Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report/Archive 1

message: User:Lee Vonce make an edit removing the word "authoritative" from the article.  I'm sure that it was made in good faith, and he raises a good point.  Does that word belong here?  Is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an authoritative source? I believe it is, but I will admit I am biased here (hence I am not editing the article). Nemilar 17:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because I don't believe that it is necessary or appropriate to insert an opinion in the middle of an article that should concentrate on reporting facts.  The contents of the report are facts.  Whether or not the IPCC is "authoritative" or not, is an opinion.  I'm not saying they aren't authoritative.  I'm saying what whether or not they are, it isn't really relevant here.  If this article were about the debate surrounding the issue of anthropogenic climate change, then the relative authoritativeness of the IPCC would be a valid issue to raise and discuss.  I'm sure the issue is discussed on the article about the IPCC, though I admittedly haven't read it yet.  I just don't see how it belongs here.  Fair enough?  --Lee Vonce 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree.  At the same time, I'm not sure that the question of the IPPC's "authoritativeness" isn't relative - it's vital information to the reader, and lends to the relative importance (or unimportance) of the report.  I've been looking through policies (I'm new to being an editor) and the most applicable thing I can find is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves.  Thanks for the explanation! Nemilar 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.  Yeah, I agree, the facts should speak for themselves.  It isn't for the author of an article to tell the reader what to think about the subject but what the facts are.  Then the reader can decide for themselves.  I would disagree that the question of the relative authority of the IPCC is "vital information" though.  Whether the report is important or not isn't for an encyclopedia to say.  It is for us to describe the content of the report, perhaps how the report came to be written, who wrote it...  things like that.  Whether or not the report is "important" is a personal opinion.  If some notable person expresses an opinion on the importance of the report, then that might be worth including in the article.  But for an editor to make an arbitrary judgement and say that the report is or isn't important would be outside the scope of his/her authority.  Think of a newspaper and picture the difference between what is written on the front page compared to what is written on the editorial pages.  --Lee Vonce 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let the so called facts speak for themselves. Stop injecting bias into every freaking article on Wikipedia. Just regurgitate the numbers and move on to your Manga, fringe charity, or whatever it is you all do. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 08:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell yes this is authoritative, in fact there has probably been no more an authoritative scientific document in history. People who do not know the level of experience of each of the 600+ experts and the years of study need to be made aware of how much scientific wieght this document has. Hypnosadist 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That 600+ experts worked on the report is a fact.  The individual scientific backgrounds of each of them is also factual information.  The question of whether or not the document or the IPCC is "authoritative" is a matter of opinion.  There are many reputable scientists who feel that the IPCC is a hopelessly biased organization more interested in promoting their political views than in getting at the truth.  Their opinion is no less valid than those scientists who feel that the IPCC is the "gold standard" of climate science.  --Lee Vonce 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this intergovernmental panel should be called "widely cited" or even "widely regarded as authoritative". However, the IPCC conducts no research of its own. It collects and synthesizes the work of scientists and issues periodic reports, parts of which have been criticized for political bias by S. Fred Singer, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, and others. --Uncle Ed 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh dear, another round of the usual wars. How dull. At the moment the article sez National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative which is pretty well the wording Ed asked for. If LV thinks "many" people think the IPCC is wrong about the science, then he should provide the evidence; it looks like the std false-balance otherwise William M. Connolley 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the charge to not engage in speculation is quite significant. Much could have been said that was not if that prohibition had not been followed. Fred Bauder 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authoritative? 

message: I believe that the discussion of sea level rise in this article is a bit too short.  While it is true that the new report does give this range of numbers, this is for a specific calculation - which excludes the contribution of melting ice off Antarctica and Greenland.  These were excluded for good reasons - no one really knows how to predict the rate at which they will melt or the dynamics of the melting.  In other words, the actual sea level rise, including all effects, could be considerably worse.  It's pretty hard to imagine that it could be significantly better. The authors of the report made this clear, but it has gotten confused in the media - and in this article.
See here, for example: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/
Mgolden 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was taking a look at the numbers here, and they seem to really oversimplify what the SPM is saying. I'll try and take a crack at it and see if I can come up with something better reflecting the AR4 SPM. --Codemonkey 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote it, but I was wondering if someone could take a look at something related. Before my edits, the article mentioned the range of 28 - 43 cm, which is also what a lot of news reports say. Maybe my eyes are glazing over it, but I can't quite find that range anywhere in the SPM. Anyone else willing to take a look, see if I'm missing anything? The only 28 cm I can find is the sum of individual climate contributions to sea level rise for 1993-2003, Table SPM-0. And the only 43 cm I can find is the top level estimate for sea level rise in 2090-2099 for midlevel scenario B2, Table SPM-2. I really have a feeling I'm missing something here, so someone help me out here. --Codemonkey 09:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Never mind, I was being stupid, and missed the super obvious because I'm tired. 28 is of course right in the middle of the 18 to 38 range for the low scenario, and 43 is right in the middle of the 26 to 59 cm range for the high scenario. Mystery solved. I need to get some sleep... --Codemonkey 10:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea Level Rise 

message: I took he Landsea stuff out of "reaction" - "reaction" to means reaction to the published SPM; since Landsea was quite some time ago that seems inappropriate. If L subsequently comments on the SPM that would be different.
I also took the "exclusions" bit out, since it seems rather trivial, and is sourced to the highly partisan Inhofe who is not reliable.
William M. Connolley 15:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not belong in the "Reaction" section; I don't disagree with you there.  However, it should be in the article, so I'll create a "Criticism" section and include it there.  In due course I'll try to expand the criticism section to include some more statements of this kind.  We wouldn't want anyone to think that this article wasn't objective.  --Lee Vonce 16:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't objective be giving equal time to each of the thousands of climate scientists? Why does only the one who objects over a minor point (but agrees with the main findings) get a paragraph? Sad mouse 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you're not suggesting that Landsea is the only scientist who has problems with the FAR or the IPCC in general.  This article needs a criticism section and Landsea's objections are certainly noteworthy.  In time, I'm sure the objections of others will be added. --Lee Vonce 14:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: Is there a list of those 46 countries that have agreed to take action against global warming? 75.39.69.246 23:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, good question. What I've been able to find is that what they are pushing for is a "UN Environmental Organisation" or UNEO, which is supposed to be an upgraded version of the now current "UN Environmental Programme" or UNEP. I'll see if I can find something more firm than the now linked news story on this, and rewrite that section a bit. --Codemonkey 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of countries?