Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 4

message: There has been a revert war taking place.  I added the Twoversions notice to the detailed version. (SEWilco 17:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  twoversions reversions 

message: Let's be clear...  whether or not the IPCC (or any other individual/organization) is respected is a matter of subjective opinion and placing it here violates any number of wikipedia policies - most notably the NPOV policy.  Those who are new to wikipedia, please be careful about reverting as the old version may contain this inapporpriate content.  Those who have been here long enough to know better...  your attempts to revert current content in order to reinsert blatantly POV information can and should be classified as a rude and hostile act.  It may not be formally defined as vandalism, but in many ways it is far worse.  Shame on you for doing it.  If you refuse to accept/follow NPOV policy then you have no business editing these pages.--JonGwynne 23:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have nothing substantive to say since you can't seem to rise above insults.  How sad for you.--JonGwynne 03:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Try this.  Give a reasoned argument for why labeling certain individuals and organizations as "respected" and other ones as "dubious" is at all within NPOV.  If you can't give a good reasoned argument which adheres to Wikipedia policy, then don't revert.   — Cortonin | Talk 01:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he just can't help himself.  You see the hostility he shows for people who have the temerity to question his deeply held (though apparently indefensible) views.  What right do we have to expect reasoned argument from someone who has so cheerfully renounced it?--JonGwynne 03:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The "respect" of the IPCC - ''read this before you revert back to a version that mentions respect for organizations or individuals''

message: Lobbywatch.org is not "many scientists in the field of climate change".  When you attribute quotes, attribute them correctly.  In addition, your edit does not remedy the fact that Stott's claim about European temperatures is not disputed by a graph showing a global or northern hemisphere trend.  When people here settle on someone they want to discredit, it seems like simple things like this just get ignored in the name of discrediting the person.  I think this is one of the sadest parts of the entire Wikipedia climate change article process.   — Cortonin | Talk 12:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firebug edit. 

message: Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:
Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin
 
by William M. Connolley
 
 
 
Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case. 
--mav 22:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary injunction 

message: (William M. Connolley 13:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  van D 

message: Anon 158.147.53.100, who has taken to pushing POV into GW, inserted  an excessive amount of Landsea into this article. Landsea is already mentioned; moreover he is a faded argument largely forgotten and of little importance. So I removed the xs. William M. Connolley 09:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rm xs Landsea: why 

message: I took the liberty of removing the quote by Rob van Dorland from KNMI ("It is strange that the climate reconstruction of Mann has passed both peer review rounds of" ...) until it can be sufficiently sourced and documented that it is indeed his take on IPCC. 
I could only find references to this quote on POV sites, and it does not seem to me his reasoned opinion. On the KNMI site he has an 2005 article where he discusses the Mann curve and the McKitrick critique of the Mann article. In this he defends the IPCC review process and the Mann article in particular. Here is the link to the article (in Dutch http://www.knmi.nl/VinkCMS/news_detail.jsp?id=19760 Jens Nielsen 16:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rob Dorland quote on the Mann review 

message: The article is getting quite long. I notice that articles on the individual assessment reports have existed for a while, and with the good amounts of content for the individual assessment reports, i suggest to migrate the content from here to the individual pages, with some brief summary kept here. At the moment, the individual articles have less content than the present article. I also suggest to add here some of the other special reports, such as the one on Carbon Capture and Storage, LULUCF, and others.
Jens Nielsen 15:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeeeeessss... this is something to think about. William M. Connolley 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving content on IPCC  assessment reports to separate articles? 

message: People may be interested in the mini-edit-war at the SPM page; see Talk:Summary for policymakers William M. Connolley 13:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:Summary for policymakers 

message: Dear anonymous: This is not a "Criticism of criticism" It contains statements about the IPCC (not about criticisms of the IPCC) and evidence as well -- including as of 2/1/07, a major study published in none other than Science, comparing actual IPCC predictions in 2001 and what actually happened. See what is currently the second bullet. 
The word accusation is not one I have a problem with, and it could, potentially, make the case sound even stronger in this encyclopedia entry. However I have not included it in the recent title as:
1. The word "accusation" is not present" in the "skeptics" cricisms
and more importantly
2. This is not an accusation, it's a scientific peer-reviewed study. And other evidence listed.
I've cleaned up the Bush Admin language re Pachauri to more encyclopedia-eske tone. If there's another area, please bring it to my attention. As for the overall section (barring small tweaks like the above which as I say I'm more than open minded about improving the language/tone of) but the overall section -- is not only not "weasel word" but is far more strongly documented than any of the "IPCC is exaggerating" oft-repeated but inaccurate claims.
That's because I dont' just quote one disgruntled scientist, I quote facts, peer reviewed scientific journals, the history of the IPCC and the conservatives quoted (not hippys but conservatives under conservative US administrations) whose who promoted the structure of IPCC as conservative, and who later promoted Pachauri as the most conservative leader they could find, and other parts of the actual, historical record, in addition, as noted, to scientific findings proving IPCC under-stated. Wikipedia's entries integrity and accuracy require that the all too familiar but inaccurate claims of the opposite bias are addressed --  with full documentation, as done in this section.  Harel 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section as it stands, is horrible. It over-uses a 2007 paper William M. Connolley 10:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Right-wing..Bias Under-stating Dangers" (slighly revised) section should stay 

message: Can there be retroactive imprisonments and fines placed upon those found expressing the wrong ideas about global climate change; where the intent supported religious or financial gains to specific groups of power? Tradeskillsllc 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be harsh punishment.70.176.5.79 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imprisonments and fines 

message: Paragraph "Bias might also be inherently present in that as of the mid-1980s, the scientific community had largely accepted the concept of Global Warming as more than merely a regular climatic shift; while the scientists on the IPCC may well be of internation acclaim, there are many who argue against the idea who would also be of international acclaim but for the heavy bias of the scientific community itself." hides bias in neutral sounding words.
and should be removed. Distil it down to its basics and it amounts to "by [date] the scientific
community had largely accepted concept X...(for which additional evidence came out later,
strengthening the earlier 'by and large' acceptance) therefore that's bias" That's not
bias, that's a case scientists being (tentatively but largely) convinced by the evidnece
that X is the case, and later far more evidence comes out that X is indeed the case. That
does not match any reasonable definition of "bias" in any sense of the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.238.94.175 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCC Processes 

message: does anyone have any solid figures of the number of people working in the IPCC? how many people work on each report? how mnay of them are climate scientists? how many are bureaucrats who get in the way of the science? this stuff is really important to know, and doesn't really get a mention anywhere in the article... --naught101 12:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: added a couple of figures from the ipcc website/4armedia release. pretty vague still. what kind of scientists? what kind of government officials? what kind of input? --naught101 03:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of people working with/in the IPCC? 

message: This section's rationale is clearly flawed in that it confuses the word "conservative" with the meaning of "cautious", which is obviously what a preliminary scientific statement must be (and is accordingly described as such by all sources) with the politically-charged word "conservative". Just because a scientist is eventually overcautious and may understate his predictions so that they are not hijacked by scaremongers and susceptible laymen (including journalists), it doesn't mean that he is, politically speaking, a "conservative" or just too business-friendly. It means he is doing his job well and responsibly, that is, with caution. These two concepts of being "conservative" are conflated here into one single line of criticism, which is obviously absurd and simply reflects the rampant POV of this section - as if relying on commondreams.org as an "encyclopedic" source wasn't POV enough...201.37.64.107 12:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agree, in general, although it may be fair to say that some of the bureaucratic wrangling over the wording of the documents has a conservative element. happy for you to change it. --naught101 13:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History and studies suggesting a conservative bias, under-stating dangers" ....