Talk:Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

message: Hi, I just checked the Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Open_letter_from_scientists section you added a long time ago and I have some questions if you don't mind.
# The section talks about this letter (signed by 4 scientists) but uses as a source this other one. About the first one, I could not find a better source than that link to a PDF, which tells me it is definitely not notable. There are a number of articles like this one which talk about the first letter but state that it has more than 150 signatures, which is definitely not true (perhaps confusing it with the second letter?)
# Why was this added here in the first place? The letter is one of support to climate scientists and their conclusions about anthropogenic climate change and has very little criticism if any.
I believe the best course would be to remove the section in its entirety. What do you think? Regards. Gaba  (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, the letter in the Grauniad is clearly a response to criticisms. I've summarised it accurately to see if that works better: perhaps the title should be changed to make it clear that this is a defence against criticisms. The list of signatories and their membership of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences makes this pretty notable. On investigation, the earlier letter is also notable: the four names are authors, including very eminent climatologists, and its list shows 248 additional signatories, again with good names. Worth citing properly and restoring a summary. . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Gaba. March 2010 was a long time ago. I'm surprised to see the German page now on the original link. Thanks to Dave for the link to the archived version. It certainly seemed relevant at the time, and I still feel that some response to the criticisms presented here is warranted if good references exist. On the other hand, I'm not personally attached either to the form or the sourcing of this response. --Nigelj (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: With the modification made by  the section is looking much better now. The thing that confused me the most was the quoting of the first letter and the usage of the second one a source. I agree that the first letter should also be mentioned as Dave points out and the name of the section definitely changed to make it clear it's a response to criticism, not two letters criticizing the IPCC's report. How about simply naming it "Response to criticism"? Or "Scientists response to criticism"? Cheers. Gaba  (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think it's worth briefly noting the first letter, and one of these titles would be appropriate: probably "criticisms" rather than "criticism". Offtopically, Grauniad#References in popular culture is something of a tradition. . dave souza, talk 22:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I should know better than to mess with other editor's comments, back to the original word. I'll try adding something about the first letter. So which title would you guys prefer? Gaba  (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Basically looks ok to me, I've added in two other authors of the earlier statement as Stephen Schneider is probably the best known, and it seems to underweight it if we just name one. . dave souza, talk 18:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open letter from scientists 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091211193257/http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap5-2/final-report/default.htm to http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap5-2/final-report/default.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004213934/https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/regulation/papers/YoheOpenLetter.pdf to https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/regulation/papers/YoheOpenLetter.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022020035/http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf to http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210082956/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/418.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/418.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion