Talk:IPCC Summary for Policymakers

message: Ed, I took out your Singer quote. Have you read the full article? It gave no data about the supposed survey, it neither contained the questions nor the number of queried scientists, and it told us nothing about the degree and the direction in which these scientists supposedly disagreed with the report . As William points out, while Singer certainly tries to evoke the opposite impression, Shine complains about to much toning down in the summary. In short, the SEPP essay is a useless piece of propaganda and has no informational value. --Stephan Schulz 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to remove quotes from published authors who assert that the SPM is biased and/or fails to reflect the actual views of scientists expressed in the Technical Summary. In particular, any complaints made about the omission of the degree of uncertainty are highly relevant. So I'm putting all the quotes back. --Uncle Ed 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Singer is not a "published author" in this context, he is a bad propagandist who apparently invents "sources". An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (of all the scientific publications!) is not a reliable source in this context. And without access to the original survey and data, there is no useful information in this sentence. Giving any lengthy integration report, every scientist is likely to find something that could be improved. Maybe SEPP just asked if the use of Times/Roman vs. Sans Serif would have improved the report ("Scientists claim report not optimal!"). I don't claim that's the case, but we just don't know. Dig out the data (or the Gallup and Greenpeace surveys), and we can talk.--Stephan Schulz 14:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One columnist saying he couldn't find a cited paper is insufficient reason to exclude a source. I'm putting it back in, in accordance with WP:NPOV. If you want to quote The Guardian as dismissing Singer as a "propagandist", go ahead. Then readers can decide for themselves. --Wing Nut 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singer and SEPP 

message: OK, so someone added a merge notice, but not the corresponding discussion. I've preserved the notice, but don't have much of an opinion re the merge William M. Connolley 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a merge is a good thing. Lots of content here to warrant it's own article. Removing tag.+mwtoews 02:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Dr. C., if there is a "point of view" that politicians cannot or do not influence the wording of the SPM, by all means, include it. But do not remove well-referenced information which advances a point of view, simply because you disagree with it. --Uncle Ed 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you seem to be taking POV forks to the ultimate by starting new sections instead of continuing the discussion above. Why? I object to... oh look, its all been said above, what a waste of space William M. Connolley 15:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and it's a false dichtonomy along more than one axis, and its still misleading. Grrrr! --Stephan Schulz 23:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced POV 

message: Wikipedia is to provide FACTS, ie BALANCED articles.
This article only concentrates on the criticisms of the the SMPs. It seems that it is only written by climate change skeptics
I was myself an observer at the IPCC meetings finalising the Fourth Assessment Report SPMs and fully agree with THE LAST PART of Kevin E. Trenberth's quote (which I added myself to better represent his views): "In spite of these trials and tribulations, the result is a reasonably balanced consensus summary."
Come one, let see both sides of the coin!
Jacques de Selliers
--Deselliers 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Feel free to hack it William M. Connolley 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is VERY one-sided 

message: The crit section quotes FS; but the quote supplied doesn't address the headline, which is "SPM overstates the case for anthropogenic global warming". The quote, even if you believe it, says something totally different. The L quote is weird, because it asserts that the Summary is written by one person, whereas as we already know (and the article states) it isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one commented, so I've removed some William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage is fine. If you would like to discuss some modifications, you are free to do so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.112.29.167 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid that you haven't addressed the problem I've identified. Do you understand the problem? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

text:  I agree with WMC in that the quote talks about something other than the section heading.  Also, IPCC's TAR and AR4 both came out after the alleged survey, so even if the survey did happen, at best it was talking about IPCC assessment report #2.  They are now writing #5.  So the survey, if it exists and if FS is accurately talked about in 1997, it's still too old to be relevant to the summary report for TAR or the summary report for AR4.  It should be deleted.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I can't verify the source. It is not (according to a search on NY Times) in any article from Singer in 1997, and it is not found on SEPP either...So verification has failed completely. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crit 

message: The article is about process and credentials but does not say what what the Summarys actually conclude - what are they asking for? E.g. the upper limit of warming should be around 2 degrees maximum. Not even the existence or timeline of the different summaries is mentioned. There is no info about differences in the past summaries. Furthermore the artcile is not in line with the claims of Scientific opinion on climate change. Are the Summaries part of the science opinion or not? Serten (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The assessments change. See IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for the latest. Dmcq (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  That might happen. The article doesnt need to repeat the AR 1-4 , but should explain what differences came up with the summaries and may give an outlook of what will be different with AR5. So far it doesnt mention at all that there are different ones.  Serten (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOTPAPER. We don't need to stick everything into every article. Hyperlinks are easy to click and the scope of individual articles should be well delineated and their size kept within limits.  Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gosh, the summaries are about policy, not the ARs. Its sort of poppycock not to tell what content they have and what is different. Serten (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gosh amazing, I was under the impression you would have though this article was just what you'd like as far as weight is concerned where one can go on about the  process and reception and criticism and forget any tekki detail. Anyway I do agree that this article should have proper references to various assessment reports and a one paragraph summary. The policy part isn't out yet for the fifth assessment so you'll have to go to the fourth to see a proper description. Dmcq (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The summarys are the more political things and they propose sorta solutions. As said, we know from Oppermann, that the Fifth will be less consensus oriented. Serten (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013060349/http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session26/draftreport26.pdf to http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session26/draftreport26.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206221359/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html to http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206221359/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html to http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160330214626/http://grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Findex.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Findex.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501082410/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/004.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/004.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified