Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Core data of 2001 IPCC report manipulated

I took out this whole section, it being a disaster area and a re-fight of the old fights. Here it is, as taken out:

The Telegraph [1] [2] is heavily critical of the way temperature data in the IPCC's 2001 Second Assessment Report removed all trace of the Mediaeval Warm Period and the "Little Ice Age".

In February 2005 the German television channel Das Erste interviewed Ulrich Cubasch, a climatologist, who said that he had been unable to reproduce the Mann et al. “hockey-stick” graph, whereupon he – “… discussed the objections with his colleagues, and sought to work them through. … Bit by bit, it became as clear to his colleagues as it had to him: the two Canadians were right. … Between 1400 and 1600, the temperature shift was considerably higher than, for example, in the previous century. With that, the core conclusion, and also that of the entire IPCC 2001 Report, was completely undermined.”

....

The US National Academy of Sciences has since issued a statement that the “hockey-stick” graph was defective. Significantly, however, the UN has issued no statement of apology or correction. It continues to use the “hockey-stick” in its publications.

In Nov 2006 a panel set up to investigate gave some conditional support to Mann's study as well as critising his methods and conclusions:


As reported by the New York Times on June 22, 2006, [3]

WASHINGTON, June 22 — An influential and controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed Thursday, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.

The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the 1990's were probably the warmest decade in a millennium.

Firstly, this could be briefly mentioned, but save the detail for hockey stick controversy. Secondly, it could do with a less POV title. Thirdly, quotes should be sourced and please don't use the Torygraph. Fourth, whether you like the HS reconstruction or not, you ought to realise that in 2001 none of these criticisms had surfaced William M. Connolley 20:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)



OK briefer, less POV, fine. However, I dont accept a ban on linking Telegraph articles because you find it Tory. While that may be true it is not a valid reason. That comes down to political censorship. I have no idea of the political bent of NYT either, it seemed to cover the study report fairly. (If it makes you happier, I have never bought the Telegraph, I just found the article relevant).

The fact that none of this came to light by 2001 I fully realise, that was a large part of the critisism of the IPCC the this sub topic refers to.

Link to HS entry for more detail. Done.

Redirect pages

I'm not familiar with all Wikipedia policies/guidelines, but I don't know any relevant ones here. What do we need IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), etc. for? Brian Jason Drake 07:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bolding in Key Conclusions

In the following statement under key conclusions of the 4th Assesment Report, the word alone is in boldface, a bias I feel was probably not in the original document. I have therefore removed it. "The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%" askewchan 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Resignations

A number of leading scientists have resigned from the IPCC in protest at what they see as their unscientific method. I added this and I think that is important.SmokeyTheCat 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if "1" is included in your numbers... William M. Connolley 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Several. I will find a source soon. SmokeyTheCat 07:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That will be more evidence of pseudoscience. 202.154.152.228 10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

AR4 name

The name of the AR4 report is... AR4. Not FAR, which would conflict with "First" as well as a potential "Fifth" William M. Connolley 14:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hockey Stick Criticisms section

William, I know that you disagree with criticisms of the IPCC from the skeptic camp. But they are legion and all over the internet, and the hockey stick plays a central role in them.

I think if you take a step back, you'll see that you have replaced language used by both the IPCC report, and the actual criticisms of the IPCC with POV language that mischaracterizes the nature of the criticisms themselves.

I suppose that I'm trying to establish that this section is intended to communicate the content of hockey stick based criticisms of the IPCC, and make sure that you agree with that premise before we start discussing the details.


As to the title:

As you recently pointed out when you deleted the section containing the hockey stick, this section is not intended for generic criticism of the hockey stick, but for the IPCC's role in the propagation of the hockey stick.

A central element of that role (handled graphically by the McKitrick reference that I added and you removed) is the decision to place a great deal of emphasis on the graph.

If the IPCC had given the graph as much space as they allocated to the other temperature graphs in this and previous reports, we might not be having this discussion.

Therefore, I think the issue is not so much the use of the graph, but the decision to make it the central exhibit. Accordingly, the title ought to be emphasis of the graph and the fact that the graph was displayed prominently should be mentioned (and the McKitrick conference paper illustrating this cited). 24.128.51.0 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem

[IPCC] a consensus-building structure that routinely issues scientifically cautious global warming reports, scientists say and quotes Stefan Rahmstorf, a physics and oceanography professor at Potsdam University in Germany, that it is perhaps a "strength" of IPCC, but that yes, IPSS is "very conservative and cautious".

This is marked as a quotation but in fact as you might expect the article doesn't say "quotes Stefan Rahmstorf". Rather the article quotes him. I'm lazy to work out the best way to fix it so I'll let someone else do it. And yes, it's supposed to be IPCC not IPSS. Also the link is dead but I found this (and multiple other versions) via a quick google [4] Nil Einne 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Category of IPCC reviewers, authors?

I wondered if there is a wikipedia category of "IPCC reviewer" or "IPCC author" (maybe broken down by which working group). I don't see any so far, and a few known authors' pages I checked weren't in any similar category. What do others think of starting such a category?Birdbrainscan 09:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible William M. Connolley 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've tagged around a dozen bios as Category:IPCC_Lead_Authors so far. Lots of other lead authors are not presently wikified. I don't want to just redlink them.Birdbrainscan 04:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Do a search on IPCC and Pseudoscience. A lot of people believe that the IPCC is putting out unscientific information regarding climate change. I'm not sure how you would do a fair survey of experts to find the consensus on this, as most climate change scientists are being funded to support the politicized environmental/religious agenda on this issue. Is it appropriate to tag this article with Category:Pseudoscience? Someone removed my tag, stating (hoping?) that this was a joke. 202.154.152.228 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a joke or vandalism. Please don't re-add it William M. Connolley 11:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's neither. It was a bold edit. I will look to see if there are any independent reviews of the scientific literature on AGW, to see what they say. rossnixon 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

copyrights (and format) of IPCC reports?

The IPCC SPM documents I've looked at have no reference to copyrights or license. So, are all IPCC reports definitely public domain? I'd like to convert them to wiki format and put them into Appropedia, once I've confirmed that it's permissible.

Btw, does anyone know if they're available in Word format somewhere? If so the references will convert much more nicely into wiki format references. (I've tried Googling, and if no one here knows I'll contact them directly). --Chriswaterguy talk 14:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that they are PD... if you're contacting them, you could verify it William M. Connolley 21:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus in reports

I removed this:

Consensus in reports

IPCC Reports attempt to present a scientific consensus view. The general approach of identifying consensus among a group of climate scientists means that areas where there remains considerable uncertainty tend to be automatically deemphasized or simply omitted [5]. Another means of handling consensus problems was used in the SRES scenarios, where due to a lack of consensus there were many variations included with no indication of which are more probable doi:10.1038/35075167.

"Firstly, the Panel as a whole must always respect and consider the specific perspectives of each member. But, more importantly, each member must respect and consider the perspectives of the entire Panel. Consensus is not something that happens by itself. It is an outcome that has to be shaped, and the only basis for shaping it is to follow the two cardinal rules that I have just mentioned" — Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC[6].

This is an SEWilco-ism; it doesn't seem appropriate to me. The quote re omitting stuff is deeply misleading; there is, for example, no consensus on the solar forcing, yet it is discussed in detail William M. Connolley 09:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen has criticized the IPCC process and method of "summarizing" the conclusions of climate scientists. Doesn't his opinion belong somewhere in this article, especially since it claims the IPCC is under "strong scientific scrutiny" while Lindzen clearly disputes this? http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.61.38 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should not be removing peoples comments just because we disagree. This is a discussion, not an article. Also, there is a video (Watch at Google Video) from the BBC, which is an hour long, but well worth watching for anyone who feels they should be commenting on this topic solely based on what they had seen in An Inconvenient Truth, which documents the some of the dirty misdoings of the IPCC. Shaunco 07:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Dr. Timothy BellBall, who is the first Canadian to earn a PhD in Climatology" is a statement which is false

I have had some difficulty in editing this statement to reflect the fact that Dr. Timothy Bell Ball is not the first Canadian to earn a PHD in Climatology. In fact, Dr. Ball's PhD is in Historical Geography (1983), and the following (very incomplete) list of scientists have all earned PhD's in Climatology prior to Dr. Bell's.

Leonard A. Barrie: 1970 B.Sc. Queens University, Kingston, ON Engineering Physics 1972 M.Sc. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Physics, Meteorology, Cloud Physics 1975 Ph.D. Johann Wolfgang v. Goethe University, Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics, Frankfurt Atmospheric Science

George J. Boer: B.Sc. University of British Columbia, 1963. Honours Mathematics and Physics M.A., University of Toronto, 1965. Department of Physics (Subject: Meteorology) Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1970. Department of Meteorology

Garry Clarke: B.Sc. (1963), University of Alberta M.A. (1964), University of Toronto Ph.D. (1967), University of Toronto

The statement that Dr. Timothy BellBall is the first Canadian to earn a PhD in Climatology is outright false, and quite insulting to the many respected Canadian scientists who have been working in this field for decades. (unsigned)

How is this fact even relevant? Is he a head of the IPCC? 198.144.209.8 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC) z

The above comment is unsigned and thus undated (though it could be traced back with diff, I'm not that enterprising right now.) Anyway I don't see any mention of Dr. Ball (or "Bell") in the article as of today, so this is now moot here. It is a valid point, and might be worth adding to Timothy Ball instead, where this issue is more briefly touched on already. I would leave out the part about "insulting" as that's an interpretation of the significance of the inaccurate claim. Showing it is inaccurate is enough.Birdbrainscan 14:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Important?

Concerning the IPCC reports, does any one know where they get their data from? Is it important to mention this? And now, I am curious, so even if not important to mention, where do they get their data from? Brusegadi 00:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IPCC summarizes the peer-reviewed literature; they don't do "data" in the sense I assume you mean it (numerical values directly from observations and the like). You'd need to ask the authors of the cited papers where they got their data from. You've touched on an important issue -- there are too many references in the popular press to "the IPCC's scientists found that..." and the like, so it would be nice if this article could clear up that common misconception. Raymond Arritt 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Monckton section

His criticism is notable and published. It has been referenced in other publications and even the response from Gore increases its notability. It is a scathing criticism of the IPCC that airs views that aren't currently in the article. There is no defensible reason to remove it beyond POV censorship. Oren0 06:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it notable in this context? 1) He is not an expert. 2) And its a publication in a regular newspaper - not something that should be mentioned in an article about a scientific subject. (see "in science, avoid citing the popular press"). For all purposes its undue weight to a critique by a non-expert source. (Don't get me wrong here - mentioning Gore here is just as wrong). --Kim D. Petersen 08:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

An anon rv'd on the grounds revert, Monckton has long term experience on this subject, studied scientific method at Cambridge, and was science advisor to Margaret Thatcher, where AGW first went political. I don't find this convincing. Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley says he was a policy advisor. His claim to training in the scientific method is not clear. His study of climate change is equally unclear.

Even more weirdly, the anon came back with revert, if people like Al Gore and the "policymakers" who make the IPCC summary are allowed a voice, then so is he. But (a) Gore doesn't get a quote and (b) Gore is rather more famous than CM anyway William M. Connolley 13:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is notable as a direct criticism of the IPCC. In addition to the original publication which took a hunk of two Sunday Telegraphs, the response by Gore, the challenge to a debate, etc., this criticism has been noted in many reliable sources including the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian [7][8], other news outlets [9], even RealClimate! It's obviously notable and relevant and it belongs here. Oren0 18:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Trouble is, if we set a precedent like this then we open the floodgates to all sorts of commentary by celebrity nonscientists -- Gore, Monbiot, Howard, etc. etc. I don't think that adding a non-science POV slugfest would improve the article. Raymond Arritt 19:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The IPCC is at least as much a political body as it is a scientific one (I'd say more so, but I'm sure some would disagree). Criticisms of the IPCC that are relevant and notable belong in this article, regardless of the precedent you might think it sets. It's not like this article is overflowing with content. If we find that there's too much critique or other junk piling up in this article, than we can talk about spinning off a new article or paring down content. That's certainly not a problem now, though. Oren0 21:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why you bother say that, but just to prevent people saying "oh well we have consensus to write that the IPCC is more political than sci" I suppose I'd better note that I think you're completely wrong. And "the article isn't full; this is something; so we can add it" is a poor argument William M. Connolley 21:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that "we shouldn't add this notable criticism because then people will want to add other things" is a poor argument, that's all I was refuting. Let's judge each potential addition on its merits. I believe that this criticism is easily notable and relevant, and the only counterpoint I've seen to that is that Monckton isn't a scientist. That by no means excludes his notability. And for the record, I was by no means suggesting that the article say that the IPCC is more political than scientific, but I don't know how anyone could believe that anything the UN does isn't primarily political. Oren0 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I still don't think Monckton is especially notable, but however this shakes out it's overkill for him to have his own section. It also violates NPOV. His comments would need to be included in a section entitled "Comments on IPCC from outside the scientific community" (or something along those lines). The section, if added, must also include the perspectives of others -- there are many personalities of equal or greater note than Monckton who have commented on the IPCC. Raymond Arritt 22:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
It was in a subsection of criticism and was countered by a quote from Al Gore. I don't see why the current criticism section should be restricted to scientists or separate from non-scientific criticisms. If you'd like to add more comments on the IPCC then feel free to do so. The fact that nobody has done so does not itself make Monckton not worthy of inclusion. Oren0 22:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Another concern is that Monckton, or someone claiming to be him, is threatening to sue Wikipedia for including criticisms of his climate change views (among other things). It's best to steer clear until the legal issues are settled. Raymond Arritt 23:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to wikilawyer, I don't see what legal basis Monckton could have seeing as all we're reporting is his published opinion. So long as anything we write is well sourced, which it is, this crit should be in this article. Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source for this supposed legal threat? Oren0 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Geez, did you even bother to look at his article??? Reference to the legal threat is right at the top. Raymond Arritt 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Whose? Monckton's? I don't see any mention of any legal threat on this page. Am I missing it? Oren0 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


History and studies suggesting a conservative bias, understating dangers

Very few of the sources in this section don't even come close to alledging a "conservative bias"...much of the 'rather large' section looks like Original Research expressing the opinions of editors. "Understating dangers" = "a conservative bias" to cut to the chase. --Dean1970 12:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless of course "conservative bias" meaning Thatcher had somewhat of a hand in the creation of the IPCC. --Dean1970 12:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

First (43) source gives mention. 44, 45, 46 do not. One is unsourced. The latter (47) is a book published by HarperCollins who are owned by the Corp pulling the strings at Fox News where its being promo'd. (Fox has a proven habit of promoting books published by a tentacle of its corp,) but thats just my opinion. Section needs trimming or sources need included to keep it fair and balanced. --Dean1970 13:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction, one does mention a famous memo by the usual suspects. Still, the section needs to be broken up to separate the sources indicating "under estimating dangers" from the left vs right aspect. --Dean1970 13:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC) First quote (I mentioned as 43) is in the quotebox, its a direct link. 44 mentions a "conservative approach"...is the context really "bias"? Hell and High water article doesn't even mention or insinuate a conservative bias, rather, author suggests more understanding is needed from ALL politicians. --Dean1970 13:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One paragraph reads (**my words**) -- An example of scientific research which has indicated that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, has actually understated them (this may be due **or may not**, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate, as well as to the conservative bias **refs 45,45 in this para don't back this up**, noted above **doesn't need including here then**, which is built into the IPCC system **ohh really**,) includes a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the researchers' analysis was "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001.[45][46]--

Ok, HNS supports claim. Exxon memo supports claim, though, "Conservative in the sense of right wing pro-corporate leaning" is here or there, i'm sure liberals own stock or are employed by the likes of exxon too. I'm going to separate "conservative bias" and "under stating dangers". It'll be kinda ironic that a newscorp owned news channel and publishing company is the meat and bones of the "conservative bias" article but I feel the section needs to reflect the views made in the sources in a correct manner. --Dean1970 14:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Earlier in the week I edited out "many examples" at the beginning because both sources mentioned only one --Dean1970 14:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

But a study published on the eve of the IPCC report suggested that the international body's previous reports may have actually been too conservative [10] William M. Connolley 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
In my view, the paragraph about "conservative" bias as in politically right-wing makes this section very muddled and confusing. It is a tangent, picking out a play on words. The point of this section should be just the claim that the IPCC is overly cautious in what it projects (amount of sea level rise, etc.) There is a significant amount of discussion in recent months about this topic; the basic idea is that such a large and ponderous consensus-building process is most likely to put forward only the most basic, unarguable conclusions (although skeptics still argue even these). I'd prefer to see the thread about 'politically conservative influences broken out into a brief added comment after this section.Birdbrainscan 04:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)