Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 5

message: 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  
 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 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, 
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)
thread_title:  Core data of 2001 IPCC report manipulated 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redirect pages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bolding in Key Conclusions 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  AR4 name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hockey Stick Criticisms section 

message: :[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  Nil Einne 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds sensible William M. Connolley 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Category of IPCC reviewers, authors? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Its a joke or vandalism. Please don't re-add it William M. Connolley 11:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: 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)
replies: text: I doubt that they are PD... if you're contacting them, you could verify it William M. Connolley 21:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyrights (and format) of IPCC reports? 

message: 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 . 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 .
"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.
----
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)
thread_title:  Consensus in reports 

message: 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 . 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 .
"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.
----
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)
thread_title:  Consensus in reports 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Dr. Timothy 
Bell
Ball, who is the first Canadian to earn a PhD in Climatology" is a statement which is false 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Important? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 , other news outlets , even RealClimate!  It's obviously notable and relevant and it belongs here. Oren0 18:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Monckton section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  William M. Connolley 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  History and studies suggesting a conservative bias, understating dangers 

message: Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol assert that most scientists involved in climate research believe that the IPCC reports accurately summarize the state of knowledge, but several scientists have objected publicly to this assertion: Keith Shine, Frederick Seitz, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, etc. 
But the current version of the article passes on this assertion as if it were a fact - rather than attributing this POV to its advocates. --Uncle Ed 10:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, You can easily agree with the IPCC report - and still disagree whether the Kyoto protocol is appropriate or not. They are two different kinds of animals - one is a scientific assessment of current knowledge - and the other is a particular political implementation of what some feel is the consequence of the scientific knowledge. One belongs in the scientific sphere - and the other is entirely in the political arena. --Kim D. Petersen 11:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Both of your premises are wrong to an extent. There are very few scientists who disagree with the IPCC report, and even fewer disagree that are part of it (to my knowledge one to two). As for supporters of the Kyoto protocol claiming that all scientists agree is completely wrong. They don't. They claim a consensus (which is entirely correct), but a scientific consensus does not mean unanimity.  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The view the IPCC is biased towards alarmism is well-established in WP:RS literature.  It is the reason the NIPCC was formed.  I have included a short paragraph on the IPCC's bias towards alarmism, including criticisms by Pielke and the Holland peer-reviewed paper in Energy and Environment.  What I have written could be improved because many scientists have complained about the alarmism.  The fact the article has nothing on this before I got here is evidence the editors of the article are not being NPOV.  RonCram (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Theres just a couple of problems with your response. A) NIPCC is not peer-reviewed and not a WP:RS. B) E&E is not a WP:RS and finally C) using Pielke in the way you do is WP:UNDUE towards a single point of view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  All that is true, but there is another problem: Rons sources don't support his assertions. There is nothing in the Holland quote to support alarmism (the Holland quote *is* a stupid strawman: I fully support the idea that the IPCC isn't a monopoly authority: the papers it refs exist, after all). Neother does the first Peilke ref; I didn't bother check the rest (blog postings saying "you should have cited *my* paper, waaaah, aren't useful sources for anything, really) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias to overstate "dangers" and to ignore science 

message: Key issues
*Short dot points need to be incorporated into a main body of prose which flows better. Some short sections should be merged
*References are missing in places
*Full ref info is not filled in some places and not consistently after the punctuation mark. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two references you cite cannot be considered reliable sources by even the wildest exercise of imagination. Raymond Arritt 12:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: The :Category:IPCC lead authors is used to identify the lead authors of the IPCC reports but is currently being considered for deletion at: :Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 8. 
The discussion is still open for comments and hasn't been decided yet, but should this come to pass, I was wondering whether this information should be held as a list on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report or could it fit on its own list page, rather like: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Preferences? (Please reply at :Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report)  Ephebi 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCC Lead authors 

message: Is there a policy (or convention) on adding organizations as :Category:Nobel Peace Prize laureates? That should be added when someone gets around to cleaning up the article.  tdmg 19:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have added it to the category. And... CONGRATULATIONS IGPCC. On the other hand, this would be a featured article.--HybridBoy 05:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel Prize Category 

message: The article currrently states: ' A "conservative" bias in the sense of right-wing, pro-corporate leanings and influences has been documented by the release of a famous memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration ' ... which causes more problems than it solves. In today's world, being a right wing organisation/political party, or being a corporation, or being a Conservative (with a capital C) can still be compatible with supporting the IPCC and taking action against climate change. Anyone suggestions for some better wording? Ephebi 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded and given it a POV-ectomy (that section in general is not particularly well written). An important principle of clear writing is not to use the same word in two different senses, so let's restrict "conservative" to the meaning of scientifically conservative; i.e., non-speculative. Raymond Arritt 16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  better definition of 'conservative'? 

message: The article is lacking much about the Panel history. For example, who was the Chair back in 1988?--Connection 09:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on History 

message: The section on 'Criticisms of the IPCC' and 'IPCC process' contains a quote from a report described as "UK House of Lords Science and Economic Analysis and Report on IPCC for the G-8 Summit". Where does this name come from? According to the PDF, the report was produced by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee, and is called 'The Economics of Climate Change'. I read the report some time ago, but I can't remember the 2005 G-8 summit being mentioned.Enescot 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for the title in the report itself William M. Connolley 09:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Lords report 

message: The language of the opening sentance reeks of bias:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a puppet body for Green campaigners, masquerading as a group tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity."
Shouldn't this be edited into more neutral language?
63.70.91.229 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral??? 

message: Oops, I rolledbacks  Mirkin Mans change - apologies, wrong button. But I meant to revert it - it needs some word, like conservative, to indicate the direction William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative? 

message: Does anyone have a list of the 2500 scientists mentioned in the IPCC report? Vegasprof (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the AR4, Working Group I contributors are here; Working Group II contributors are here; and Worjing Group III contributors are here. I don't have lists of contributors for previous reports handy, but they doubtless exist somewhere. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps someone should check if the names are legit.  Would you volunteer? ;) Brusegadi (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a lot of names.  But I don't see any list with close to 2500 names.  This is my first look at any details of the IPCC report, so I haven't figured out the structure yet.  Is there some sort of overview that explains how it was put together? Vegasprof (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main IPCC site is http://www.ipcc.ch. Look around until you find what you need.  Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most relevant thing I could find is here, though that is probably not what you're looking for. (P.S. the number of contributors listed probably around 1,500-2,000 based on rough extrapolation.) ~ UBeR (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2500 Scientists 

message: I thought that most of those 3,000 weren't scientists. Also it should be mentioned that only 52 of the IPCC scientists decided that Global Warming was likely to be caused by us.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.152.172 (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of Scientists 

message: Might I suggest a "History" section to this article?12.26.68.146 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Brusegadi (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: A glaring weakness of the article at present is the absence of any discussion of the alarmist bias of the IPCC reports.  The alarmism has been criticized by a large number of scientists, yet the article reads as if the only criticism is that the IPCC has been too conservative in its estimates.  Below is a paragraph I contributed that introduces the topic.  It is far from perfect and statements by many other scientists could be added to this paragraph.  But we need to discuss this on the Talk page has my contribution has been deleted without any effort to make it better.  
:===Alarmist bias of IPCC reports===
:Several climatologists have criticized the IPCC for bias.  Roger Pielke has been critical of the IPCC's selection of scientific papers,, specifically regarding its assessment of near surface temperature trends.    Pielke has also been critical of the conflict of interest in the IPCC assessment process.
:In a peer-reviewed paper, David Holland "concluded that the IPCC has neither the structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science. Suggestions are made as to how the IPCC could improve its procedures towards producing reports and recommendations that are more scientifically sound.
===References===
Please discuss this below and make suggestions regarding other scientists who agree.  For example, Christopher Landsea should probably be in this section rather than having his own section.  I'm sure there are others.RonCram (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble with your section is that its basically a synthesis/original research of unrelated critique, that has a heavy emphasis on a specific scientist - who is basically saying: "They should have used my research". And finally of course that you use un-reliable sources such as the E&E paper. (which according to WMC - you've also misinterpreted (see top discussion)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that your many references to Pielke, doesn't in any way or form support the wording "alarmist". Which makes it WP:POV on top of all the other things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ron - I'm sure you didn't like the answers you got above, but you won't get away with just ignoring them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, Roger Pielke and Dallas Staley are not one person.  They have more specifics on IPCC bias than most of the items I have seen written. I do not see how ignoring them helps the article.  It seems to me the best way to address any concerns regarding WP:UNDUE is to include crticisms from a greater number of scientists and by adding the Christopher Landsea section into this section.  Pielke and Staley are not writing just about the Pielke articles that have been ignored by the IPCC.  If you actually read the links, you will see articles by a number of other scientists were ignored because the articles did not reinforce the alarmist conclusions of the IPCC.  You claim E&E is not a reliable source, but that is wishful thinking on your part.  E&E is a peer-reviewed journal.  Saying it is not peer-reviewed or not reliable could put Wikipedia in danger of a lawsuit.  William, you may not like the Holland quote but his criticism is there because the IPCC is drawing conclusions that are not supported by the science.  Other scientists can be added to this list and given time they will be.  Ignoring the criticism of IPCC alarmism will not make it go away. RonCram (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ron, you're not listening. Let me try again: even in the unlikely event of anyone accepting E&E as an RS, you quote still doesn't support alarmism. Its about IPCC processes. It could just as easily support the idea that IPCC is too conservative. On the other topic, your assertion that E&E is peer reviewed is unsupported. I don't believe it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, we are all in danger of a lawsuit for everything we do or don't. That shouldn't keep us from telling the truth. E&E is not a reliable source, and its not peer-reviewed as that term in normally understood. The editor in chief has admitted that she is "following [her] political agenda -- a bit, anyway" - a statement that I can only shake my head at. Pielke (jr.) has publicly stated that had he regretted publishing there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: William, E&E is peer-reviewed.  I have exchanged emails with the editor.  Whether you believe it or not does not really matter.  The journal claims to be peer-reviewed and there is no evidence to the contrary. Regarding Holland, perhaps you have not read him.  He is complaining about processes because the IPCC is only summarizing the alarmist literature.  Your comment is nothing but a stalling tactic.  Stephan, I agree that her statement was not wise but that does not change the fact it is peer-reviewed.  It seems to me her greatest fault may be that she seeks out reviewers who may be favorable to a particular article.  That is not uncommon in climate science.  RonCram (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Holland paper is available here in its enttirety.  RonCram (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alarmist bias of IPCC reports 

message: Please discuss this below and make suggestions regarding other scientists who agree.  For example, Christopher Landsea should probably be in this section rather than having his own section.  I'm sure there are others.RonCram (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble with your section is that its basically a synthesis/original research of unrelated critique, that has a heavy emphasis on a specific scientist - who is basically saying: "They should have used my research". And finally of course that you use un-reliable sources such as the E&E paper. (which according to WMC - you've also misinterpreted (see top discussion)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that your many references to Pielke, doesn't in any way or form support the wording "alarmist". Which makes it WP:POV on top of all the other things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ron - I'm sure you didn't like the answers you got above, but you won't get away with just ignoring them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, Roger Pielke and Dallas Staley are not one person.  They have more specifics on IPCC bias than most of the items I have seen written. I do not see how ignoring them helps the article.  It seems to me the best way to address any concerns regarding WP:UNDUE is to include crticisms from a greater number of scientists and by adding the Christopher Landsea section into this section.  Pielke and Staley are not writing just about the Pielke articles that have been ignored by the IPCC.  If you actually read the links, you will see articles by a number of other scientists were ignored because the articles did not reinforce the alarmist conclusions of the IPCC.  You claim E&E is not a reliable source, but that is wishful thinking on your part.  E&E is a peer-reviewed journal.  Saying it is not peer-reviewed or not reliable could put Wikipedia in danger of a lawsuit.  William, you may not like the Holland quote but his criticism is there because the IPCC is drawing conclusions that are not supported by the science.  Other scientists can be added to this list and given time they will be.  Ignoring the criticism of IPCC alarmism will not make it go away. RonCram (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ron, you're not listening. Let me try again: even in the unlikely event of anyone accepting E&E as an RS, you quote still doesn't support alarmism. Its about IPCC processes. It could just as easily support the idea that IPCC is too conservative. On the other topic, your assertion that E&E is peer reviewed is unsupported. I don't believe it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, we are all in danger of a lawsuit for everything we do or don't. That shouldn't keep us from telling the truth. E&E is not a reliable source, and its not peer-reviewed as that term in normally understood. The editor in chief has admitted that she is "following [her] political agenda -- a bit, anyway" - a statement that I can only shake my head at. Pielke (jr.) has publicly stated that had he regretted publishing there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: William, E&E is peer-reviewed.  I have exchanged emails with the editor.  Whether you believe it or not does not really matter.  The journal claims to be peer-reviewed and there is no evidence to the contrary. Regarding Holland, perhaps you have not read him.  He is complaining about processes because the IPCC is only summarizing the alarmist literature.  Your comment is nothing but a stalling tactic.  Stephan, I agree that her statement was not wise but that does not change the fact it is peer-reviewed.  It seems to me her greatest fault may be that she seeks out reviewers who may be favorable to a particular article.  That is not uncommon in climate science.  RonCram (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Holland paper is available here in its enttirety.  RonCram (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''References''

message: The Washington Times has an interesting commentary piece regarding IPCC alarmism.    The author comments on the "Hockey Stick" controversy and the forecasting practices of the IPCC.  J. Scott Armstrong is a leading thinker in scientific forecasting and his review of IPCC practices shows they violated many forecasting principles.  RonCram (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: JSA is a self-publicist, for sure. The article is the same old recycled junk William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: JSA is a leading thinker in this field, involved with several scientific journals on forecasting.  The fact the IPCC did not even review the principles they used to determine if they were doing it right is reminiscent of Michael Mann innovating statistical methods without checking with any statisticians to see if he was correct.  He wasn't.  Whether you like the writings of JSA or not is really not the point.  The point is the IPCC has violated these forecasting principles to further their alarmism. RonCram (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ron, you're frothing again. Calm down William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: William, you are being insulting again.  Try to deal with the facts rather than making personal attacks. RonCram (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Fred Singer has a presentation in which he claims "the IPCC fails to consider important scientific issues - any one of which would upset its major conclusion that 'most' warming is 'very likely' human caused."  It is very clear that Singer believes the IPCC is ignoring evidence so it can be alarmist. RonCram (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More evidence of IPCC alarmism 

message: Here is another interesting article.   The author, Richard Black, concludes that the charge of bias against the IPCC is unwarranted, however, the article proves that the charge of bias is commonly known.  Black ignores the blog postings of Pielke, the audit by Armstrong, the resignation of Landsea and many other facts in evidence. But at least Black proves the charge of bias is commonly expressed by skeptics. RonCram (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep he says that its the "vociferous community of climate sceptics". And he also shows us that most of the claims are unfounded. But you still haven't shown us how its not undue weight to the opinion of a small group, which do not even agree on what the bias is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, he does not show the claims of Pielke, Armstrong, Landsea and others are unfounded.  He just does not deal with them.  He dismisses the claim of Reid Bryson saying only that Bryson did not have the documents needed to investigate further.  I do not understand how you can consider these scientists as WP:FRINGE.  It is a ridiculous position.  Pielke is an ISI highly cited researcher.  Bryson is the father of modern climatology.  What makes you think they have to "agree" on the exact bias?  The IPCC is capable of having many biases.  Experts are more likely to see and care about biases more closely related to their expertise. For example, Landsea is going to care about hurricanes more than Armstrong does.RonCram (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, the trouble is that you are trying to synthesize individual opinions, into something that isn't supported. Bryson and Pielke do not agree on this. Landsea complained not about the IPCC - but about Trenberth, and guess which POV was the dominating one in the AR4 - Trenberth's or Landsea's? Hint: it wasn't Trenberth. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, do you really want to have a separate section for each scientist's criticism?  That does not make any sense to me.  Regarding Trenberth and Landsea, Landsea resigned from the IPCC because of Trenberth.  Trenberth continued to hold his position with the IPCC.  It is possible the IPCC toned down their alarmism on this point, (after all, the science was on Landsea's side) but that hardly precludes criticism of the IPCC.  It is rather a good illustration of how far the IPCC will go to support their agenda even when it goes against the science. The article is lacking when it comes to this point.  It reads as if it was written by a PR firm instead of being an objective account. RonCram (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The BBC defends the IPCC against the charge of bias 

message: I realize this is a political document and not the work of scientists but I think it makes some good points.  One of the interesting sources this document references is an opinion piece by Ian Castles titled "The role of the IPCC is to assess climate change not advocate Kyoto."   Castles writes: "The IPCC's failure to consider the Hansen "alternative scenario" and its dismissal of the Castles and Henderson critique are disturbing signs that the Panel's role in the assessment of the science of climate change has now become subservient to its role in supporting a specific policy agenda."  In most cases, that policy agenda means they the IPCC has to hype the science and threat of warming in order to spur people and governments to action. RonCram (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republicans charge the IPCC with bias 

message: Based on the comments of William Connolley and Kim above, they obviously would like readers to believe Pielke's criticism of the IPCC was because the IPCC did not promote their scientific articles. Not true.  Pielke and Dallas Staley published a list of scientific papers which would have toned down the IPCC alarmism if they had been considered.  Some of the papers were authored by Pielke, but others were authored by JE Gonzalez, RC Hale, JF He, CR Holder, KG Hubbard, YK Lim, R Mahmood, and RS Vose - among others.  Connolley's comments were apparently intended to mislead.  Pielke was not just complaining about his papers being ignored.  He was complaining about papers being ignored about two issues: land use/land cover changes being a big driver of recent warming and problems with the surface temperature record.  If the IPCC had honestly surveyed the scientific literature, the forecast of future warming would have been less and the uncertainty would have been greater.  It is important for editors to read the linked web postings and read it for themselves rather than take Connolley's word on anything. RonCram (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pielke has repeatedly criticized the IPCC for concentrating on global causes and effects, and to pay too little attention to local ones. As far as I know, he has never claimed the IPCC overestimates global effects. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephan, it is quite clear Pielke believes the surface temp record has a strong warming bias that exaggerates the climate trend.  AFAIK, Pielke has not attempted to quantify the non-climatic warming in the temp record, but it is very clear he believes it is present.  This is why Pielke supports the work of Anthony Watts, so the artificial warming can be quantified. Pielke also attributes much of the warming to land use/ land cover changes instead of rising CO2.  Land use/ land cover changes do not have a "tipping point," one of the favorite excuses of the IPCC for their alarmist forecasts.  Without positive feedbacks leading to a "tipping point," most mainstream scientists would put climate sensitivity at about 1 degree C for double CO2.  One degree would certainly not cause melting of the polar ice caps or catastrophic sea level rise. RonCram (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pielke's charge of IPCC bias 

message: One of the best examples of the bias of this article is the section "Outdatedness of reports."  While this is certainly an important issue, as it stands the article makes it sound as though the IPCC forecasts are too conservative and action needs to be taken more quickly.  Not true.  Because the cutoff for WG1 was in July 2006, the IPCC was not able to consider a number of important peer-reviewed articles published in 2007.  These include the article by Roy Spencer on the negative feedback he and his team observed over the tropics that confirmed the "Infrared Iris Hyopthesis" of Richard Lindzen.  It also includes the paper by Petr Chylek showing that climate sensitivity to aerosols and CO2 were dramatically overestimated in the past.  Most importantly, the paper by Stephen E. Schwartz showing the climate sensitivity to CO2 was only about 1/3 of that estimated by the IPCC.  Schwartz is still concerned about global warming but admits "we have time now."  Instead of discussing these scientific papers, the article discusses the lack of polar ice.  The article does not point out that this has happened twice before - in 1905 and 1944 - and that the ice came back promptly both times.  Neither does the article point out that the ice has reformed (just like it did in 1906 and 1945).  Instead the article quotes Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, making another alarmist statement that promotes policy - something that is strictly contrary to the charter of the IPCC. RonCram (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, you're soapboxing again. The Schwartz paper is wrong  and so is the rest of your stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not soapboxing, I am pointing out the bias of this article.  Schwartz is not wrong, Annan is wrong.  The work of Schwartz has been partially confirmed by the Chylek paper which shows both aerosols and CO2 have been given too much credit. Annan is still using assumptions that have been proven wrong. The main point is that observers on both sides are unhappy with the fact IPCC cutoff date was July 2006.  Skeptics will point out that the majority of peer-reviewed science since then supports the skeptics.  That is why Fred Singer started the NIPCC.  But this article does not mention the NIPCC or the fact scientists are upset by the exaggerated alarmism of the IPCC. RonCram (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No-one, not even you, is interested in the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, as is evidenced by the state of its text William M. Connolley (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I spend quite a bit of time on the text prior to it being merged into the Singer page.  At the time it was merged, it was a pretty decent article - much different than the article most of the people voted against.  Someday I will find some time to improve this article and others.  But the telling point here is that no one of the usual editors of this article is doing anything to make this article less biased. RonCram (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is biased 

message: Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions  —Preceding comment was added at 15:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Earth 

message: As I understand it, reverse chronological order is not the desired format on Wikipedia.  Wouldn't changing the order of the sections to cover the events in the order they happened be best? -RunningOnBrains 13:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of a format quibble 

message: I edited the lead sentence to reflect IPCC's political nature. The language I used was very moderate and retained the focus that IPCC's work arises out of the evaluation of science.  No matter - It was reverted without any discussion.  I'd like to ask for that discussion now.
My change read, "The 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change' ('IPCC') is a political body tasked with the scientific issue of evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity."  Stephan Shulz reverted to the previous sentence: "The 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change' ('IPCC') is a scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity." 
That IPCC is a political body is evident from the sentences in the next paragraph that say, "The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[2] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol."  --Steve (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinion. However, the IPCC is a scientific, not a political body. It does not perform its own original research, but then very few scientific organizations do - individual scientists and institutes do. The IPCC does perform a comprehensive survey, evaluation and integration of the published research. It is composed of scientists, not politicians, and it works on scientific principles. And it defines itself as a scientific body: "The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). [...] The IPCC is a scientific body: the information it provides with its reports is based on scientific evidence and reflects existing viewpoints within the scientific community.".  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't my opinion, or anyone's opinion - it's simple fact.  Yes, it performs scientific functions, but for political purposes as an arm of a political entity.  Treaties are political results, brought into existence by political bodies.  I'm not saying IPCC doesn't work to organize scientific research, or to summarize it, but that there are also political people as well as scientists.  It gives a false impression to call it ONLY a scientific body since the scientific efforts are to address political purposes. --Steve (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, your edit did not reflect this more nuanced position. But secondly, it still misrepresents the IPCC. The reports are produced by scientists. They are accepted by governments and hence politicians, but not created by them. Check the IPCC mandate: "IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio-economic factors." Every bit of information can be used or abused for a political point - that does not make the originator of that information political. The IPCC contributors are not paid by the IPCC or the UN, nor, normally, directly by governments (in fact, they are usually not paid at all specifically for their work for the IPCC, but perform it as part of their normal academic duties). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "scientific intergovernmental body".  I know that's using intergovernmental a bit repetitively, and it's the same words used by the IPCC (Right under "Who we are" on  this page), but I think it gets the points across quite clearly.  The IPCC is not just a scientific body, it's also related to governments (like national academies are not just scientific bodies; they are also advisory bodies).  I agree that "political" isn't quite right, because it's a very general term.  Also, the IPCC says that it's supposed to be "neutral with respect to policy", so, as long as that's actually true (which, as far as I can tell, it is), then the IPCC doesn't make treaties; it just provides reviews for an international political process to use to make policies.  The IPCC itself does not make or support specific policies, which is implied by the term "political".  - Enuja (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the IPCC's own website. "Its constituency is made of : The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved.". 
Governments are political, are they not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.98.17 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCC is a political body that advocates political change 

message: As a thermographer who has been interested in the dynamics of Radiative Forcing as a model for anthropogenic changes in the Earth's climate, I have, needless to say, had a lot of questions concerning this model and its application. On the Global Warming discussion page I had posted thermographs which seemed to me to dispute the whole concept of forcing as a power to affect the climate. They were erased by the editors of that page.
I have reviewed the latest report, in specific, the chapter on Radiative Forcing http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf several times and have found no reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics within this publication or its appendices. 
It would seem to me that a model used to construct a theoretical description of the mechanism which is inherent to the theory of Global Warming would have to have some mention of the Law since the effects of this Law on the atmosphere as well as on Radiative Forcing are so multifaceted. These are:
1) The Second law governs the "homogenization" of constituent gases. Because the gases are mixed they will have the same relative temperature.
2) The Second Law states that as pressure on a gas falls so will temperature. Therefore as altitude is increased the temperature falls and as it falls it would run into the last effect.
3) The Second Law states that heat will radiate from warm to cold. Alwayshttp://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html
I still believe that I have given more data with one thermograph than is quantifiable from the so called Radiative Forcing model. What I see in my thermal camera is not what the model would propose, but what I see in my thermal camera follows the Second Law.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotflashhome (talk • contribs) 17:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your misunderstanding of  the Second Law has been several time refuted by now. In short, you are wrong. Your thermographs themselves are proof of energy radiating from a colder atmosphere to a warmer camera.  "Radiative forcing" is not a mechanism, but rather a way of describing the difference between in- and outgoing radiation. The mechanism responsible for the greenhouse effect is absorption and random re-radiation of infrared emissions. This is not remotely controversial. This is also the wrong article - if anywhere, I would recommend greenhouse effect, but please get informed first. Simply reading that whole article for understanding would help. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is warming your camera relative to no sky at all, yes. There is no net transfer of energy from the sky to your camera, of course, but every photon that reached your infrared camera transfered energy from the cold sky to your warm camera. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)What your camera pictures, is the amount of IR that reaches it from objects. If your interpretation of the 2nd law had been correct - then every object colder than the area around you, would be black. (since it then wouldn't radiate anything towards you). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well repeating something perhaps. I don't know how old grade 5 is in the US but I'd recommend completing your education. Anyway  "Every thousand feet of altitude the air loses an average of three degrees Fahrenheit" is roughly true, "due to pressure drop" is a bit confused. The rest of this looks like false inference. And certainly "If there is no Net transfer there can be no Radiative Forcing" as has been clearly said is, I am afraid, rubbish.    --BozMo talk 06:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming and the Second Law 

message: The image :Image:UNFCCC Logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with Image:UNFCCC Logo.svg 

message: In January 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying that he viewed the process "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound" because of Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to recent hurricane activity.
This statement doesn't fully explain Landsea's resignation. Landsea resigned not because Trenberth connected global warming to hurricanes, but because he did so without scientific evidence or research. Suggest it should read as follows: "...recent hurricane activity despite a lack of scientific evidence to support that statement." or something like that.138.67.4.215 (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't state that its despite lack of scientific evidence (or research) - since there is such evidence, what Landsea is talking about is the balance of evidence, which doesn't support it. Which the IPCC report also ended up reporting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete Information 

message: Section 7 of this article is "Criticism of IPCC".  For the sake of balance, shouldn't there also be a section on praise?  Numerous scientific bodies have praised, applauded, and endorsed the IPCC's work.  If others think it would be appropriate, I'll add a section documenting the scientific community's  praise and endorsement of the IPCC.--CurtisSwain (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism/Praise 

message: Does anyone know how to edit the IPCC infobox / template for inclusion of AR5 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report  --Theo Pardilla (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit IPCC infobox / template 

message: Why is there a section about Christopher Landsea resigning? Why is he more notable that all the other hundreds of scientists who have joined and are continuing to participate?  This is clearly WP:UNDUE. --Skyemoor (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landsea section? 

message: I have some trouble with this section:
The Second Assessment Report was the first and last to include a chapter on the economic impacts of climate change, of which impacts on human mortality are an important part. As is customary in environmental economics, health impacts of climate change are valued on the basis of willingness to pay for risk reduction. The advantage of this method is that health risks of climate change are treated like any other health risk. The disadvantage of this method is that health risks in different parts of the world are valued differently. Specifically, the value of a statistical life is much higher in rich countries than in poor countries. The chapter authored by David Pearce, Amrita Achanta, Bill Cline, Sam Fankhauser, Rajendra Pachauri, Richard Tol, and Pier Vellinga faithfully reflected the state of the art of the literature, but the chapter was attacked: the IPCC was accused of blasphemy and David Pearce's offices were occupied.F. Pearce (1995), 'Global Row over Value of Human Life', New Scientist, August 19, 7.E. Masood (1995), 'Developing Countries Dispute Use of Figures on Climate Change Impact', Nature, 376, 374.E. Masood and A. Ochert (1995), 'UN Climate Change Report Turns up the Heat', Nature, 378, 119.A. Meyer (1995), 'Economics of Climate Change', Nature, 378, 433.N. Sundaraman (1995), 'Impact of Climate Change', Nature, 377, 472.T. O'Riordan (1997), 'Review of Climate Change 1995 – Economic and Social Dimension', Environment, 39 (9), 34-39. This chapter is the only instance in which the authors of the chapter officially denounced the policy makers' summary for inaccuracy.National Center for Environmental Economics
My specific concerns are listed below:
As is customary in environmental economics, health impacts of climate change are valued on the basis of willingness to pay for risk reduction. The advantage of this method is that health risks of climate change are treated like any other health risk. The disadvantage of this method is that health risks in different parts of the world are valued differently.
I'd prefer to have a source provided for this information.
the IPCC was accused of blasphemy and David Pearce's offices were occupied.
Several references are given for this statement but none appear to be freely available. I would appreciate more information if anyone has it. I'm concerned about the style of the sentence – which source does the word 'blasphemy' come from? shouldn't it be given in quotes? What does this part mean – 'David Pearce's offices were occupied'?
This chapter is the only instance in which the authors of the chapter officially denounced the policy makers' summary for inaccuracy.
I have skimmed the reference given for this statement. From my reading, it only appears to be the thoughts of one author, David Pearce. Shouldn't the sentence be revised to reflect this? I think the above sentence is written in poor style as is the sentence below:
The chapter authored by David Pearce, Amrita Achanta, Bill Cline, Sam Fankhauser, Rajendra Pachauri, Richard Tol, and Pier Vellinga faithfully reflected the state of the art of the literature, but the chapter was attacked:
This doesn't appear to be written from a neutral-point-of-view.
I think the article would benefit from other viewpoints on this issue. From what I understand, there isn't unanimity amongst economists on how on non-market impacts of climate change should be valued. The revision does not mention this.
I've put together a possible revision below:
The Second Assessment Report was controversial in its treatment of the economic valuation of human life. F. Pearce (1995), 'Global Row over Value of Human Life', New Scientist, August 19, 7.E. Masood (1995), 'Developing Countries Dispute Use of Figures on Climate Change Impact', Nature, 376, 374.E. Masood and A. Ochert (1995), 'UN Climate Change Report Turns up the Heat', Nature, 378, 119.A. Meyer (1995), 'Economics of Climate Change', Nature, 378, 433.N. Sundaraman (1995), 'Impact of Climate Change', Nature, 377, 472.T. O'Riordan (1997), 'Review of Climate Change 1995 – Economic and Social Dimension', Environment, 39 (9), 34-39.Jacoby has commented on the difficulties in valuing non-market climate change impacts such as human mortality [a]. As is customary in environmental economics, health impacts of climate change are valued on the basis of willingness to pay for risk reduction. The advantage of this method is that health risks of climate change are treated like any other health risk. The disadvantage of this method is that health risks in different parts of the world are valued differently. Specifically, the value of a statistical life is much higher in rich countries than in poor countries.
This information was presented in the full IPCC report, however, governments decided to reject the cost-benefit valuation of human life. Their rejection was implied in the summary (called the Summary for Policymakers) of the full IPCC report. David Pearce, the IPCC convening lead author who oversaw the economics chapter of the Report, officially dissented on this summary.National Center for Environmental EconomicsAccording to Grubb, the confrontation between Pearce and the governments 'came closer than anything else to wrecking the IPCC' [b].
[a] 'Informing Climate Policy Given Incommensurable Benefits Estimates', Henry D. Jacoby, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 107, February 2004.
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt107.pdf
[b] Michael Grubb (1 September 2005). "Stick to the Target" (PDF). http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/grubb/publications/GA09.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-01-24.
Enescot (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate over value of a statistical life