Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 7
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Himal: next problem
All the text is currently absent pending discussion
|
---|
Continuing the long slow painful death by 1000 cuts of this section:
This text isn't in the BBC report, and it is wrong. The text of the IPCC report is available to us all, and it is clear that the source for the 2035 claim is a WWF report. Allow me to quote you the IPCC text:
The text in this article is an inaccurate paraphrase of the BBC report, and needs to be corrected William M. Connolley (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
@WMC i am not just saying "no" i am saying i would like to see your proposed changes before you edit the article so a consensus ca nbe reached by all editors, not just me mark nutley (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The BBC article says, "The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the "outer year" for shrinkage of glaciers. They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist." and in a few other spots Cogley mentions his criticisms based on these reports. You are destroying the readibility of this section - you did the exact same thing in the Carbon sink article where you claimed something wasn't in the source and then altered the text to your liking. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
<outdent> Yes there is a reference listing - for that chapter. Proving they aren't in one chapter of a very large report by only looking at the references from part of that report is quite silly - or were you arguing the glacier topic only appears in that section? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
<outdent> Again Kim, you've looked through the haystack, found a needle and conluded there is no hay. I think I've demonstrated quite clearly that you and Connolley will continue to ignore wikipedia policy and evoke your own rules over clearly stated wikipedia policy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Where a secondary source is clearly contradicted by a primary source, the secondary source is obviously not reliable in that instance. There is no such thing as a categorically reliable source. If we want to report this matter reliably we should locate a more reliable source. If there are no or few other sources, then this speaks to WEIGHT and perhaps we should reconsider whether the particular item is important enough to merit coverage. That is, while I have no particular problem with the notion of reporting problems with AR4, particular statements about AR4 should be reliably sourced. --TS 01:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Moving on
Time now to examine The IPCC's assessment of melting Himalayan glaciers has also been criticized as being "horribly wrong" by to John Shroder a Himalayan glacier specialist at the University of Nebraska. According to Shroder, the IPCC jumped to conclusions based on insufficient data. Donald Alford, a hydrologist, said that his water study for the World Bank demonstrated 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. [91] 91 is http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/326/5955/924 which is behind a paywall, so I'm guessing its being inaccurately paraphrased. Anyone out there with access care to toss me a copy? Email enabled... William M. Connolley (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is reprinted here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I missed a link, but that does not look like the original Science paper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- It may not be - i may have jumped the gun by surmising that since it is the same author, same title, copyright AAAS and that the style looked consistent to the commentary section - that it was the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, but maybe that is it. In which case its a straight rip-off of AAAS copyright and you're very naughty for linking to it William M. Connolley (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Someone sent me the pdf (ta). So I can confirm that Kim's link is correct. So: (one of the) troubles with the text above is that it is context-free: there is no ref to *what* is supposed to be wrong. In the article, there is extensive analysis. I don't think that is right William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, but maybe that is it. In which case its a straight rip-off of AAAS copyright and you're very naughty for linking to it William M. Connolley (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- It may not be - i may have jumped the gun by surmising that since it is the same author, same title, copyright AAAS and that the style looked consistent to the commentary section - that it was the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I missed a link, but that does not look like the original Science paper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
IPs etc
I have semi protected the page. There have only been a couple of new user IP or sock edits but when we are trying to keep 1RR and keep edits uncontraversial it is going to cause deterioration if they carry on. --BozMo talk 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Article cleanup templates
I have reverted an edit that moved an article cleanup template to the talk page. Convention on WP, which is consensus by default, is to place these templates on the article. I know they are ugly and I would dearly love to not have them. However, they serve to alert the readers and the editors of WP about any article issues. This is not the first time that I have seen climate change article editors moving templates from climate change articles. It should be noted that policies and guidelines are applicable to the whole of Wikipedia. Please fix the relevant problem BEFORE removing the templates. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there is no single raw link in the article. Links are far from perfect, but the template is plain wrong. Please apply more discretion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Have a look at the References section. There are plenty of bare urls. Please apply less accusation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Including criticism from NIPCC
No
| |||
---|---|---|---|
Connelly, please discuss why you reverted my edit [2] 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)
While WP:NOTABILITY generally refers to whether an article should exist, or not, allow me to borrow a brief passage from WP:FRINGE:
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)
[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)
[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)
[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)
[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)
Well as there have been no arguments put forward against this since the 2nd i have to assume that the NIPCC can be used as a source for criticism as was suggested. I believe i have proved it is a reliable source and there have been no objections made within the rules i shall begin work on an inclusion for this article --mark nutley (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom Remedies
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)
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
|
Broken reference
Discussion of re-wording the "use peer-reviewed lit" bit. Stalled
|
---|
I note that this reference, [16] is broken. I believe that WMC observed the same thing above. I have been looking for the replacement and I have found [17]. Since I don't know what the original was I need confirmation from someone that knows that this is, indeed, the new version. Can someone confirm this please? Assuming so, the new reference states:
The current text of the "Scope and preparation of the reports" section states:
I believe that this description is an inadequate summarization of what the actual IPCC document states and therefore leaves the reader with a misleading impression as to the source material that can be part of the IPCC reports. I believe that it is important to make clear to the reader that in some cases "selected non-peer reviewed literature" may have been used. Indeed, we already know of one such case which has come to light already. There may be more that are as of yet not known for similar reasons. I would propose that we change the existing statement to:
I believe that this better reflects the actual statement from the IPCC in this regards, but this assumes that the reference to "manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review" is a reference to unpublished works. If this is incorrect then the "and unpublished" could be dropped from the above. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. Still no progress. Let me break the ice with another compromise proposal:
This gets an acceptably accurate description of both the inputs and the outputs of the IPCC process. Thoughts? I'll let this sit a day or so but if no responses are forthcoming I will assume that implies consent. --GoRight (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is clearly what the IPCC's own document says, and that document is apparently the same one that was used as a source for that entire section ... unless you dispute that the source I provided is the correct replacement for the broken reference. Are you claiming as much? Right now we have an unsourced statement (and perhaps more in that section), shall we delete it altogether and avoid any further discussion on the topic? Otherwise I want the text of the article to accurately reflect all of the explicit aspects laid out in the source. You don't get to use a biased (by ommision) and/or incomplete summary of the source. --GoRight (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2010 (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.'[3]
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.[4]
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."[19] 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)
- 1. Yes. This complaint seems very partisan against the IPCC. The contributing authors for the Assessment Reports bring in most of the top scientists in the field - highly cited, widely published, many elected Fellows of learned societies including the AGU, AAAS, National Academy of Sciences, etc. 2. Yes, the IPCC sets out the basis for concern and the need for a broad response to the implications of their findings. The whole point of forming the IPCC was to have a forum where leaders could inquire of scientists what the science tells us, and what the implications are - what is the problem and what would we have to do to address it. Do you want to argue that no scientist can ever discover facts that compel us to respond? Is all science only ivory tower, irrelevant theory? Birdbrainscan (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Time to readd himalaya glacier info?
Re-added summary of existing text on Criticism of the IPCC AR4
|
---|
Previously there was an RfC on this and the conclusion was that there wasn't enough coverage in reliable sources to mention it here. As William Connolley said at the time, "It is also too new - wait a month, the view amongst WP:RS about this may settle." A few weeks later, this story has been picked up by many reliable sources as apparently the IPCC is set to retract this claim: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. I believe that the WP:WEIGHT here is clear, as many items appearing in this article don't have nearly this much coverage in reliable sources. It may be worth waiting until this retraction is made official, but when/if this happens as reported I'd like to be ready to go with an addition to this article. Oren0 (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
So basically, the bar has been moved again - color me shocked. It was claimed not to meet WP:WEIGHT, but many major newspapers have now covered it (even more than Oren listed). Sorry but having our esteemed fellow editors declare sources like the New York Times to be worthless and wrong because they find their original research to be a superior source doesn't cut it - not if anyone is being honest with themselves. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is a relevant, unimpeachable source. The failure of the article to even include the term "glacier" is a bright line violation of NPOV and makes Wikipedia look silly and biased to the disinterested reader. We saw something similar with John Edwards extramarital affair. How'd that one turn out? Ronnotel (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
<outdent> @TS: The dispute here isn't about science. I don't think anyone argues that the 2035 date is correct scientifically. This is about politics and IPCC procedures, so the sources to quote would be (primarily) newspapers and (secondarily) the IPCC. Also, there is no WP rule that newspapers aren't reliable sources for scientific matters, only that peer reviewed science is preferable where available. There isn't any on this topic, so newspapers are the best sources we have. Oren0 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
@WMC: It's hard to argue that the IPCC followed its own rules when the IPCC statement on the subject disagrees: "In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly." Of course, the article could say that the IPCC says it's procedures weren't followed but that Technology Review disagrees, but that would be a bit silly don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren0 (talk • contribs)
The above sources clearly indicate that this is further-reaching than one paragraph in AR4. Oren0 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
A new source and some choice quotes from it"But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999." "But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.” He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section. " He goes into detail about the 5 major errors in that section of the IPCC report. I suppose at this point we may even need an article about this incident - a lot of the errors are pretty bad. "Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme." That is really pretty interesting since back in November Dr. Pachauri called the Indian government "arrogant" for claiming the IPCC was wrong about the Himalayan glaciers. He also amusingly says that the Indian report wasn't "peer-reviewed." "But he too admitted that it was “really odd” that none of the world’s leading glaciologists had pointed out the mistakes to him earlier. “Frankly, it was a stupid error,” he said. “But no one brought it to my attention.”" (Pachauri) Well, at least he admits it was a stupid error and I too am curious why not a single glaciologist would point out this stupid error. Who is funding these people if they don't notice or report such things? Well, these are the best quotes out of the article. I'm sure we can distill the essence out of a few of them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
<outdent> The criticism section in the IPCC article already contains comments that are specific to certain IPCC reports - your refusal to allow this well-documented and widespread criticism is not consistent with the article as it now stands. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
|
- ^ http://www.nipccreport.org/frontmatter.html
- ^ http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=334718758&oldid=334637743
- ^ Lindzen, Richard S. (May 1, 2001). "Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee". john-daly.com. Retrieved 2007-08-29.
- ^ Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis