a 1 revert rule restriction indefinitely at this time (although this can obviously be changed in due course if needs be). All editors should refrain from reverting more than once in any 24 hour period. Clearly, there are other forms of disruption that could occur and these would also be met with a warning/block under the terms of the probation. I'll unprotect the article for now, but I'll also leave a note for the protecting administrator and he can have final say. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IPCC only using P-R stuff?

One of the assertions made above is that the IPCC should not have useed the WWF report, because that report wasn't peer reviewed. Who says this is an IPCC rule, and where is the appropriate rulebook? This article says The IPCC reports are a compendium of peer reviewed and published science and links to [29] which is broken (argh, I hate this stupid orgs that can't even maintain a website). However, it now seems to be at []. This includes Contributions should be supported as far as possible with references from the peer-reviewed and internationally available literature, and with copies of any unpublished material cited. Clear indications of how to access the latter should be included in the contributions. I would read that as clear evidence that while P-R lit is preferred, non-P-R lit, provided it is internationally available, is permitted. In this particular instance (Himalayan glaciers) the WWF report *is* widely available, so using it (I argue) falls within the IPCC rules. That makes the text "IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt, but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate" that misc people have been reverting back in wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What? "That makes the text "IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt," of course there was a mistake they were 300 years out on it.

Also from the IPCC principals journal Non-peer-reviewed sources will be listed in the reference sections of IPCC Reports. These will be integrated with references for the peer-reviewed sources. These will be integrated with references to the peer reviewed sources stating how the material can be accessed, but will be followed by a statement that they are not published. They did`nt do that either did they? --mark nutley (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can i ask you to turn down the bold-facing? If you want emphasis on something, please use italics or underline it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What WMC was referring to, and which is rather obvious is the last part of the sentence: "...but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate" which is clearly incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a requirement - see Annex 2 [ http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf] here (page 14 of 15). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The BBC source used in the section says:

"Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.

We have a reliable source that says they are mandated. You appear to be doing OR in order to say it isn't mandated, and it seems to me that anyone can show a section where it doesn't say it is mandated - what matters is the section that requires the mandate or a source that talks about that mandate - and we have the latter. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the BBC rather clearly made a mistake, they sometimes do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to report an error purely because a RS makes that error. I'm going to take the erroneous text out, unless someone can provide a good justification for keeping it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are telling me that your original research has determined that a reliable source is in error? This is not good enough and is obviously against wikipolicy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - what exactly is it that makes the IPCC principles document a non-WP:RS? And where do you figure it is written that we must propagate an error when we know that it is one? (it would be rather bad editing if we did - wouldn't it?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Hey look, I can do original research and find statements from their website that say they use peer-reviewed literature!

"The IPCC assessment process is designed to ensure consideration of all relevant scientific information from established journals with robust peer review processes, or from other sources which have undergone robust and independent peer review."

Again, here at wikipedia, and I'm surprised you don't know this yet, we try not to use primary sources or original research - otherwise you have editors determine what is "right" and what is "wrong" - wikipedia procedures state that information must be verifiable with reliable sources - not "right." TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious the quote about what "the IPCC is mandated to be doing" is not equivalent in meaning to "breaking an IPCC mandate" since there is a clear difference in meaning of the word "mandate" in the two cases. The current text is not supported by the BBC wording. If this isn't obvious to anyone "what the IPCC is mandated to be doing" in a political context (per Singer and BBC) amounts to anything anyone say they expect of them. "An IPCC mandate" though is legalistic wording and implies something to do with their legal obligations or statues. This is meanings (1) and (3) in my OED but someone can find an online version I am sure. --BozMo talk 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) That isn't their rule book. Direct quotation from their rule book shows that use of non-P-R lit is permissable. Accordingly, I've removed (some of) the incorrect text from that section. Also, it should be noted that the BBC report says Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing. Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers. But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed - or 'unpublished' - documents when assessing the status of the glaciers which your version paraphrases as "IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt, but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate". Your version looks like it is ML saying they broke the mandate. The Beeb text is rather different - the mandate claim is completely unsourced (nor is the claim that none of these are PR obviously true) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Their "rule book" as you call it also makes it clear that they should be using non-peer-reviewed stuff carefully and certainly not in the way that they did - that exception to their rule, was meant to apply to things like industrial research that wouldn't be peer-reviewed, but which was necessary to help determine the application of policy - they clearly were not doing this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad you've agreed that they *are* indeed allowed to use non-PR stuff - the only debate now is over exactly *what* non-PR stuff. I don't agree with your interpretation of only things like Ind R - but that really doesn't matter, because that question is non-urgent and non-exciting William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

{e/c}May i point out that your link is for WGI not WGII? It is entirely possible that this is the case for the WGI. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh-er, that is indeed a very good point William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I find WMC's observation and argument here quite interesting. So he is arguing that the IPCC reports are NOT based only on peer-reviewed literature? Well, given that the standard here on Wikipedia for discussions of scientific fact IS the use of only peer-reviewed literature does this not mean that the articles on the IPCC reports, which purport to represent scientific facts, should be deleted per WP:UNDUE? --GoRight (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Faulty argument. The IPCC reports are peer-reviewed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I must agree with Connolley in this case - the IPCC is not scientific and therefore not a reliable source in the matter of global warming. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) A nice piece of light relief, but easy to bat away. First off, I'm not aware of the use of non-P-R lit in the WGI report (you *did* know all this stuff is only about WGII, didn't you?). Secondly, there is no requirement at all for P-R literature itself to be based only on P-R lit. The IPCC reports themselves are P-R'd (and before you ask, no, that doesn't make them immune to all error; nothing is) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"IPCC reports themselves are P-R'd" - Really? By whom? The reports are WP:SPS with respect to the IPCC, are they not. Their internal processes cannot peer-review themselves. What independent peer-reviewed source or journal published these reports after subjecting them to their peer-review processes? Maybe I am wrong, I don't claim to be an expert on the IPCC reports, so help a poor fellow out and explain this to me. Who actually publishes the IPCC reports? --GoRight (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why has WMC altered disputed text without consensus in clear breach of this pages probation? mark nutley (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question, I haven't looked at the policy enough to know - perhaps he made a mistake and we should give him a chance to self-revert. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked him on his talk page to provide a reference to the consensus. --GoRight (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As did i but he removed it --mark nutley (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

People. Are you all seriously saying that we should propagate an error that we know is an error? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying we should follow wikipedia policy. But if you want to "interpret" things then it is clear, by my interpretation, that their proposed additions did not follow the spirit of the exception section for peer-reviewed research - since it didn't follow the spirit of that excemption then they did in fact break their rules. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The probation terms on this page appear to have been set at 1RR rather than consensus only. At least that's my reading of the above. GR asked for consensus only but got 1RR. It was discussed around the place I think --BozMo talk 23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, BozMo. The terms set by Ryan above are WP:1RR, so if people are so inclined they can revert WMC's WP:BOLD edit that completely lacks consensus (I assume since he declined on his talk page to point me to where the consensus for his change was determined). --GoRight (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can't argue both sides of the fence, ESPECIALLY not on the same talk page over the same topic. That's just nonsense. WMC is using a technicality to try an wikilayer away a valid criticism given the prevailing posturing here on Wikipedia regarding the IPCC reports and the science that underlies them. Well, if that technicality calls the peer-reviewedness of those reports into question it is fair game to call their use on Wikipedia into question as well. --GoRight (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Say what? Have you even looked at the change that WMC made? [30] He removed the error - not the criticism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Bozmo, it was said no contested text would be removed nor added if protection was removed, look in page protection section above @Kim, Are you all seriously saying that we should propagate an error that we know is an error I ask you to look at WMC`s edit and tell me it`s not been spun? name changed and then this IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt apart from it being out by 300 years of course. --mark nutley (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GR, given the above can you offer text on the PR nature which reflects the source better than the words WMC removed? Viz that the text cannot refer to "an IPCC mandate" since the RS doesn't but could to what people feel the IPCC is mandated to be doing? I think including that some people feel it broke expectations of the IPCC is legitimate but breaking a mandate per sae is completely unsupported. Then we can decide if here or at AR4 --BozMo talk 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely unsupported? I quoted the exact passage from the source - the BBC! TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No. As I've pointed out, the (former) article text is not a quote from the BBC, it is a misleading paraphrase William M. Connolley (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A misleading paraphrase? I shortened, ""Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing." - into something like "breaking an IPCC mandate." That isn't misleading at all - that's paraphrasing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the phrase says: The IPCC is mandated to do P-R. Not the IPCC must use P-R. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Not as far as I can see, or at least not in the reverts you did perhaps there is an original contribution in the article history? I can see completely unsupported words like "breaking an IPCC mandate" in the article versions but in the source only stuff about being outside what the journalist feels the IPCC is mandated to be doing which has a totally different sense? --BozMo talk 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you rephrase? I don't think I understand what you are trying to say. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you appear not to have paraphrased you appear to have completely changed the meaning (unless I misunderstand which is your text). I suggest you read the above. WMC pointed out that the text switched attribution. I pointed out that "what the IPCC is mandated to be doing" in a political context (per Singer and BBC) means anything anyone says they expect of the IPCC. "An IPCC mandate" however is legalistic wording and implies something to do with their legal obligations or formal statues. These are completely separate meanings of the word mandate listed separately in the dictionary. Switching from expectation to formal statue and simultaneously changing attribution from a journalist to an IPCC officer does not look like "exactly quoting" --BozMo talk 23:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> Wait wait wait....so you are arguing that while I used the same word I somehow "changed its meaning" to make it "completely unsupported" by the source? I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous - the only distinction is in your interpretation, which is completely subjective. I used the same word - I simply shortened (paraphrased) it.TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be abusive, especially when three people are being very patient in explaining something to you. You changed the meaning whilst claiming that you used the "the exact passage". I think you need to consider where you are standing on this more carefully. --BozMo talk 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Abusive? There was no abuse - you seem to subjectivly interpret a lot of what I write in the worst possible way. I used the same word that the journalist used to describe what they did - the word didn't change its definition because I shortened the passage a bit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, i want to know what is being done by connolley`s edit to contested material in breach of the agreement made before page protection was removed? At the moment i see everyone being sidetracked into an argument which only serves to hide this breach of trust? --mark nutley (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I answered above. AFAICT no admin gave a "no non consensus edits" ruling, one gave a 1RR ruling and one a "no edit warring" ruling. If you think someone made a edit which went against a ruling above talk to the admin who made the rule. --BozMo talk 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW on the edit warring one which you could try but I think given that he did not revert the whole passage out as in previous reversion wars but only changed a few words in it, it is hard to argue it is edit warring. --BozMo talk 00:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bozmo, it was agreed man, even ts said he would block anyone adding, altering or removing contested text it`s right there in article protection. I hate it when people break an agreement.

I have re-edited the article back to the way it was prior to WMC`s revisions. I was trying to talk here, my arguments above go unanswered and then this breach of trust takes place. So is it a case of they can`t win an argument so ignore it and then edit the article into a nice positive light, sorry but thats just plain wrong. mark nutley (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I just put a note on your user page. AFAIK TS is not an admin and said simply anyone doing it might be blocked (not by him). GR asked 2/0 to make this statement, 2/0 discussed it with me User_talk:2over0#Edit_waring_warning_at_IPCC_please_... and decided not to. Please don't try to start a fight on it. --BozMo talk 00:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replied and self reverted Bozmo, i am however still fuming at WMC`s breach of trust --mark nutley (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Objection

This] is unsupported by discussion. The previous text "compendium of peer reviewed and published science" doesn't imply that everything is peer-reviewed, and the new text seems quite frankly to be pointy, and is certainly not as GR stated "Per talk page discussion on P-R sources". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC`s edit`s were not supported either but you do not seem to have an issue with that? --mark nutley (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stay on-topic? Even if i concede your point (which i do not), then two errors do not make a right. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is on topic, you can`t complain about one but not the other. --mark nutley (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "doesn't imply that everything is peer-reviewed" - I never claimed as much, but I fail to see how this is relevant. You are only making the argument that my change didn't substantively alter the meaning of the text so why are you complaining? Doing so seems rather disruptive to fostering a collegial atmosphere here.

"[This] is unsupported by discussion ... and is certainly not as GR stated" - Please see this section, [31], wherein WMC clearly states:

"I would read that as clear evidence that while P-R lit is preferred, non-P-R lit, provided it is internationally available, is permitted."

I was merely being WP:BOLD and reflecting his position in the article. My reference to "Per talk page discussion on P-R sources" was to that. Are you now contesting WMC's position?

"the new text seems quite frankly to be pointy" - Please be mindful of the new probationary sanctions coupled with assumptions of bad faith, especially when they are actually articulated as you have here.

Regardless, the standard on this page at least seem to be WP:1RR and not consensus as BozMo pointed out above. I have not violated WP:1RR. --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between "published science" and "as well as other internationally available non-peer-reviewed materials" ? And what your background/references are for creating this dichtomy? Does it accurately describe what the IPCC is doing without breaching due weight? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My references are WMC's references and my argument is WMC's argument. If you feel that either are found wanting, please take the matter up with him. --GoRight (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)