Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 1

message: "Roughly half of scientists surveyed by Gallup and Greenpeace dispute the IPCC position."
Whoever added this, please provide
* sources for the polls
* margin of error and number of scientists surveyed
* nature of the sample -- what kind of scientists were surveyed?
Otherwise I have to remove this statement. --Eloquence 12:46 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)
: did you ever get those sources?
:: No, and I removed the statement accordingly. --Eloquence 12:40 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
===Source===
I wish you had looked a little harder. Here is the source:
:Greenpeace International surveyed 400 climate scientists, many of whom were involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and reported the 113 responses received as of late January 1992 (just prior to one of the climate treaty negotiation sessions). Asked if there is a serious risk of a runaway greenhouse effect under continued business-as-usual policies, 15 percent said probably, 36 percent possibly, and 53 percent probably not. Other questions involved opinions on the progress of climate negotiations and whether the work of climate scientists has been taken seriously enough. (See New Scientist, p. 19, Feb. 5, 1992.) A summary is available from the Greenpeace Global Warming Dept., 1436 U St. NW, S. 300, Washington DC 20009 (202-462-1177). 
(William M. Connolley 19:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)) Having disliked that statement myself and been tempted to remove it, I shall, having read the above. Because:
* The survey reported above was for 1992 - not relevant for discussing the 1995 report
* The survey was about runaway greenhouse - this is irrelevant to the IPCC report which does not consider such a scenario.
BTW: I have serious doubts about the reliability of the SEPP survey too, especially after reading the above. But its still there for the moment.
: Not any more. I traced it to 1991. See below. Martin 17:01, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenpeace survey

message: I wish you had looked a little harder. Here is the source:
:Greenpeace International surveyed 400 climate scientists, many of whom were involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and reported the 113 responses received as of late January 1992 (just prior to one of the climate treaty negotiation sessions). Asked if there is a serious risk of a runaway greenhouse effect under continued business-as-usual policies, 15 percent said probably, 36 percent possibly, and 53 percent probably not. Other questions involved opinions on the progress of climate negotiations and whether the work of climate scientists has been taken seriously enough. (See New Scientist, p. 19, Feb. 5, 1992.) A summary is available from the Greenpeace Global Warming Dept., 1436 U St. NW, S. 300, Washington DC 20009 (202-462-1177). 
(William M. Connolley 19:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)) Having disliked that statement myself and been tempted to remove it, I shall, having read the above. Because:
* The survey reported above was for 1992 - not relevant for discussing the 1995 report
* The survey was about runaway greenhouse - this is irrelevant to the IPCC report which does not consider such a scenario.
BTW: I have serious doubts about the reliability of the SEPP survey too, especially after reading the above. But its still there for the moment.
: Not any more. I traced it to 1991. See below. Martin 17:01, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: At the moment I can't find it... A climatologist pointed out that the field wasn't all that popular, so the brightest scientists went into physics, chemistry, and now computer science.  So the opinion of climatologists is the opinion of lesser scientists, says the climatologist.  :-) (SEWilco 17:20, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Not Rocket Scientists" Defense

message: I'm not sure who to attribute this to:
:The SEPP, however, is not an impartial organisation...
::(William M. Connolley 19:19, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 19:19, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 21:30, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: IPCC impartiality

message: I made a few changes, some of which were necessary to present a NPOV — I fear I'm jumping into a bit of a mess with SEWilco causing trouble, but I think my changes are good (unlike his non-encyclopedic content).  One thing someone might want to look into is this change I made:  found that it contains a number of bogus names.  I'd prefer if this was just a hard number.  We should specify the number of bogus names and say what "bogus" means (people who aren't scientists, fake people, what?).  I get a bit tired of all of the "some", "most", "many", "few" crap in controversial articles like this one.  Daniel Quinlan 07:11, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)
:No, I'm just the target for trouble.  Look further at my efforts and those of others.  The most noise I'm getting seems to be because my stubs are bigger than others use while they're creating content.  You have my history. -- SEWilco 18:54, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantify Bogus Names

message: We must address the issue of how the bogus names got in there. 
: Sure. Not here. Martin 17:53, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a simple explanation of "who is right" about human-caused global warming because there isn't any.  We don't know enough climate science and probably don't have enough data for predictions.  The pro-warming and anti-warming groups have their own agendas.  The true skeptics are pointing out the bad science whereever it is and continuing to wade through the scientific method to learn what is happening.  Obviously things are happening -- climate changes, as does weather (except for "ecological nostalgia" followers who think everything has always been a certain way until it was disturbed). Eventually someone might figure out why things are happening. -- SEWilco 18:35, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Bogus names

message: :There isn't a simple explanation of "who is right" about human-caused global warming because there isn't any.  We don't know enough climate science and probably don't have enough data for predictions.  The pro-warming and anti-warming groups have their own agendas.  The true skeptics are pointing out the bad science whereever it is and continuing to wade through the scientific method to learn what is happening.  Obviously things are happening -- climate changes, as does weather (except for "ecological nostalgia" followers who think everything has always been a certain way until it was disturbed). Eventually someone might figure out why things are happening. -- SEWilco 18:35, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't know yet

message: While some degree of scientific uncertainty surrounds the causative factors in the process of global warming, it must not be forgotten that the fossil industry has spent millions of dollars to discredit global warming as "theory, not fact". This organized public relations campaign obscures and permeates all scientific discussions on the subject, and any argument needs to be tracked to its source. Public relations stunts such as the Leipzig Declaration need to be exposed as such.—Eloquence 18:43, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)
: Gee, you sound as if you know it is a fact.  The concept of humans affecting global warming has to meet the requirements of a [[theory], such as prediction.  Ignoring the other parts of the scientific method, there hasn't been time to see if predictions are true.  And the computer simulations aren't good enough to demonstrate understanding through duplication of the instrument record. Changing a theory to a fact often isn't easy. SEWilco 08:37, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory, not fact, campaign

message: Martin, I think you are right about the relevancy of links.
Eloquence, I think you are right (in general!).
SEWilco, I think your attitude is helpful.
It seems to me that the whole global warming controversy is a test case for the Wikipedia's NPOV policy. How are we to report about an on-going scientific investigation? What is the relationship between 'objectivity' and 'neutrality'? Is there any way to distinguish between a truly impartial source of information and an "interested", biased source?
If there's a well-organized or well-financed public relations campaign, what does this mean in regards to the truth or falsehood of the campaign's object?  Arabs spill a lot of ink and spend a lot of money convincing the world that Zionism is racism, but neither their ink nor their money can convince me that my Jewish mom or my Jewish grandad are racists. My church has spent nearly 50 years working full-time to convince people that Rev. Moon is the Messiah; does this devotion indicate a fanatic urge to prove a canard or unswerving dedication to God's truth? (Don't answer that!) 
Democrats and Democrat-dominated media reported for the better part of a decade that "the science is settled", while others including "industry-supported" groups reported just the opposite.
Here's the big question: does the amount of money, time or ink spent trying to convince the public have a bearing on the truth of any matter? Is industry automatically wrong because they have an economic interest in proving their point? In the case of tobacco, I think they were doing a cover-up. In the case of global warming, I think not. But does the Economic Factor really have a bearing?
Maybe we need a completely different way to write about controversies... --Uncle Ed 15:03, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking for the SEPP survey on CC1995: came across a 1991 survey. I think that's the one they're referring to, so I'm moving the paragraph appropriately. And rolling my eyes somewhat... Martin 16:45, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Ed touches all the bases on controversies