Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Violations of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPV re: Booker

I see that the reference to ch 4 of The Real Global Warming Disaster has been removed again, this time with the charming and extremely helpful comment "as talk page discussion, remove advert for irrelevant book by crank". And as before, none of the central points that I make are addressed. I'm not going to edit war. But I will sum up what I have seen on this discussion page.

• A constant stream of bile directed at Christopher Booker (a man in his 70s with fifty years investigative journalism behind him, and one of the co-founders of Private Eye, the pre-eminent UK current affairs magazine). One editor even compared Booker to the fringe creationist Ken Ham
• Consistent cherrypicking of hostile reviews of Booker's work and ignoring positive ones
• Using the cherrypicked former hostile reviews as a yardstick for all Booker's work, including for the work he did in putting together chapter 4 of The Real Global Warming Disaster, a meticulous piece of investigative journalism that provides an extremely well referenced chronological account of this particular controversy (i.e., how the HS came to be inextricably linked to the IPCC's 3rd AR)
• Consistent cherrypicking WP rules to suit their position, rather like the character played by Peter Sellers in the classic satire I'm Alright Jack, who whips out his rulebook if anyone disagrees with him, but who of course chooses to ignore the rulebook when he is at fault himself

The net result of all this in my opinion is that we have a Wikipedia page that is non-neutral, and, sadly, that any interested readers accessing the page will be presented with a whitewashed account of the IPCC. I'm therefore going to post a non-neutral banner. I've no doubt that this will likewise be removed in a flash – but at least my concern will have been registered in the Wikipedia system. Jprw (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You've persistently attepted to give undue weight to the fringe views of this contrarian, and have yet to provide any reliable third party evidence that this 2009 book has had any significant effect on, or significance to, the IPCC, let alone enough to justify plugging it in this brief summary section of another main article. Your accusations of bad faith are inappropriate and unfounded. Incidentally, describing Private Eye as "the pre-eminent UK current affairs magazine" is pretty much like giving the same description to The Onion as a US current affairs magazine. . . dave souza, talk 08:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The clear consensus here is not to include the book. You've pushed very very hard to get it in, and ignored all the arguments against it. If you keep pushing "Booker is great!" don't be too surprised when people point out taht, err, no he isn't. And no: you don't just tag an article because you can't get your pet reference in William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the neutrality tag from the article. No matter what one's concerns about statements on talk, they do not add to a rationale for tagging the article. --TS 09:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The BLP concerns are a serious cause for concern about prejudice to Booker's reliable source inclusion. Time for this issue to be taken to the next level for BLP resolution. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As has been clearly shown, he's not a reliable source on this subject and so no inclusion, no BLP issue in the article. The statements I've seen on this talk page have been properly sourced and do not violate BLP. . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't been shown that Booker isn't a realible source. His book was published by a reputable publishing house, and that is all that is required. I thought the argument was not that Booker wasn't a reliable source, but that his opinions are fringe? Which is it? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Booker has been shown to be an unreliable source promoting fringe pseudoscientific views. Your statement that "His book was published by a reputable publishing house, and that is all that is required" is not in compliance with verifiability policy. . . dave souza, talk 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this it is. Notice that the policy says that if there is a dispute over what a reliable source is saying, then that should be noted in the article. So, if anyone disputes what Booker is saying, that can be noted in the article. That's how we provide NPOV informaiton on a subject. By the way, the IPCC #4 report was found to contain at least two significant errors, does that discredit it as a reliable source? Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry WP:BLP applies in all of Wiki, not just the article. Do you have a suggested resolution path for faith in others to help address this issue? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think you should learn to make coherent valuable content edits. Failing that, and all the evidence up to now is that you do indeed fail that, this isn't the place for prattle: take it elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If I created PA like that, I would end up the subject here [1] repeatedly failing in front of all to create value but for a discplinary distraction. Owners are obstructing the value creation process in these articles, even in denial to fair dispute resolution. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but I'll report WMC's comment later if no one else has already. That comment definitely crosses the line. Cla68 (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it's a comment on the editor, I've advised WMC to strike it. . . dave souza, talk 08:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic. Cla68, you're persistently arguing that publication by a reputable publishing house is all that is required to meet verifiability policy, and you've even provided this link. I must assume that you've forgotten the first paragraph, "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability."
Booker as a writer has been shown to have no good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's agreed that in the many thousands of pages of IPCC AR4 one significant error has been found, don't know where you get two. It's also agreed that the 368 pages of Booker's "manual" of climate denialism opens with an error specifically cited to a book which does not contain the erroneous statement.[2] Booker acknowledges the error, saying he found it on the internets and didn't bother checking the cited source.[3] Not a good reputation for fact-checking. We also have the well qualified scientist and writer Philip Ball saying of the book that "much, including the central claim, is bunk", and describing some of the errors including Booker's absurd claim about the significance of the hockey stick graph.[4] Ball gives further details of errors and misrepresentations in the book here, and notes Booker's disclaimer that "It is inevitable that such a book will contain errors". Ball's description is worth reading. . . dave souza, talk 08:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't yet have the book in hand, I'm willing to agree to disagree for now and table this discussion until I can look at the book and decide if it has any information or insight that would be a useful addition to any of the articles in the 'pedia. Cla68 (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "shelve", not "table" William M. Connolley (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cla, it doesn't really matter whether you've read the book or not. Content within the book will not address questions regarding WP:WEIGHT nor will it address the very real problem with Bookers reliability on the subject area of science. But i will make one comment on the book, and whether it can be cited as a thourough or even good timeline/blow-by-blow account (dismissing for a moment all other issues), and that is with regards to the references that Booker uses. There is one very significant missing citations: The NAS panel on the topic. (no the NAS report he does cite is not about paleoclimate). See our article on Hockey stick controversy for details. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree for now. In the meantime, could you point out to me which books on this list are unreliable or unnoteworthy? Of course not, doing so is way beyond our charter. All that matters it that they were published by reputable publishing houses, like Booker's book. Some of them do contain errors, especially the books written by Japanese authors containing Japanese fighter aces' victory claims. If you'll check the footnotes to that article, you'll see where I've discussed the discrepancies between some of the sources. That's how we do things, we report what the sources say and explain when there are discrepancies between reliable sources. Do you see the book Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle by Richard B. Frank on that list? That is one of the most used books in the Guadalcanal Campaign articles as it is one of the best sources. Mr. Frank was not a professional historian before he wrote that book. He was a lawyer. Does that disqualify it as a reliable source? There are at least a couple of errors that I know about in that book. Does that disqualify it? Cla68 (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no background knowledge at all to be able to verify or fact-check any references about or around WWII and the pacific war in specific, i hope/suspect that other editors in that topic-area are better equipped to do so, that is after all why WP works so well. In other words: I have exactly no basis for detecting an unreliable source in that topic area. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't either. I have no training or professional experience as a historian or authority on World War II. Fortunately, Wikipedia does not require that. Wikipedia's volunteers are for the most part, as far as I know, complete amateurs like me, because Wikipedia does not require any special expertise. Instead, Wikipedia's rules simply require that our sources meet the definition of reliable, such as not being a self-published book. We take the RSs, like Booker's book, scientific journals, newspapers, magazines, etc, and put information from them into articles in a neutral manner, as if we aren't taking a side on the issue, and give all sides from the RS if there is any disagreement, which there certainly appears to be about this hockey stick graph. We then let the readers decide for themselves what is true. Cla68 (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, with feeling, regardless of the publisher, Booker has a bad reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and as a writer is not a reliable source on any other subject than his own fringe views. If they're to be noted, you'll need to find reliable third party secondary sources showing their significance to the context. And, of course, weight will apply to any scientfic claims. . . dave souza, talk 09:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Books etc are the std sources for WWII. Oddly enough, few people write scientific papers about it. Scientific papers are the std sources for science. Oddly enough, people write scientific papers about science William M. Connolley (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are academic/research style papers about historical subjects. Some are doctoral theses. I've seen some when I peruse the archives of some universities, especially the military schools. Books are easier to use and the information in books is usually fine for our purposes. I'm not sure if Booker gets much into the science of warming, or if he mainly concentrates on the political/human-related facets of its history and composition. We'll see. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, as long as you remember that you're looking at a primary source giving the claims of an active propagandist known for misinformation and conspiracy theories. While you're waiting for it to arrive you might like to read another book giving useful background information, The Discovery of Global Warming - A History by Spencer Weart, which has the advantage of being free, available online. The timeline gives an overview with links to more detailed sections. Philip Ball recommends Richard A. Muller's Physics for Future Presidents for a balanced view of the hockey stick episode, available from Amazon or apparently as a podcast. . . dave souza, talk 09:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit curious as to why the argument to include this is being discussed in two places. First here and then at the hockey stick controversy as well. I think that if this book has anything useful to say about the controvers, it would need to be included first in the main article about the controversy first. Than if it is important enough put in the lede there and included here. My view is that the paragraph here is supposed to be a summary of hockey stick article.

There is also the question of the bit "and this criticism has been picked up by others." this was created by nigelj as I think some kind of compromise between including the book and not mentioning Booker at all. I figured best to at least point out that this bit should be removed if it is decided to not mention booker at all or mention him in more detail. 83.86.0.82 (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, worth doing. Will hunt out a source later today. . dave souza, talk 09:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral tone in hockey stick section

A POV edit was recently made to the section "Emphasis of the "hockey stick" graph", and should be edited to restore a neutral tone to the article. The passage in questino reads, "...with McKitrick making inaccurate claims and saying that the graph is skewed by a cabal of paleoclimatologists." I have no objection to what's being reported here if it's properly cited--the claims may very well be inaccurate. However, Wikipedia does not take positions, it reports them. Who says the claims are inaccurate? --DGaw (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the cited source does indeed provide evidence of inaccurate claims but in trying to keep this concise while reflecting the majority view this came over rather badly. Having reviewed the source, it makes more sense to emphasise the NAS findings in this brief summary, so I've edited it accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Paper / article

Papers are articles and articles are papers so [5] is null. But if it makes you happy, it is fine William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

An acceptable HS reference?

In the recent discussions above I asked if any editor knew of a better single well sourced account of how the hockey stick graph came to be inextricably linked with the IPCC’s third assessment report than chapter 4 of The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker. Well, it looks as though this may be it. 14/14 five star reviews on Amazon. Again, obviously from the point of view of climate change skepticism. Presumably the main reason given in the above discussions for excluding Booker (that he is some kind of unreliable lunatic operating on the fringes of reality) will not similarly apply to Andrew Montford? In any case, it is becoming very noticeable now in the media and in publishing that the volume of criticism towards the IPCC, and the Hockey Stick in particular, is increasing all the time. Surely it can only be a matter of time before the IPCC Wikipedia article more accurately reflects this? Jprw (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're abandoning Booker, and finally realising what people have been telling you for ages, then great. If you've just switched to yet more skeptic nonsense, then bad. Review: The author has done an enormous public service in chronicling the long and sordid history of the infamous Mann hockey-stick graph and the persistent and heroic efforts of Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre to reveal its errors. --Edward John Craig, Managing Editor, National Review Online - no, this is just more skeptic nonsense. We don't need a section or article on ill-informed media discussion of the hockey stick, for all the reasons we've already gone through. The IPCC article should *not* be reflecting this ill-informed rubbish, and it doesn't. You should stop pushing it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not abandoning Booker, just making the observation that wherever you turn in the media and in publishing the skeptical literature is growing all the time. There seems to be the "Wikipedia reality" regarding AGW, and then the reality you meet in the outside world. I suspect that it is only a matter of time before the former has to come more into line with the latter. And to answer dave souza below, I seem to recall a recent article in The Guardian calling for the IPCC to be disbanded. Anyway I'm off now to edit articles where the discussions don't get so heated. Good luck. Jprw (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@ jprw, your claim that "in the media and in publishing... the volume of criticism towards the IPCC, and the Hockey Stick in particular, is increasing all the time" is flatly contradicted by the reputable 12 part report from The Guardian, and this looks rather promising as a reform of the IPCC. . . dave souza, talk 22:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that your link Tough love in a troubled climate acknowledges the current problems. I certainly was unaware of this situation before the recent revelations, as I had assumed the science was based on firmer ground. The suggestions it makes toward the end would go a long way to improve the IPCC's credibility. Maybe attitudes will change:Hurricane study unites formerly divided experts —mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, mattisse, that's an interesting story, and yet another case of detailed studies undermining the mainstream media's dramatic claims that the IPCC was wrong in hinting that AGW could result in worse storms. Similarly, the MSM and some environmental activists have, in the past, exaggerated the extent to which the science was settled. If you read a little of the IPCC reports you'll find they strongly emphasise the uncertainties and need for further research. Those attacking the credibility of the IPCC use a false dichotomy, similar to the creationist two-model approach, in which any error is claimed to undermine the whole science. . dave souza, talk 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Jprw you actually though bishop would be allowed in here :), however not only is it wp:rs it is also recommended reading by the British_Parliament 27. Finally I recommend that the members of the committee read chapter 15 of "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by A W Montford—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 08:34, 1 March 2010

There's a grammatical error in your statement, mark. It's not "recommended reading by the" UK parliament, it's reading recommended to parliament by Phillip Bratby, a retired physicist who wrote "a political scam, pre-designed to scare the world about a problem for which there is no scientific evidence. Man-made global warming does not exist. The BBC should report it as such in its headlines, and not just go along with this scam." in response to a BBC item in March 2009.[6] So, no change there. . . dave souza, talk 09:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. He also recommends, or at least cites, "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Karl_Popper". LOL, dave souza, talk 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the article on the Hockey Stick fuss already antago references to several reliable sources on the subject. The investigation by NAS is the best there is far as I'm aware. So why don't we just cite that? The above seems like a desperate search for an unreliable source on the grounds that we're not representing fringe views enough, and that surely cannot improve Wikipedia. The fringe views are... well, they're fringe. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 12:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Reform suggestions

The IPCC needs to change and switch to shorter, more targeted reports | Environment | guardian.co.uk, by Robert Watson, which links to Major Change Is Needed If the IPCC Hopes to Survive by Roger A. Pielke, Jr.: Yale Environment 360. That publication also features In India, a Clear Victor on The Climate Action Front by Isabel Hilton: Yale Environment 360, which is rather informative about the political developments in India. . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree. The problem cannot be considered from just one view. Talking image (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Add NYT link: [7]

Add NYT link: [8] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/science/earth/03climate.html?em (IPCC) "Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate" By JOHN M. BRODER Published: March 2, 2010 and see Talk:Phil Jones (climatologist) 99.88.231.56 (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Add link [9] from WSJ "Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel"

Add link [10] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083681319834978.html? from WSJ "Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel" FEBRUARY 26, 2010 by Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com and Keith Johnson at keith.johnson@wsj.com \; with example excerpt: "..."There is a very broad and deep consensus that I buy into that we're producing too much CO2 and it's going to cause problems eventually," said John H. Marburger III, former science adviser to President George W. Bush. Many details remain uncertain, he said, but "I think it's unequivocal that there is a human component." ...Mr. Marburger, the former Bush science adviser, said he frequently heard policy makers express frustration at the lack of certainty in many areas of science, including climate. "'Why can't we get better numbers?' Everybody asks that," he said. "But science rarely gives you the right answer. Science tells you what the situation is, but it doesn't tell you what to do." 99.29.185.24 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor reference

I haven't read much of this WP article (it looks to need some pruning at a glance) but in passing I note this reference McKibben, Bill (March 15, 2007). "Warning on Warming". The New York Review of Books (nybooks.com) 54 (4): 18. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19981. Retrieved 2010-02-21 is a bit trashy. The fact that the author innumerately uses the expression "lowest common denominator findings" when he means "findings divided by the lowest common denominator" or "highest common factor findings" is itself deeply unimpressive (lowest common denominator findings would be big and get bigger for each additional party included) and our decision to repeat the error as the only citation from the review is even sadder. Do we have something similar we could cite which was less erroneous? --BozMo talk 10:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I took this out [11] as an obviously deceptive edit comment. Nor is it clearly reasonable to add it here under an accurate comment William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain exactly how it is an "obviously deceptive edit comment", and give an example of how it could have been phrased differently? Jprw (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Because you said adding ref to criticism section when it wasn't. Is that really so hard to see? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest an acceptable alternative wording? Jprw (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the obvious would be "add a pile of contentious criticism with no attempt at consensus". So, now you have (albeit only implicitly) admitted that your summary was misleading, how about apologising for it? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"So, now you have (albeit only implicitly) admitted that your summary was misleading, how about apologising for it?" No, I won't apologise for making a possibly too vague or short edit summary. But how about you apologise for making such a ridiculous and unjustified request, as well as succumming so easily and quickly to violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPOV? Jprw (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Jprw, I object to the edit on BLP grounds. Unless that specific behavior by Paucheri has been noted in a number of RS, I don't think it should be included. In addition, I'm disappointed with WMC's combative way of presenting his objection to the edit. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive comment. I see that there may be BLP issues that I didn't properly take into account and in view of these I'll remove it. In the meantime, if other RS appear on this specific point we may want to consider reincluding it. As an aside, the current reference to Paucheri in the article looks out of place. Jprw (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is nice that you've finally done the right thing. It is regrettable that you only did so once "your side" pointed out your error William M. Connolley (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC, please don't make personal comments like this. It could be interpreted as baiting and by any measure is inappropriate for collaborative and cooperative discussions on article content. Cla68 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic to say the least that WMC quotes this at the top of his page:

"To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X."

Perhaps it is intended as some kind of parody. Jprw (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this have any place here? Please refactor/delete and remove this comment as well, when you've done so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I will do so after you acknowledge that WMC's behaviour above was inappropriate and completely unconstructive to the WP editing process, and in violation of numerous WP principles. Jprw (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that these talk-pages are under probation - right? Now be good and remove all of this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

When I see evidence that you are capable of applying the same high standards to WMC (whose antagonistic attitude and chronic AGF lapses directly led to this) as to myself I will with pleasure remove it. In the meantime, his hypocrisy needs exposing and his flagrant, arrogant and continual circumvention of various WP fundamental principles needs drawing attention to. Jprw (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No reason to bicker about these kinds of things here. We just note our initial concerns about the behavior of others on this talk page, then take further discussion of it up on their user account talk pages or at the probation enforcement page. Cla68 (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

May i remind both of you about this. Now please refactor everything that isn't directly related to the article - and that includes this comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Voodoo science

I'm seeing a lot of references to Paucheri's "Voodoo science" remark about the glacier prediction. For example, see here. There seems to be a preponderance of refs available to justify a mention -- but perhaps it would fit better on his page, which also doesn't appear to mention it. Jprw (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't use the link you've provided, since it is factually incorrect. But yes, it would be better at RKP first William M. Connolley (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's also a blog, though Monbiot's suggestion of November 2009 for the alleged remark ties in with some research I did on the subject, showing it had more to do with politics in India,[12] and was a bit more complex than you might suppose.[13] Beware of the "Crisis. What crisis?" effect where newspapers make up statements that enter folklore as though they were a verbatim quote. . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please make a suggestion on how you think it should be phrased. Cla68 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be; it is based on an error. What text do you want to see included? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

North African Agriculture

There doesn't seem to be any mention in the criticism section regarding the 50% drop in N. African agriculture by 2020 that seems to be dubious at best. The Watson criticism referring to multiple errors really ought to be preceded by, well, multiple errors, no? TMLutas (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this quote right after headline title - IPCC criticism.

Obviously it's there as a result of biased editing. It's not a section on generally accepted view on Global Warming. It's on criticism.

Deleted the entire quote.

Here it is for the record:

The mainstream scientific view is that unless we take drastic measures climate changes our own activities have set in motion over the past 150 years will, within a comparatively short time, threaten the survival of the human race. It is hard to persuade people of the need to act unselfishly now so that future generations in a world that we will never know may survive. Science [...] does not deal in certainties. The best it can do is convince us on the basis of strong probabilities, and that depends on trust. So the mishandling of data on climate change by the IPCC [...] is particularly damaging. It becomes difficult to resist the blandishments of the sceptics [...] if a purportedly scientific document cannot be wholly relied on.

— Lisa Jardine, A Point Of View, BBC Radio 4, 5 February 2010

– —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.212.200 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 7 April 2010

Good point, the phrasing assumes "mishandling of data on climate change" and the purportedly important source of the statement, Lisa Jardine, has no evident expertise on the subject. I've replaced by info trom the detailed sub-article on the subject, which at least shows the scientific consensus view on such errors. . . dave souza, talk 08:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do we have a reliable source for this alleged comment? The ellipses rather suggest quote mining. . . dave souza, talk 08:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Errors-but-OK

I removed the Summary-type para: the stuff about errors-but-OK is wrong, I think: the 2035 stuff which was the most "exciting" wasn't even in the SPM. Nor is there any evidence that the SPM is used mostly for the making of policy William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats what the Summary For Policy Makers is for, making policy. There are multipile errors in the ar4 report and that stuff you removed was well sourced, you had to reason to remove it, please self revert mark nutley (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to go out so have reverted you, we can discuss it later mark nutley (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit baffled by that removal as well, Will. What's the dealeo, yo?--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First there isn't: Multiple errors - there is quite a small number of errors - its below 5. In a report that contains thousands of facts.

Second: All of the errors have been in the WGII report.

Third: None of the errors are in the SPM's.

All in all - good revert - which i've redone. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

None of what you have said is accurate kim, Summary for policy makers mistakes extinction sea-level rise re-examine a passage about the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events such as hurricanes why some people seem to find it nessacary to hide any mistakes made by the ipcc is beyond me, please self revert mark nutley (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

These are not in any of the SPM's Mark. And none of your references show this (and if they did - they would be demonstratively wrong) - so i'm quite confused as to why you present them here. In fact Revkin points out that it wasn't in the SPM: "At the same time, it’s clear that senior authors of the panel’s most visible products, its summaries for policymakers, had little confidence in this finding". The Age specifically notes: "However, the inaccurate passage was not included in the Summary for Policymakers section of the report, which forms the basis of government responses to climate change."

Underestimating sea-level rise - is in the SPM. Try to read it - its the cave-at about "ice dynamics". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No kim this is one of the central predictions of IPCC, prominently discussed in the Summary for Policy Makers Do not even try to say there are no errors in the SPM, when it is reliably sourced that there are indeed mistakes in it mark nutley (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the AR4 SPM page 5-7. Yes, the IPCC underestimates contributions to sea-level from ice-dynamics - and it is specifically noted within the SPM ("For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m. Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.").

Yes, sea-levels have risen faster than estimated - and again this is noted in the SPM ("Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longerterm trend is unclear.") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim yes or no, are there errors in the SPM? mark nutley (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There might be? Who knows. But they haven't been found then (or i haven't read about it in any reference yet). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One final note: Please read up on the topic. The IPCC (or the models) does not provide predictions, there is a reason that it is called projections. Its a common mistake though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I took it out again, since none of the above, or below, addresses the problems with it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

IPCC Politico-Scientific?

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body" - but also "The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations." Is it reasonable to amend the first statement to take this political aspect into account? Or is the "intergovernmental" adjective sufficient? Washi (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is necessary to amend the first phrase to insure that everyone understands the political nature of the IPCC 131.187.128.50 (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Add quote from Guardian to Hockey Stick section?

I recently added this sentence to the end of this section of our article:

In 2010, glaciologist Kurt Cuffey of the University of California at Berkeley, a member of the US National Research Council panel that reviewed the Hockey stick controversy, criticized the way the graph had been used by the IPCC: "I think that sent a very misleading message about how resolved this part of the scientific research was." Source: Climate change debate overheated after sceptic grasped 'hockey stick', Guardian series on 'Climate wars'

Editor KD Peterson reverted, commenting: "Cherry-pick from an article with another focus. I'm also not sure that its a 2010 comment, and not one from the NAS review time."

Kim, this is an impeccably-sourced, topical and encyclopedic quote from a scientist-player. I'm confused by your "cherry-pick" comment: this Guardian article's subject is the HS controversy. If you think we should drop the 2010 date, that 's fine with me -- the Guardian article isn't clear as to when he said this. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal gives excessive detail in this brief summary, and undue weight to the musings of one commentator on the extent to which the graph was used. The initial research was indeed cutting edge, but as the same article shows it has stood up remarkably well to a decade of political criticism and further scientific research. . . dave souza, talk 08:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, we could shorten this, but please note that this particular section is "Emphasis of the "hockey stick" graph" in the context of criticism of the IPCC. The published opinion of an NRC panel member that the IPCC misused the graph, would seem to have ample WP:weight. I agree with Kim that it would be nice to know the date of the quote. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not a summary of the sub-article is it? That is what that section is... And the quote is cherry-picked not from an article about the NAS panels conclusions, but from one about Michael Mann. The journalist of course picked it from the Nature article Bromfrey(2006) "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph". That particular article is of course already part of Hockey stick controversy.

But if we are going to have a quote (which we shouldn't, since a) this is a summary b) it would be undue weight) then i think it would be rather better with another quote from the Nature article:

Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. "This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed,” he says, adding that he “would not be embarrassed” to have been involved in the work.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit coflict) Cuffey's remarks, it turns out, were from a press conference at the release of the 2006 NRC/NAS report, and were widely reported at that time: the Cuffey quote ran in Nature's news report, now behind a paywall, and it appears that Cuffey's was the criticism in Nature's title, "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph - But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used." I think this is the proper place for Cuffey's full remarks, as they are specific to how the IPCC used the HS graph. This particular section is "Emphasis of the "hockey stick" graph" in the context of criticism of the IPCC. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Except of of course that it isn't a good summary from the Nature article. North's quote (in the same Nature article) is quite a bit more to that point:

“No individual paper tells the whole story,” agrees North. “It’s very dangerous to pull one fresh paper out from the literature.”

And No. You cannot just summarize the parts of an article that reflects a specific POV - you have to weight it appropriately. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

(reply to KDP) Kim, do you have a link to a copy of the Brumfiel Nature article? Or a copy you could email? pdtillmanATgmailDOTcom

Maybe you're right that this belongs over there. But it is specific to this topic, and it does look like Nature led with Cuffey, so we should too. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How is you seem to find WP:SUMMARY so difficult to follow? This is the main article, and undue weight to minor criticisms is inappropriate. . . dave souza, talk 22:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the significance and importance of the 'hockey stick' to the entire global warming campaign, why is this criticism considered "minor" ?TahoeBlue (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I have read, the IPCC has been criticized for, in critics' opinions, excessive weight given to the hockey stick graph. I know of at least two other sources besides the Guardian, which I can list if requested. I think the question here is, how should this be phrased in the article? So, could you all that don't like the reliable, sourced quote from the Berkeley scientist suggest an alternative? Please collaborate, cooperate, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there has been rather a lot of critique - that is the reason why we have an article on that: Hockey stick controversy. What is presented here is a summary of that article (and it is already phrased in this article). It is not supposed to be various cherry-picks of quotes and whatnot. I don't have anything against the quote - except that it is WP:UNDUE.... to be more specific: If it is not important (weighty) enough to be mentioned in the article that specifically is about the controversy - then its not important enough to mention here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe I agree with at least part of what you're saying. The Hockey Stick controversy article should be improved and complete first, if necessary, and then a summary of that article can be worked on here, as appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] So, shall we move this discussion to that page? Consensus seems to be that we should make that the master article, and this a summary.

The NRC/NAS sections do seem to be rather a mess. I've been doing a little cleanup, but more is needed, and it looks like Cuffey got left out. Kim, does Cuffey lead the criticism section in the Brumfiel Nature article?

Does anyone have a working link to that article? Or a copy you could email? (pdtillmanATgmailDOTcom) Nature's news report, the primary ref, is now behind a paywall. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the author and title information for that article and I'll look for it in Infotrac. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Complete cite is here. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Section

The following text was removed without consensus for no reason than wp:idontlikeit

The summary reports (i.e. Summary for Policymakers), which draw the most media attention, include review by participating governments in addition to scientific review. The reports have been criticized for containing several errors. Still, it has been generally acknowledged that the mistakes are "small", and do not significantly diminish the reports' usefulness as background material for policy making.

It has been argued by WMC and KDP that the summary for policy makers has no errors in it. This is however blatantly absurd.

• Sins of ommision, mistake 1

• Sea Level Rises, mistake 2

• on extinction mistake 3

Given it is obvious that the SPM has errors in it then i seek consensus to reinsert the removed text mark nutley (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why you cannot continue this discussion under the existing section header? And while we are at it, can you please stop citing unreliable sources like an editorial? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To keep it tidy, the sources all fall under wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they do not. The WSJ is usually a RS, but the article is an attributed opinion piece (as easily recognizable by the facts that it is published in OPINION JOURNAL in the section OPINION EUROPE, that the author is identified as "an editorial page writer", and that the article is followed by the link "MORE IN OPINION). As you either know or at least should know, opinion pieces and editorials are only reliable for the opinion of the author, not for facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly appropriate to distinguish between op-ed articles and other sources which should in theory not contain opinion. But it would seem that facts which are mentioned in an opinion piece, as opposed to the opinions expressed therein, are worthy of being referenced. Perhaps the more rigorous approach would be to locate references to the facts in sources which are not op-ed pieces. However, with regards to unproven scientific hypotheses, there is certainly an element of opinion present, even if it is founded in an assessment of 'likelihood' that is not directly refuted by some other fact. The distinction between opinion, judgment, hypothesis, and fact are a bit fuzzy around the edges, actually. In fact, the entire debate regarding climate change and the IPCC conclusions falls in the area of hypothesis which has yet to be actually demonstrated as fact -- which makes the entire WP handling of the subject and its different 'assessments' quite difficult ! TahoeBlue (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that is just a lack of understanding of the scientific method, the same as the one being used by climate change denialists and religious anti-science groups to lobby for a position of "let's do nothing" about anything scientific. There is a percentage probability of doubt about everything that is 'known', but that does not mean that everyone's opinion is equal in value (e.g. journalists' and politicians' "facts" vs scientists' "facts"). --Nigelj (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Request For Comment

{{rfctag|sci}} The following text was removed without consensus

"The summary reports (i.e. Summary for Policymakers), which draw the most media attention, include review by participating governments in addition to scientific review. The reports have been criticized for containing several errors. Still, it has been generally acknowledged that the mistakes are "small", and do not significantly diminish the reports' usefulness as background material for policy making."

It has been argued by WMC and KDP that the summary for policy makers has no errors in it. However i believe the following links show the SPM has mistakes in it

• Sins of ommision, mistake 1

• Sea Level Rises, mistake 2

• on extinction mistake 3

Given the above links show it has errors in it then i seek consensus to reinsert the removed text

Comments By Involved Users

• The RFC introduction is supposed to be phrased in neutral terms. If the RFC author then wants their opinion to be known, they should then do so separately down here somewhere. Also, I don't see the exact text in question listed here. Before I vote, I need to know exactly what you want the article to say or what the text was which was removed. Nevertheless, I thought it was widely accepted that the IPCC's summary reports were controversial because they differed so significantly from the actual reports that they purported to summarize. Cla68 (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made a stab at a more neutral wording, i want the text which was removed to be replaced as it is obvious from the links provided that mistakes are in the SPM and to remove text saying this is in my view not right mark nutley (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think the paragraph in question is ok, but could be better. It's not that simple or necessarily accurate that the summary reports contain "a few errors". The main criticism of the summary reports, from what I've read, is that they gloss over dissenting opinions and exaggerate or inflate the worst case scenarios. Critics charge that this is to garner better media, government, and public notice. From what I understand, this is why some scientists, like Paul Reiter, asked to be removed as contributors to the IPCC's reports. Cla68 (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Given it is obvious that the SPM has errors in cannot possibly be considered neutral William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. Mark puts up a WSJ opinion piece, a Newsweek rehash of Rahmstorf's comment on sea level projections proving to be on the low side (not an "error") and a NYT opinion piece on various phrasings of estimate risks of extinctions of species in the SPS. Calling this "several errors" looks very misleading, giving undue weight to relatively minor points. . . dave souza, talk 11:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, three lines is not undue weight in this article by a long shot. And as this is about the SPM and not the science then an opinion piece is a perfectly valid ref for what is essentialy a political document mark nutley (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of this RFC remains "not even close". MN is far too close to this to write it without bias. "The following text was removed without consensus" is unacceptable as an intro.

I suggest that someone like Cla - who for all his faults at least has some clue about writing without bias, and has a fair idea of what MN really means - goes in and rewrites the thing. Until that is done this fails the criterion for RFC listing; I've nowikied the tag ni the interim William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully request you do not edit my posts. I have changed the text per your previous suggestion. The disputed text was removed without consensus and i do not see how the truth of this matter is not neutral mark nutley (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an RFC, not a "post". You do not have freedom to do as you wish here William M. Connolley (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You have broken your 1r restriction and you are also not meant to alter another editors text on talk pages per your probation, please self revert thank you mark nutley (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, please step back for a day or so. Cla68 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, one day then this rfc will go forward, i will not have the person who removed the text also stop this RFC mark nutley (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This can't go forward until it is fixed. MN is clearly not capable of even seeing the problem, so someone else will have to fix it. MN's 1RR complaint is wrong, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was me who inserted the latter part of the text. From what I've read it does indeed appeart to be the general consensus that the mistakes are "small", and I think this should be pointed out straight in the introduction. And wasn't there a news item recently which relieved the report authors from some of the guilt? That said, I admit that I do not have any expertise and the subject and I have no strong opinion about whether to loose the text or not. Lesswealth (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems. One is whether to bother about minor errors. Another is that the most widely hyped error - the 2035 stuff [14] - wasn't in the SPM, so doesn't belong. This is a mistake that people have made repeatedly and we should not William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This is of interest

all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined, 5,587 are not peer-reviewed I am wondering were it can be put? mark nutley (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

At WP:RS/N, unless you see for yourself that this is not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere, since it is junk. They count textbooks against the total William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking books are not peer-reviewed.130.232.214.10 (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Begun in early 2009, the NOconsensus.org web site is wholly researched, written, designed, and published by Donna Laframboise, a self-employed photographer.". I don't think that this site could ever be considered a reliable source for factual statements, unless maybe they were about photography, and even then I'd like to see some credentials and a hint of why this persons opinion is notable. Weakopedia (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Donna LaFramboise journalist, author and photographer, I think the site is reliable for a study they conducted mark nutley (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You say they conducted the study, but the only oversight for that site is LaFramboise, so it would be more accurate to say that she conducted a study. Of the 43 volunteers, 30 show no qualifications. The results of the test were not reviewed by anyone other than LaFramboise, who has no scientific qualifications (she does have an undergraduate degree in Women's Studies). It may be that the results are accurate, but without these results appearing in a reliable third party source it would be inappropriate to use them. Weakopedia (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i agree with you. mark nutley (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This has now appeared in a reliable third party source [15] So were to put it is the next question? mark nutley (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you think is in a reliable third-party source? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The link at the top of this section mark nutley (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Be more specific. Fox neither repeats nor endorses nor even reports in detail on the claims made by NoConsensus.org. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do they need to report her audit in detail? They link to it. And they report on her findings Donna Laframboise of NoConsensus.org gathered a group of citizens online and proved that the U.N. over-relied upon so-called "gray literature," rather than using exclusively peer-reviewed scientific reports as the organization was supposed to do. and of course they Contacted repeatedly by FoxNews.com for comment on Lafromboise's criticism's and NoConsensus.org's plans, IPCC spokeswoman Isabel-Garcia Gill refused to comment. A good indicator they have taken her findings seriously mark nutley (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also reported in detail at The John Birch Society [16]

The JBS is about as far from a RS as one can find. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Who said the organisation was supposed to rely exclusively on peer reviewed scientific reports? A blatant error right there, a better source needed to meet WP:SOURCES. . . dave souza, talk 09:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In fox news twice in fact, this one goes into detail [17] mark nutley (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Shock horror! A bunch of "experts" recruited on the internets by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org start from the faulty premise that "We've been told it's 100 percent peer-reviewed science", the Heartland Institute accuses scientists of having closed minds, and Monckton gets promoted with the usual spurious claim that he was a science adviser to Maggie. A couple of spokespersons are more sensible, and note that "gray literature" can be suitable for some uses. If this publicity stunt does eventually prove to have any significance at all, better sources needed, not one that's "fair and balanced" in showing credulous approval of pseudoscientific claims. . . dave souza, talk 13:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the "pseudoscientific claim" you seem to be worried about here? mark nutley (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we just agree this isn't worth adding and quietly forget it, please William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Forget it .. there are sufficient sources to quietly place a sentence in the Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Criticism_of_IPCC section with a ref. The IPCC's publicity stunts must be revealed. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC's publicity stunts must be revealed - golly, that sounds exciting. Which publicity stunt were you thinking of? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Zulu, remember, we don't take a stand on whether any alleged publicity stunts must be revealed or not. I understand that the IPCC is criticized by some observers for allegedly grandstanding in its summary reports and its press releases. Please list any more reliable sources you have that support this and we can discuss it. One source from FoxNews probably isn't sufficient. Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So, Cla, do *you* know what PS ZP5 is talking about? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So we have it twice in Fox news, and also in The Examiner. How many do we need? mark nutley (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh excellent, you have some clue what ZP5 is talking about. Can you enlighten the rest of us please? Cla and I haven't any idea William M. Connolley (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC, please unhook and spare the worm ... see this [18]. The sources MN has presented speak for themselves for reasonable inclusion here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm equally confused. Neither the word "publicity" nor the word "stunt" is mentioned in either of the Fox sources. I've not seen the nebulous "Examiner source" so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it also appears in dave souza comment above. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My reference was to the NoConsensus.org publicity stunt, my own wording. Not sure what ZP5 is proposing. . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So, are we all agreed that no-one - not even ZP5 - has the slightest idea what ZP5 is talking about? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The John Birch Society and a letter to the editor? Scratching the bottom of the barrel, I'd say. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Of rather more interest

Climatologist Ellen Mosley-Thompson on warming in Antarctica | Environment | guardian.co.uk includes her description of how ice cores show strong warming in the last 60 years, MWP and LIA appearing in the Andes but very muted in the Himalaya, consistent with them not being worldwide, and comments on complaints about the IPCC. . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is of interest

Were should it go? Abstract Full Pfd mark nutley (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere. It's a self-published paper by a non-expert on climate science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Since when do you need to be a climate expert to review the ipcc work? or climate scientists actions? Anyway the paper was written by Jason Scott Johnston, who is a Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. I believe his credentials are sound. mark nutley (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And that explains a lot. Of course you have to be a properly trained scientist to (meaningfully) review any piece of even slightly advanced scientific work. Why do do you think we have universities in the first place? Johnston is certainly qualified to write about law. There is no sign that he is qualified to write about climate science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read it (or at least, I got as far as Why would the IPCC both delete the famous (or infamous) hockey-stick graph before giving up in disgust. Summary: first bit (sfc air T) has been dictated by RP Sr. Second bit (HS) has been dictated by McI. Past that I don't know. This report has no independent value William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I lied: I read on: part 3 (trop T trends) was dictated by Douglass William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I lied again: as a train wreck, it is quite entertaining. Part 4 (climate sensitivity) seems to rely heavily on the disastrous Roe and Baker (which your paper laughably calls "not controversial" (and [24] is worth a look if you're in the area; you can also read me). Then Linden, then Paltridge William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I say a few words would belong in Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Criticism_of_IPCC, without my own orginal research an prejudices interfering. (I don't understand the objections above.) I could grant my consensus ton inclusion after a few relevant words were proposed. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Now this is very very interesting

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming From Mike Hulme full .pdf here [1.pdf] Should we add this to the controversy section here? mark nutley (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's Solomon's opinion piece, which is, as usual for Solomon, completely removed from realities. Hulme's draft paper is here (your link is broken), and, of course, is very different from Solomon's selective out-of-context quotes and spin. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Really, so he did not write this "Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts"? mark nutley (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think one line summing up Hulme's criticism of the IPCC can be included, especially since he is a climate scientist. What do you suggest that it say? Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It deserves a line. Unfortunately we can't use LS's stuff, cos its tosh. I'd be happy to quote "ithout a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism". However, without some context on the 2,5000 - who makes this claim - you can't use that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after I looked at the paper I take it back. It's a draft paper intended for publishing later. So, I'm not sure if it's a realiable source right now. Maybe after and if it published. Why is it posted online if it's only a draft? Cla68 (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Why can`t the 2500 be used? it`s right there in the pdf page 11 i believe. Here is my proposed text. Mike Hulme in a paper to be published in Progress in Physical Geography has said "this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts" mark nutley (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The paper says it hasn't been published yet. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

updated to show that mark nutley (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you know it's going to be published? I'm not suggesting that it's unlikely, but it's by no means certain. And if it is published, it will very likely be revised taking peer-review comments into account. Also note that it's not clear that the '2500 point' is addressed to the IPCC, or to others reporting on it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If the paper does get published it looks like it will be a valuable source on information for this article on the history and organization of the IPCC. Cla68 (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And Hulme,M. (2009a), Hulme,M. (2009b) cited in this draft also seem likely to be useful, either here or over at -controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If its not published, we should just drop this discussion until it is. For the obvious reason: if you only want it for Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous, and you can only find that in one paper, then it is a minority viewpoint William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Another reason why thinking before acting is a good idea: [25] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not neeed here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's a perfect illustration of something I've often noticed: people who call themselves "sceptics" seem in fact to be remarkably gullible, latching on any old tosh from journalists and bloggers with a track record of getting things badly wrong. More genuine scepticism is needed rather than jumping on every sensationalist bandwagon that comes along. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Chris, that's not a very helpful comment for an article talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, it would be if the "sceptics" would listen. We could, say, actually work on the article instead of refuting the out-of-context misquoted cherry-picked misrepresentation-de-jour over and over again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC) From what I've read, some sceptics also make ad hominem statements about warmists. Again, those kind of blanket generalizations are inappropriate for an article talk page. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A whole new gate

www.prisonplanet.com/new-global-warming-scandal-consensus-on-sun-is-one-expert.html Judith Gate] the blogs all all over this one, i suspect the MSM will catch up eventually, should this go in the crit part of this article? mark nutley (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are all over anything. When newspapers (the reporting section, not the editorial section) pick it up, come back and see us. See WP:RS. --Jayron32 19:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

From here, attributed to the original source Klimaskeptik.cz: "Satellites showed that the TSI (measured in watts) between 1986 and 96 increased by about one third." All else being equal, if TSI rose by a third, that'd raise the temperature by about 19C or 34F. -Atmoz (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that Wilson's analysis resulted in the change of 1/3 watts per square metre, not 1/3 of TSI itself. The disagreement (of the magnitude of fractions of watt per square metre) between Fröhlich (PMOD) and Wilson (ACRIM team) about inter-calibration between satellites is decades old. (See http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant for Fröhlich's view.) Probably no news at all. --Masudako (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a real issue, not logically for IPCC but for climate modellers: what record of TSI they should use as forcing to their numerical experiments to reproduce the climate of the 20th century. If they prefer making runs by various models comparable, they probably need to choose a certain set of records as their common input, even if some of them do not think it the best estimate. Probably they cannot afford to try all suggstions. And the issue for the authors of IPCC is what weights they should give to the results of such experiments. --Masudako (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You realize you are trying to use PrisonPlanet as a source, right? 122.172.58.95 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No i`m not, that`s so the guys here can see what i`m on about. It looks like the MSM will ignore this one as well though, no surprises there mark nutley (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Economist Critique

There is a great IPCC critique in The Economist this month. It seems to support the consensus; however, it heavily criticizes the IPCC management with recommendations for replacing the leader, a process to better handle conflicts of interests and recognizing a role for an ombudsman. I am searching for a better copy to source into the criticisms section. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.economist.com/node/16539392?story_id=16539392 --Nigelj (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's an excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Others, on recent report, and in the same vein [26], [27], [28] Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why such a narrow sample? Wikispan (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I supose this was a hit population weighted sample, at least this is how google reported relevance. Seems like the ball is rolling on new content. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

InterAcademy Council report

Some coverage of InterAcademy Council's recommendations: "Stronger enforcement of existing IPCC procedures will minimise errors", published today. --Nigelj (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19378-climate-panel-must-fundamentally-reform-to-survive.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11131897

It would be nice if we could avoid jumping in with knee-jrek press stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicer to include all notable and relevant views. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The actual document. NW (Talk) 21:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. We need to start adding a summary of their findings and recommendations to the article. If I have a chance today and tomorrow I'll get started on it unless someone else gets to it first. Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If we want IAC to look of some significance, someone should probably rescue the InterAcademy Council from being a redirect and add them to IAC William M. Connolley (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The CSM writes it up. --TS 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. The IAC appears to have basically and indirectly told Paucheri to resign by stating that the "chief scientist" should only be in charge for one report. If Paucheri refuses, the resulting controversy may be noteworthy enough to include in this article. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've cut a bit - this isn't the place to tell people where the IAC is housed William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone pointed out to me, the IAC report made it into Portal:Current_events/2010_August_30 but in a rather poor version. I've edited it to conform to what we have here William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've cut Pielke in favour of Nature, which is a rather more impartial source of commentary. Pielke's biases are rather well known. Feel free to add more text from there - I selected a quote somewhat randomly William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Pielke's biases, as the CSM article didn't mention them. Could you point to a reliable source that gives them, otherwise I don't see why his statement can't stay in the article, since it was reliably sourced. Cla68 (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't disappear down that rabbit-hole. We're managing a fairly good an balanced paragraph here. I could dump in the RC view to "balance" the Pielke view but I'd rather use clearly-no-axe-to-grind sources. We have Nature available, which is clearly a better source to use than Pielke, so let's use it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC, you could not dump in RC because it would be against policy to use a self-published, advocacy source. Pielke's quote was from the Christian Science Monitor. Now, unless you actually have a valid reason for not including his quote, I will be readding it, but I'll give you a chance to come up with a valid reason first. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Both Nature and CSM can be included. We don't have to choose one and exclude the other -- and shouldn't. Minor4th 00:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to readd the quote and put it and the Nature quote in a separate paragraph. Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, use of RC is fully within policy, as you know. Just like you know HSI isn't an RS but you persist in trying to use it. There is no need for the Pielke quote, and I've removed it again. The argument "this is reliably sourced, therefore it belongs in the article" is wrong, as you're fully aware. Please don't be tendentious William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Due to this edit war, I have requested full protection for this article. Cla68 (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this edit war on my watchlist, and so protected it for two weeks when I saw the above comment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like (yet another) trigger-happy prot (and request for same). If you ignore the two (blocked now) scibaby socks, there are precisely *two* reverts in this "edit war". If two reverts are now the trigger level for 2-week prots, then we're in trouble William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not an isolated incident; please work on the content on this section; there are other places to discuss the rights or wrongs of the protection. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a very odd thing to say, and a very weak defence. Where else should we discuss the prot than here? I tried to discuss it on your talk page: you agreed that you were trigger happy, but made no substantive comment and then promptly archived the discussion (has: I was wrong: in fact you didn't even answer until *after* you'd archived the discussion [29] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)). OK: so if you don't want to discuss why two reverts is now the threshold for an edit war here, or on your talk page, where would you like to discuss it? William M. Connolley (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC, I think the rest of us, or at least myself, are waiting for you to provide some kind of policy-supported reason why the Pielke quote cannot be included in the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You can continue to discuss it on my archived talk page, or on my new talk page, or you can appeal at ANI, or arbcom. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Cla, there are two issues here: one is, the content. The other is, since when do 2 reverts make an edit war? Both questions need to be addressed. JV is running away from the one that relates to him: since you asked for the protect, it concenrs you too, so you ought to answer too. Please do. Also: JV (obviously incorrectly :-) protected the article on the wrong wrong version. So all we need for unprotect is for you to offer not to edit war the text back in, and it can be unprotected, allowing people to work no other parts of the article if they so desire. So the protection appears to be doubly pointless.

As to the content, your question is a strawman. There is no policy that dictates whether the quote should be in or out. Asserting that the existence or not of every sentence can be rigourously justified by policy is foolish. In all of these things there is editorial balance. In this case, balance is that Pielke, who is strongly partisan, has no particular virtue and there is no particular reason to include him William M. Connolley (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The CSM article made no mention of any partisanship related to Pielke, and you still haven't provided any evidence of it from any other source, reliable or not. Cla68 (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You're still ducking the question of why 2 reverts make an edit war needing protection. as to Pielke: his partisanship is well known. If there aren't RS's for it, it can't go into his biog, but it can most certainly affect whether a quote goes into the article. You have no source to say that Gavin is partisan, but you're happy to dismss his quote on those grounds William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy supports the Pielke quote, but not the Gavin quote. Pielke's quote was in a reliable source, Gavin's, if it's coming from RealClimate, is from a self-published source. CSM apparently felt that Pielke's opinion on the IPCC was worthy of note, and we just report what the reliable sources are saying. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Still ducking the 2-reverts issue, eh? And still pushing your strawman: policy doesn't enforce inclusion of the Pielke quote. It permits it, but so what. Nor does policy prohibit use of the Schmidt quote, but then again, your policy is so poor that you think HSI is reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful comment. So far we have two editors in favor of using the quote and one against. Cla68 (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

*Still* ducking the 2 reverts issue. Come on Cla, this is pathetic William M. Connolley (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to argue over the inclusion of one quote in one newspaper article, it might be worth just taking a number of secondary sources and summarizing them. Here are a bunch that I pulled at random essentially that might be useful as a starting point:

• Kintisch, E (August 30, 2010). "Panel Calls for 'Fundamental Reform' of IPCC". Science. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
• Adams, Stephen (August 31, 2010). "IPCC 'must avoid playing politics'". The Telegraph. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
• "Climate-change assessment: Must try harder". The Economist. September 2, 2010. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
• Pilkington, Ed (August 30, 2010). "Rajendra Pachauri, head of UN climate change body, under pressure to resign". The Guardian. New York. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
• "Report: Climate science panel needs change at top". The Washington Post. Associated Press. August 31, 2010. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
• Biello, David (August 30, 2010). "Shades of "Gray Literature": How Much IPCC Reform Is Needed?". Scientific American. Retrieved September 5, 2010.

Also, with regards to Pielke's partisanship, here is a quote from The Washington Post article above: ""It's hard to see how the United Nations can both follow the advice of this committee and keep Rajendra Pachauri on board as head," said Roger Pielke Jr., a frequent critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The University of Colorado professor praised the review findings as a way of saving the climate panel with "tough love."" NW (Talk) 15:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I`m also in favour of using the Pielke quote can`t see why there is such an issue about it really mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of using the Pielke quote. It is reliably sourced by multiple mentions, supported by the secondary ones pulled by NW, and mentioned as a critic by the Post. All can be used. GregJackP Boomer! 03:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

PS, RealClimate is a blog, and not reliable. It should not be used. I also think that we have consensus. I count 4 editors supporting the quote, with 1 opposing, and an admin proposing additional language. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am just trying to mediate the discussion so that an agreed-upon paragraph about this can be written. Perhaps someone here could propose a draft of how they think the section should be written? I think about two paragraphs long at this time should be sufficient. NW (Talk) 03:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've unlocked the article as there is only one person (WMC) who objected to the Pielke quote. I'll relock it if edit warring restarts on this or another issue. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Calls for resignation of IPCC chief

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/IPCC+romance+novelist+must+resign/3484267/story.html

Teefortwo (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If Rajendra Pachauri goes, who on Earth would want to be IPCC chair? – a pattern is emerging of IPCC chairs being shamefully hounded from office by powerful forces in rich countries. Back in 2002 the previous chair, Bob Watson, fell victim to the oil company Exxon and the Bush administration after just three years in office. Corporate America regarded the British-born scientist as far too outspoken and potentially too dangerous to industry, and a stitch-up by the US administration and a few friendly developing countries saw Pachauri replace Watson.... If Pachauri goes – and the decision can only be taken by governments – two years into his second six-year term, then no future IPCC chair can ever feel safe. .... Ousting the IPCC chairman mid-term again would be the ultimate victory for scepticism of the wildest kind. .... The absurdity of the latest attack is that Pachauri himself called on the IAC report specifically to improve IPCC procedures. . . dave souza, talk 07:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

By

The IAC report did basically say that Paucheri needs to go based on a number of reasons. Perhaps we should wait a little longer to see how he and other media sources report on the issue. Cla68 (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a misreading of the report, according to Harold Shapiro. It's not about any one single person. The report recommends that "the whole senior leadership of IPCC – not only the chair but the senior co-chairs, in all, about eight or nine people – should serve for a period of only one assessment." And "It was beyond our charter to even look at whether the current leadership was adequate or inadequate". And "The current chair… I want to make clear it’s not a recommendation that he should resign." He makes the same point repeatedly -- it's not about Rajendra Pachauri. [30] Wikispan (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussed by Andrew Revkin at Leader of Climate Panel Review Discusses Findings - NYTimes.com . . dave souza, talk 17:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That short article doesn't discuss Paucheri except for a passing reference in the intro. Am I not seeing the full article? Cla68 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe dave is referring to the interview Michael Lemonick secured with Harold Shapiro, which Andrew Revkin found of interest, enough to establish notability. Wikispan (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Cla, Revkin flatly contradicts your presumption that "the IAC report did basically say that Pachauri needs to go based on a number of reasons". Revkin cites Harold Tafler Shapiro, the head of the IAC committee who would be reasonably expected to be an expert in what the committee meant, and says "In the exchange, Shapiro rejects interpretations of the report that asserted the committee was, in a sidelong way, calling for the resignation of the panel chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri." You're apparently basing your opinion on press reports that Shapiro rejects as baseless. Much of the press doesn't really have a very good track record in reporting this area of science. Conveniently, Revkin gives a link to the interview which is online at Climate Central. Given Shapiro's expertise, I'd expect that source to be ok as WP:SPS, but even if that's disputed, Revkin has considerable standing and the NYT meets WP:NEWSBLOG standards. Altogether, a view that carries more weight than a a rather ill-informed short opinion piece published in the Calgary Herald. Of course, we presumably want to give suitable weight to press misinformation as well. . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dave, we just report what the sources are saying. In this case, it appears that we would be saying something like, "In the wake of the report several observers in the media and government including [name them] interpreted the report as calling for Paucheri to resign. Shapiro, however, in an interview with [whoever it was], stated that the report was not calling for Paucheri's resignation." Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla, we just find a balanced NPOV of describing what the sources are saying. The issue in the report is the proposal that in future the whole senior leadership of IPCC – not only the chair but the senior co-chairs, in all, about eight or nine people – should serve for a period of only one assessment, press reports said this could be read as implying a call for Paucheri to resign, but Harold Tafler Shapiro, the head of the IAC committee, rejected such interpretations, stating that it was not part of their charter to examine the adequacy of the current leadership, and they had not recommended any change in the director’s position. That's the sequence, and we shouln't put inaccurate misinformation first. . . dave souza, talk 23:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dave, we just report what the sources are saying. If notable media sources and government officials said the report meant that Paucheri should resign, that's what we say. If Shapiro says that's not what they meant, then we add that also. That's called accurate representation of what the sources are saying. That's what we do. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla, we just report what the sources are saying, as stated above, taking care to avoid undue weight and the BLP violation you seem to be angling for. Pachauri wasn't asked by this review to resign, and misinterpretation by the press shouldn't be given undue weight. Please take more care over this. . . dave souza, talk 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation? I think the policy you're really looking for here is NOT NEWS. Now that Shapiro has made it clear that they weren't calling for his resignation, the calls for him to resign may disappear. If so, then it may not be notable enough in the long run to mention it. If the calls for his resignation by major media or public figures continues however, based on the IAC report, then we'll need to report what the sources are saying. By the way, was the conflict of interest discussion in the IAC report related to the allegations against Paucheri, or were they related to chief editors recommending inclusion of their own work in the IPCC reports, or both, or neither? Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)