Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 2

message: This statement seems disingenuous or at the very least needs more citation. One individual cited as a source hardly constitutes "Nation and international responses...generally regard"
207.250.16.192 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.

message: (William M. Connolley 22:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stott; + 2 oC 

message: I pulled this paragraph here for discussion.
:Authors for the IPCC reports are restricted to experts chosen from a preselected list of "appropriate" experts, which is prepared by "governments and participating organisations".  
Seems a relevant point to include, but in its brief form it just looks like an attempt at discrediting the report. I would think that this could be expanded to be more informative about the process. Feel free to expand toward being informative rather than depreciative POV. -Vsmith 02:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's essentially all the information provided by the IPCC about the author selection list in the reference (included), where they provide it.  If you can find more information somewhere else, then by all means add it.  Until then, it's important to clarify who is being chosen to write this consensus, and how they're being chosen.  Perhaps you would find it less POV without the word "appropriate" in there, but that is the word the IPCC chooses to use to clarify which ones are chosen, so I included it.  Perhaps it "looks like an attempt at discrediting the report" because that information does at least redefine what the report represents.  A report is not necessarilly a reflection of scientific consensus if the authors are chosen by politicians.  Like it or not, that fact certainly needs to be brought to light.  If the authors were not chosen by politicians, then please find information which contradicts the IPCC process description and include it.   — Cortonin | Talk 06:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 09:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCC author selection 

message: Compare and Contrast.  Do we really need to fill out the 't' too, or are you going to conform to your own standards?   — Cortonin | Talk 22:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: VSmith, rewording the paragraph to call the respect self-evident does not change the situation much.  What is even the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia calling the IPCC respected?  Zero.  It's just POV pushing.  Compare it to another organization, for example, the American Physical Society, a much larger and more influential organization.  Try to find the word "respected" on that page.  You won't find it, because no one is interested in pushing any POV there, they're just describing what the organization is.  We should be doing the same here.   — Cortonin | Talk 02:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... maybe the American Physical Society article should say something about respect? However, there is a crucial difference, the APS has not been subject to negative propaganda from those who dislike the conclusions for political or economic reasons. And the comparison is rather irrelevant since the IPCC and APS are totally different critters. Vsmith 15:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Your questionable use of the nebulous encyclopedic value as a means of justifying your POV is rather tiresome. Vsmith 15:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've hit on the critical point, when you said that you think, "there is a crucial difference, the APS has not been subject to negative propaganda from those who dislike the conclusions".  Now, if you look at the IPCC article here, you'll see that there is no such negative propaganda in the opening paragraphs.  However, despite its absence, you have PREEMPTIVELY defended the IPCC against such propaganda by pushing the POV that it is respectable.  If you preemptively support an organization against a POV that dislikes it, then you are pushing and endorsing a POV in support of that organization.  Do you see this?  The opening paragraphs have a special position of defining the topic of the article, and you have chosen to define the IPCC as respected, which endorses the view of the IPCC.  The neutral point of view, in comparison, would simply describe the IPCC, how it was formed, what it produces, and the comments and opinions of other prominent people or groups who have discussed the IPCC, and it would do that without making a judgment about the IPCC and without endorsing or dismissing the IPCC.   — Cortonin | Talk 18:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  Thus I have removed the editorializing in the opening paragraph.  The extent to which the IPCC is "respected" or "influential" is a matter of opinion.  Even if it could be objectively measured, it isn't relevant.--JonGwynne 18:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WMC rv'ed it back in.  I removed one adjective indicating a measurement of respect.  Also note that even if the scientific respect section is removed, it does seem to be a fact that the IPCC reports have been influential politically.  Hardly surprising, as the IPCC's role is to produce supporting documents for the political UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol.  (SEWilco 18:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  (William M. Connolley 18:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, it's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you repeatedly call people "septics".  It certainly doesn't shine forth as an example of clear and unprejudiced thinking.   — Cortonin | Talk 22:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 09:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your insults and incivil behavior are a violantion of wikipedia policy.  --JonGwynne 14:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Whether or not the IPCC is respected is irrelevant for the purposes of an encyclopedia article.  This isn't the editorial page in a newspaper.  What is relevant here are objective facts.  Opinions about the subject are simply inappropriate.  As are comments about "black helicopters" --JonGwynne 00:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were irrelevant then why so much effort to cut it.  Clearly some wish to dispute their scientific credentials.  Do you?Dejvid 01:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why so much effort to cut it?  Because it is irrelevant.  Editorializing has no place here.  --JonGwynne 03:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: GAH!  Maybe if you stopped viewing everything as "us vs. them" you'd learn a thing or two about NPOV.  Look at this edit.  If this were on a climate change article you would jump in and say I was defending Pat Robertson.  This would be ludicrous, as I have no desire to defend Pat Robertson about anything, as my personal opinions are very much not in his favor.  However, I still removed a piece of undocumented POV, not because it threatened my POV, but because it was not NPOV to have it there.  I also removed the line from that article which stated that his father had "close ties to banking interests", because this was also undocumented and just there to push an anti-Pat-Robertson POV.  Even if I disagree strongly with Pat Robertson's views, which I do, I still think POV pushing like that should be removed from the article so that the article can be NPOV, as per the goals of the Wikipedia project.  You, and many of the other environmental advocates here, seem to have no conception of this principle.  Removing that has nothing to do with trying to discredit the organization, it has to do with making the article read like a neutral encyclopedia, rather than a group-edited advocacy blog.   — Cortonin | Talk 04:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen Brother!  (lol)  Sorry, I couldn't resist.  Seriously, why do you think that certain individuals seem to feel that this is an "us against them" sort of battle as if those who criticize the Revealed Word are heretics to be silenced and punished?  I was a journalist for a time and had a number of teachers/mentors who impressed upon me the importance of distinguishing between news and editorializing.  I wish some of them could be here today to share their wisdom with some of the folk here who seem to have forgotten that an encyclopedia isn't a bully-pulpit but rather a neutral and objective reporting of facts in which the personal views of the writer have NO PLACE!--JonGwynne 04:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The respect is subjective at best.  Even if every single person on earth respected the IPCC, and that is clearly not the case (since not everyone on earth has even heard of the IPCC), the respect would still be subjective.  Whether or not the IPCC is respected is irrelevant to the discussion of who they are and what they do.  It is absolutely POV to inject subjective commentary into a factual description.  Such POV is inappropriate for wiki articles.  And I quote from the style manual "...use neutral or nonjudgemental language.  Journalists view non-neutral words and unattributed statements of opinion as "editorializing" or failures of objectivity".  In other words, whether or not the IPCC is respected is not only non-neutral and a statement of opinion, unless you're saying specifically who respects them, it is unattributed as well".  Strike three. --JonGwynne 05:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Vsmith, read these two paragraphs.  If the respect is "real and factual", then describe it the way policy dictates, by citing it.  Just saying it's respected because you and those you talk to respect it, that's just POV pushing.  Now if you can find a quote that says some scientific society has said, "We respect the IPCC, its work, and its conclusions," then that might be something encyclopedic worth including, since it establishes a relationship and gives information, rather than pushing the validity of a perspective.  NPOV does not mean "that which you think is true", so POV pushing is not okay just because you think it's true.  Document.   — Cortonin | Talk 06:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone demonstrate any reason to include the opinion that the IPCC is "respected" and show any support for this claim?  If not, it stays out.--JonGwynne 16:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean other than the fact that the IPCC report is cited in just aboiut every scientific paper dealing with climate change?  Guettarda 16:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the IPCC report is often cited.  That's why the paragraph says, "IPCC reports are often cited as supporting material."  This is perfectly acceptable NPOV.  Where it loses NPOV is when phrases like, "is ample evidence of the respect they have earned," or "they are the baseline for the debate," are added.  Those are not NPOV.   — Cortonin | Talk 23:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undocumented POV 

message: Influence upon politics is not an indicator of scientific respect.  George W. Bush has political influence, so does he have scientific respect?  Al Gore had political influence and published a book about climate, does he have scientific respect? (SEWilco 18:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Science 

message: When considering citations, keep in mind that citations in "climate effect" studies do not support climate change itself.  Studies on the effects of climate change are only examining what may happen, and do not deal with the science of climate change itself. (SEWilco 18:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes this pseudoscience, right? 202.154.152.228 10:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onward, cited references... 

message: "Rv to WMC. The Hansen text is grossly cherry picked to imply a criticism that doesn't exist." 
* It would help to state what you think is implied, and why the implied criticism in your head justifies removing a list of individual comments.  The sourced articles do contain the information listed, and this article is about the IPCC and not the global warming topics of the articles.  Can we not use information about the polar aurora which is within articles about the magnetosphere?  (SEWilco 21:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 22:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're not answering. (SEWilco 02:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 14:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The topic is the IPCC, not Hansen.  Hansen merely has some specific comments about some IPCC topics. (SEWilco 16:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implied criticism 

message: Why did you revert out the NPOV tag here and here?  That is inappropriate to do.   — Cortonin | Talk 00:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  No.  Have you never read through Wikipedia policy?  Read Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, and find me the part that says an NPOV tag is invalid if the reason isn't given right after giving it.  Instead, it says the NPOV tag allows someone to register their concern to allow a cooling off period.  Removing someone's NPOV tag in the midst of a NPOV conflict is a special kind of low.  It tries to cover up the fact that there's even an NPOV dispute to begin with, which obviously there is here.   — Cortonin | Talk 04:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: In addition, acting like you don't know which things are in NPOV dispute is just silly.  Let me write it out for you.   — Cortonin | Talk 04:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute