Talk:Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report/Archive 1

CNN as a source?
In the "AR4 understates the danger of climate change" section, the third bullet point references a CNN news article. Is this an acceptable source of information? Is there another reference (like a technical report or publication, perhaps the ones released regarding the IPCC by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR))?

--Charlesreid1 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is criticism?
The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one, and it's malfeasance w/r/t representing what can be actually called a consensus in the field is not exactly top secret. Is this one of those subjects where the fervent true-believers redact good opposition points?


 * If you have good points, supported by reliable sources, then you should add them William M. Connolley (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

SRES scenarios outdated?
I've read somewhere (can't find the link) that the atmospheric CO2 levels at present rise faster than the worst-case SRES scenario. This has also been mentioned as a criticism to the report in newspapers at least. Narssarssuaq (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The rise may be faster at the moment, but only if you look at just a few years. The trends are still at/below SRES levels William M. Connolley (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That depends on how you calculate the "trend". It's at least possible that the SRES scenarios are far too optimistic. But I can't find any citations for this. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you mean http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf. But its somewhat hard to understand: as I understand the SRES, they use ~ 1 %/y inc for GHG, which would be + ~50 ppmv since 1990. But the actual inc is more like +30. But the paper says "Carbon dioxide concentration follows the projections almost exactly" William M. Connolley (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/24/10288 is more like it. For instance, this article states that the carbon intensity of the world's energy usage is actually increasing, while all SRES scenarios project a decrease. SRES seems to have been too optimistic on behalf of renewables, and too pessimistic on behalf of the cheaper and simpler stuff: coal. Of course, it's hard to say if this trend will last, but maybe there's something in the article that can be used. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC) To quote the article, "The strong global fossil-fuel emissions growth since 2000 was driven not only by long-term increases in population (P) and per-capita global GDP (g) but also by a cessation or reversal of earlier declining trends in the energy intensity of GDP (e) and the carbon intensity of energy (f). In particular, steady or slightly increasing recent trends in f occurred in both developed and developing regions. In this sense, no region is decarbonizing its energy supply. (...)Continuous decreases in both e and f (and therefore in carbon intensity of GDP, h = ef) are postulated in all IPCC emissions scenarios to 2100". Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But notice you haven't quoted any numbers for atmos CO2 growth William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See fig. 1 in the article I linked to. The graph is sort of low-res, but I guess this qualifies for the "criticism" criterion of this Wikipedia article? Anyhow, the "e" and "f" problems are so significant they could be mentioned no matter what? Narssarssuaq (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Biogeochemical factors
The biogeochemical factors are left out of IPCC's calculations, as they are too difficult to model. This means that the infamous methane releases from thawing permafrost and sublimation(?) of methane clathrate deposits under the sea are not part of the "1.1-6.4 degrees". Given that this is actually true, in my personal opinion the report could be criticised for not adding this extra uncertainty to the temperature increase prognoses, and that the latter thus become flawed. Since I'm not a reliable source, perhaps someone knows of some report that "criticises" the IPCC report from this angle. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Depletion of hydrocarbons
Another point is that depletion of hydrocarbons (oil and gas) isn't modelled by IPCC. At least earlier reports have been criticised by the Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group at Uppsala University, see http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warming/index.html for an article dating back to 2003 and http://www4.tsl.uu.se/isv/UHDSG/ for their home page. They have apparently been involved in the Rimini protocol. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Whether this makes IPCC's estimates "conservative" or not is not clear, as oil and gas can be replaced by coal, which will make things worse, or solar or nuclear power, which is a change for the better climatically speaking. Should we add this criticism? Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AAPG
The AAPG link is dubious and isn't clearly AAPG considered opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong
is a bit of a weird one. As far as I can tell, this is just band-wagon-jumping/self-publicity by J. Scott Armstrong. He is, after all, a prof of marketing William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Marketing seems a relevant discipline: 9 out of 10 cats prefer.... Anyway the co-author, Kesten Green seems to specialise in the field of forecasting methods and so would be an expert for the section in question. Your prejudice against these authors requires a source to substantiate it otherwise it is just OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with prejudice, and everything to do with notability. This particular criticism hasn't been widely noted. Yep, its run its life on blogs and op-eds (ie. its 5 minutes of fame), but there hasn't been any serious response to it. Basically i agree with WMC, it looks like a way to market their new book, which btw. even included a "challenge" to Al Gore.
 * When and if, other researchers begin to take it serious, that means: publish research that supports/reputes Armstrongs assertions - then we can begin to consider it. As of now its undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Harris / John McLean piece
William M. Connelly, I think if you're going to remove someone's addition you should do a better job of justifying that position. Why exactly is the Tom Harris / John McLean piece "not notable" enough for the Criticism section? It is decidedly criticism, and it was widely quoted. (Searching Google for // "tom harris" "john mclean" ipcc // returns over a thosand results in Google. What's more, their criticism has been scarcely addressed (only part of it, in the rebuttal article I cited). A widely-published accusation that the IPCC isn't actually the consensus-based org. that it's made out to be, referenced all over the net, and appearing in places like Salon and The News Letter (Belfast), seems *exactly* what qualifies for the Criticism section of this article. MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Who is this Connelly of whom you speak? Still, I'll answer instead. The CFP is full of GW trash. Who do you find it quoted by? I find only 685 (http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enGB291&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q="The+UN+Climate+Change+Numbers+Hoax") and none by anyone notable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for discussing. I apologize for misspelling your name.  As for CFP, I agree that Salon or The News Letter are more mainstream, better sources, and I should have referenced one of them the first time around.  Would either of those sources satisfy your objection to the cite?  If not, are you saying that Salon and The News Letter are not notable?  As for finding only 685 articles, you can't search by the article title, because different newspapers write different headlines.  Also, it's linked to with something like "There's a good article today in The News Letter by Tom Harris and John McLean about why the IPCC doesn't really reflect the views of 2,500 scientists." In fact, that search still misses hits in which the authors' names aren't mentioned.  And if you search for "the un climate change numbers hoax" and specifically exclude the authors' names, that results in an additional 500 hits beyond the 1000+ I originally mentioned.  The point is, this article got considerable attention among climate change critics and appeared in at least two mainstream publications, and the Criticism section is purportedly about documenting such criticism, regardless of whether it's "true" or not. In the spirit of good faith I'll agree not to restore the piece until we've discussed it further, but honestly I would like to see better justification for it not being in the article before I agree. MichaelBluejay (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there are many ways of counting. Either way, its not a large number. I don't find any salon links, and don't know what "the news letter" is (is it notable). Which did you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm flabbergasted that you don't consider 1500 results to be significant. Exactly what is your criteria?  You can find the Salon page by simply searching Google for "salon" plus the authors' names.  As for The News Letter, I linked to the article in my previous Talk entry.  You can also find its article on Wikipedia by searching WP for "the news letter".  That article identifies it as "one of Nothern Ireland's main daily newspapers".  Getinng back to the issue at hand, I believe that a charge that arguably the most important chapter of IPCC AR4 was reviewed by only 62 people is exactly what constitutes criticism of the IPCC process, especially when the IPCC is otherwise presented as an example of meticulous consensus.  Unless I see more compelling justification for why it should not be included, I'll be adding it back in. MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to gast your flabber. Generally, my criterion is that somethng not be trash. The CFP thing fails that. If you want to push the salon ref, you need to provide it, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed in your discussion, as it's not especially thoughtful. I told you exactly how to find the Salon article. I presented The News Letter and linked to it, and you admitted to being unfamiliar with the publication, and never argued against it as a source. In the meantime, I found the source documents (IPCC AR4 drafts 1 and 2 and associated comments), and indeed there appear to be only 62 reviewers of the chapter with the most important conclusion if AR4, that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.  So the charge by Harris & McLean is not only exceptionally relevant, and not only notable -- it's also factually accurate.  On this basis I will add that criticism back to the article. MichaelBluejay (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A letter to Salon counts for very little; nor is the newsletter a noted forum for cl ch discussion. Your authors appear to have reading comprehension problems: they start off from ""The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws together the work of over 2,500 scientists, has concluded that..." and then slide into "So how many of the 2,500 scientists who reviewed parts of the complete IPCC report...". You see the problem immeadiately, of course: Woods isn't talking about reviewers; he is talking about the people who did the work. Secondly, thats the SOD. You and they have forgotten the FOD. Third, that doesn't include the people who (like me) read it, said "thats OK" and felt no need to comment. But thats irrelevant, because Woods isn't talking about reviews William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So would you say that the Union of Concerned Scientists has reading comprehension problems too? They say that "an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents."  They said reviewers, they didn't say the people who did the work.  Let's also throw into that camp David Suzuki, the most prominent environmentalist in Canada, who said, "2,500 scientists signed the IPCC Report".  Harris & McLean simply used one example of people or entities promoting the idea that IPCC AR4 was reviewed or signed by 2,500 scientists. There are certainly many more, including prominent ones, as I just demonstrated.  As for the FOD vs. the SOD, that point is incredibly off-base.  First off, either you know the number of reviewers of the FOD or you don't.  If you don't know, then you're in a poor position to argue this point when you don't know the background.  If you do know the number of reviewers of the FOD then I'd have to say that you're being willfully deceptive, since that number is not appreciably higher than the number for the SOD.  But more importantly, the FOD and SOD weren't the same documents, so it's irrelevant that there were (barely) more reviewers of the FOD.  The statement in question in the FOD was rather weak, stating only that warming could not *solely* be attributed to human influence.  In the SOD it's much more forceful, saying that human activity is the *dominant* cause.  That's an abrupt, dramatic difference.  And that was the main point of the Harris/McLean piece, pointing out how few scientists actually reviewed *that statement* (not some previous, completely different, considerably weaker statement).  Again, you either knew that the statement in the FOD was completely different and much weaker, or you didn't.  If you didn't know, then you're in a poor position to argue this point when you're not really unfamiliar with the issues.  If you did know, then you're being willfully deceptive.  I will grant that we don't know how many scientists saw the statement and didn't comment (and I'll make that clear in the article), but that in and of itself is a criticism if the IPCC doesn't publish information about how many reviewers were assigned to chapter 9. That is, for something hailed as the most peer-reviewed document in scientific history, I would rather expect to know how many reviewers were assigned to each chapter.  In conclusion, Wikipedia has a duty to represent all points of view fairly.  This is a point of view that was published in the mainstream press and was widely hailed in climate skeptic circles.  (It also happens to be fairly accurate.)  You might disagree with this criticism, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a point of view that deserves to be represented.  Your charge that the Newsletter is not noted for climate change misses the point.  Climate change skeptics would counter, with some validity, that the skeptics' view is not easy to get published because most outlets don't care to allow something into print that they disagree with.  For example, you're certainly doing a pretty good job of trying to keep this viewpoint out of the article yourself, even though Wikipedia is supposed to be committed to representing all points of view fairly. For heaven's sake, the Criticism section should be able to list actual criticism! MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Process crit: rm: why
I took out:


 * Critics contend that the degree of review of AR4 and the consensus it represents have been exaggerated or misunderstood, though not necessarily by the IPCC itself.  For example, AR4 is based on a review of the outside work of over 2,500 scientists, but AR4 is sometimes wrongly described as being reviewed or approvedby over 2,500 scientists.  One such source was the Union of Concerned Scientists inaccurately said that "an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents."  David Suzuki, perhaps the most prominent environmentalist in Canada made a similar, wrong statement when he said, "2,500 scientists signed the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) Report".  Tom Harris and John McLean have pointed out that only 62 scientists actually reviewed the critical chapter 9 which includes the conclusion that human activity is the driving force of global warming,  An examination of the IPCC's "Comments on the Second Order Draft". reveals that there were indeed comments by only 62 reviewers of the second order draft, though we cannot know how many scientists reviewed the chapter but accepted its conclusions by default by making no comments.  While the IPCC has not made known the number of reviewers of chapter 9, it is more likely to be closer to 62 than to 2,500.

because its very badly broken. Whatever Suzuki may or may not have said about the number of reviewers of IPCC docs has nothing at all to do with IPCC proc crit. Similarly AR4 is sometimes wrongly described as being reviewed or approvedby over 2,500 scientists  is wrong: the ref doesn't say that. Not is it true that only 62 people reviewed ch 9 - thats only counting reviewers of the SOD. And this para badly blurs the diff between 2,500 (whole report) and 62 (ch 9 SOD). Though I'm not sure where the 2,500 comes from either William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservative / ?
"Alarmist" is a POV opposite to conservative. I've tried "overstates the dangers of climate change" instead. There must be something better to put in that section than the trashy ISPM William M. Connolley 10:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You could use this - http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/01jan/gerhard.cfm - from the obviously self-serving AAPG. But are they any better? Dansample 02:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Has there been published criticism from the scientific community for the exclusion of ice-sheet flow? Given how widely the estimates of see level rise were cited in the popular press, it must have raised ire somewhere? Mostlyharmless 06:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term "conservative" is incorrect. Traditionally in risk assessment, the use of the term "conservative" is for assessments which err on the side of caution (i.e., because of the lack of data or other uncertainties, but in light of the potential consequences, the outlook provided is one that potentially overstates the risk (conforming to the "precautionary principle")). Therefore, in this case, the term "conservative" as it is used to characterize the criticism opposite that of "alarmist" is redundant and incorrect. Jurban48 (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Arctic_September_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
It seems grossly inappropriate to show that graph at an offset perspective. I can't see how it could possibly be helpful and it certainly exaggerates the slope of the data.. this is exactly the kind of thing we don't need when defending global warming .froth. (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep - its a cr*p graph William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to apply a perspective correction to see how much difference it makes .froth. (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to read Tufte. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The graph needs to go, but rather than just remove it, let's discuss what to do.
 * Graph problems:
 * Not current.
 * Not even clear what date corresponds to the last data point.
 * The graph at the link indicated in the Source isn't the same graph as here
 * What are the copyright issues? The NSIDC is not a Federal government entity, while they say they provide data at no cost, that's not the same as freely copyable.
 * Other problem - sea ice extent glosses over the issue that ice volume is a more important issue - sea ice extent (area) is recovering but volume is not following the same recovery.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sea level rise
I've read several newspaper articles, and spoken with several scientists, who say that sea level rise projections are underestimated in IPCC AR4. I can't find anything about it in the article. Could anyone more knowledgable than me update the article on this, if necessary? Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We should discuss it. The issue is, does more recent work on possible glacial melt indicate higher SLR than IPCC? But you can't say that IPCC SLR proj *are* underestimated - of course we don't know yet William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is there an image of sea ice extent in the section discussing sea level rise. Ignoring the problems with the image (discussed above) they have nothing to do with each other. I'll remove, unless someone explains to me that I'm missing something fundamental.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Amending my question, as the image obviously relates to the first paragraph, why is there a discussion of sea ice extent in a section about sea level rise? The discussion belongs in its own section, properly labeled. Unless someone explains why I am wrong, I'll take a stab at it, although it would be nice to find a better image.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, you're wrong. Read the paragraph. The reason the figures are disputed sheet melting - "The IPCC AR4 estimates explicitly exclude the influence of the melting of ice sheets... This may result in a major underestimate of the upper limit for sea level rise in the long term."Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand why ignoring the melting of ice sheets (Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers) may lead to underestimation of sea level rise, but that wasn't my question. My question is why is the opening paragraph about Arctic sea ice extent in this section. The entire Arctic could melt, and while it would have implications, it wouldn't affect sea level one millimeter. Do you disagree?-- SPhilbrick  T  21:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not checked the context of this discussion, but it is a fallacy to think that the sea-ice melt won't affect the sea level. Its a question of density, and fresh water vs. sea water. (ie. this is not the same as an ice-cube in a glass of water, do the experiment with an ice-cube in a glass of sea-water and verify). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC) [here is a short article on this  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)]
 * That experiment relates to what happens when freshwater ice melts in sea water. Not applicable here, as we are talking about Arctic sea ice. (The Antarctic is a different issue, because of non-trivial precipitation and other issues, but we aren't talking Antarctica, we are talking about the Arctic.)-- SPhilbrick  T  02:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The density effect on sea level due to melting ice having lower salinity than sea water is real, but negligible for almost all practical purposes. You can do the math. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Thus, the IPCC has erroneously used a date of 2035 instead of 2350."
Is there a reliable source for this, or is it OR? ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Also is this statement in the article OR: "The WWF report appears to be relying on "Variations of Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale""? ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed your tag - it looks pointlessly provocative; there are enough people watching this talk page. As to the substance: no, I don't think there is any OR in there. That IPCC has used 2350 instead of 2035 is supported by numerous sources William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Look here http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/ipcc_slips_on_the_ice/ for an analysis of this topic; might have application improving this section. Mirboj (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted the tag. Compared to the media sources I've read (eg: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece) the inserted text is grossly POV (not to mention factually incorrect in places). Please provide references that establish the contested statements. I have reviewed the link above, nowhere AFAICT does it state that 2035 was substituted for 2050 it does clearly show substitution in one place, but NOT the place garnering most attention. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I remind WMC that this article is under probation. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think it is incorrect, or POV in places, please identify those places and quote them here. I am not aware of any inaccuracies; or indeed of any POV. Naturally, when you placed a tag mentioning OR, I assumed that was your problem; now you're importing a pile of new vague allegations. Please put up William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * may be of interest William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OR is my primary concern. Mentioning other, related, concerns, does not seem out-of-place. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ref above. I will re-read it tomorrow, but I have two observations.  (1) The article clearly demonstrates that the review process is capable of breaking down (basically authors ignoring reviewer calls for a cite - where' the science in that?) - Your paragraphs steer well clear of that perspective (this is th POV issue) (2) The claim that it was not a central finding and reported is untrue - I have no data for this (I haven't gone hunting), but I know that *I* picked up on it from MSM somewhere - and have subsequently used the 'fact' elsewhere.  My POV is that I am aggrieved by the systematic failure of the IPCC checks and balances, and for the sake of credibility->earth that failure must not be downplayed!  ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So the only piece of "incorrectness" you can find is "The claim that it was not a central finding and reported is untrue" - firstly, I dispute your (unsupported) assertion that it was a central finding. In response, I offer the contention that this finding does not appear in the Policymakers summary. Secondly, I don't see that text in the article. Please clarify William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, William. I'm rather unsure about using a blog by Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales, as a source, though the piece does give a useful outline of the problem. He links to posts by Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon whose expertise as Professor of Meteorology and Texas State Climatologist make that a suitable source, and I would suggest the article can be modified to reflect that source, with the addition of the IPPC statement linked below. Anyone willing to check that over and modify the article accordingly? . . dave souza, talk 17:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I could have been clearer. I don't think we'd get away with using that as a source - however, it is correct, and a useful source of info for us on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, agree that Lambert's blog is unsuitable as a cited source, but Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon should be acceptable in accordance with WP:SPS. We also now have the BBC report cited, and it covers the main points subject to some more detailed clarifications, which I think are covered by N-G and the IPCC statement. . . dave souza, talk 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A new source: and yes I now he is considered non-conformist or whatever but the info seems correct. 91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The usual stuff from Christopher Booker. It does contain one nice quote however: issue an unprecedented admission - should we point out that this is, indeed, the first stubstantive error that anyone has ever found in the IPCC reports? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more of this: " In fact Dr Hasnain had first made his own controversial claim two months earlier, in a much longer interview with an Indian environmental magazine, Down to Earth, in April 1999. It was the wording of this interview which the IPCC was to quote almost exactly in its 2007 report. Clearly the IPCC was aware that to cite a little Indian magazine as the reference for such a startling prediction would hardly seem sound scientific practice. But it discovered that Dr Hasnain's slightly later interview with New Scientist had been quoted in a 2005 report by the environmental campaigning group WWF. So it was this, rather oddly, which the IPCC cited as its authority – even though the words it quoted were taken directly from the earlier interview. But even before the 2007 report was published, it now emerges, the offending claim was challenged, not least by a leading Austrian glaciologist, Dr Georg Kaser, a lead author on the 2007 report. He described Dr Hasnain's prediction of glaciers disappearing by 2035 as "so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing". " 91.153.115.15 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would request someone with the know-how redirect "Glaciergate" to this spot. Otherwise someone will undoubtedly create such an article with ensuing edit wars that lead nowhere. 91.153.115.15 (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This would not be appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

IPCC statement
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf William M. Connolley (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, very useful. My suggestion is that the paragraph should start with this, making it clear that the Synthesis Report is robust but that they hve acknowledged the problem with one paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need this article?
Why do we need to have a separate article for criticism of AR4 when we don't have an analogous article praising it? Isn't it a violation of WP:NPOV? I'm planning to dismantle this article gradually and add this as a section to IPCC AR4 main article and link in IPCC article with summary. Please respond with your comments. Thanks. EngineerFromVega (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See "summary style" guidance, and note that the main AR4 article which is already pretty long has a "Criticism" section linked to this page. So yes, we need this to cover the criticisms in the sort of detail that would be inappropriate in the main article, and each article is required to comply with NPOV policy. Your plans are inappropriate. . dave souza, talk 17:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I agree with your viewpoint. However, as per WP:CRITICISM, writing a separate article for criticism without an analogous article for praise is like giving undue weight to criticism. I've checked that the AR4 article has only 5-6 lines of criticism with a link to this article. Why shouldn't we expand that section first before writing a completely separate article? EngineerFromVega (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Balance needn't be criticism vs. praise, in this case there's a balance between criticism saying manmade warming is understated, and criticism saying it's exaggerated. The section in the other article rightly gives a brief summary of this article, if you feel it needs improved please work on it and gain consensus on the talk page of the other article. However, this article still remains as a necessary expansion of the section there which should be brief to avoid overwhelming the other article. . . dave souza, talk 00:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced?
What is the problem here ? ICSI does indeed mention 2350 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The newsdaily.com/stories reference cited doesn't, and if anything the reference seems to be misplaced. Both it and the BBC article can make good references for aspects of the article which are currently cited to primary sources. At a pinch, the the ICSI source itself could be cited for the 2350 date, but I'd like to see a secondary source commenting that it "does not provide a good scientific justification for that date". Think of it as work in progress. . . dave souza, talk 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Have now reorganised the section a bit, drawing on recent sources. The BBC's stetements about Georg Kaser are also worth summarising, something yet to be done. . . dave souza, talk 08:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your change, because it broke things. I'll try to patch it back in. In particular, "The WWF campaigning report cited a 1999 New Scientist report of a telephone interview " is unambiguously wrong, because we know what the WWF cited, because they tell us, and indeed the text telling us is on the page, so I'm not sure how you came to make that error. I've restored your intro, but also some other useful stuff that you deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for easy reference, this was discussed by a few of us here, and a few references were bandied about at the time, that may or may not be useful now. --Nigelj (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Oreno's change to the header: this is all covered by Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Lets put it all here shall we, since the editing is occurring here. The WWF report that the IPCC is quoting says:


 * "In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood [sic] of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”. [p. 38]". That is a direct statement from the source itself that they got the date 2035 from ICSI.

So there is no possible doubt that WWF thought they were getting 2035 from ICSI; they say so specifically William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. Replies to this message will not be read - please address any follow-up comments to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rats
I may have made a teensy error in some of this. Please talk amongst yourselves for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Breaking news on Monday
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55556/title/IPCCs_Himalayan_glacier_mistake_not_an_accident "Until now, the organization that published the report – had argued the exaggerated figures in that report were an accident: due to insufficient fact checking of the source material. Uh no. It now appears the incident wasn’t quite that innocent. " "A noble motive, perhaps, but totally inexcusable." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html "The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.203.141.87 (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia ain't news, and the Daily Mail's spin on events is particularly dubious, even when recycled by Science News. Professor Murari Lal may have shown the bad judgement to agree to an interview with the Mail, but more reliable assessment is needed. . . dave souza, talk 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, do you mean the direct quotes form the Dr. involved are faked? ie, the Dr. did not actually say the things attributed to him as quotes? Or are you only talking about the editorial writing of that newspaper article? It's not clear which you mean. in short, do you think the direct quotes from the Dr. are factual? ie, he said those things? Regarding the editorial position of one paper or the other (is this even relevant?) it's news in most papers worldwide.. ("recycled" if you prefer that term?) http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5729946/the-intergovernmental-perjury-over-climate-catastrophe-ctd.thtml http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/5871336/__IPCC_wilde_politici_benvloeden__.html?p=18,2 (One can choose whatever editorial position one prefers, I guess.) Again it's not clear if you're saying, you believe the Dr. did NOT SAY the various quotes from him, ie you feel it is likely the mail may have simply lied about what he said. (Or, you take it that he DID say those things, BUT, you're just talking about that newspapers editorial position???)
 * We should not use the Daily Mail as a source for anything William M. Connolley (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm .. that's a bit difficult, you're not answering the question. You're stating a broader, more general position, that avoids answering the question. The question is, did the Dr. say the direct quotes, attributed to him? Is your position: (A) "Yes, he very likely did" [i.e., even though everyone agrees the DM is junk] or alternately (B) "It's very likely he did not" [i.e., because the DM is SO bad they often simply MAKE UP direct quotes] .... ? And what about Davesouza? I have not seen any claims by other media that he was misquoted? (There is every sort of spin ON the comments in different major newspapers - just choose the spin you prefer - but as far as I am seeing nobody is saying he was misquoted or that the quotes were made-up wholesale?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.203.141.87 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do please sign your posts and save our poor bots some work. You've quoted the spin, not what the Mail claims he said, and don't take consideration of the probability that the quotes from him were taken out of context. The spin is clearly a stretch, and haste to insert that isn't needed. Do please find more reputable sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well I quoted the papers just as an intro. I figured anyone could click and see what Dr. Lal said, which is all over the place today, everyone with any interest in the subject knows exactly what he said. If you like, simply delete the quotes I typed in up above. (I did not mean the article should include anything I typed here, it's just a discussion page.) Indeed, why not delete everything down to this point (would that be sensible?)  (If I don't hear back from you I will do that.)


 * sorry, I did not hear back from you, so I deleted it. You then alerted me I shouldn't have deleted it, so I put it back.  (I can see that wikipedia is more suitable for solicitors or those with a lot of time on their hands!  :) )

Now that that is completely out of the way, Dr.Lal said: ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’ Dr. Lal said "‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action." Assuming Dr. Lal DID say these things, it changes the breaking story tremendously and (eventually, if it plays out over a few months, and Lal does not (for example) claim that, as you think, he was misquoted) it would change this article tremendously. To be clear, I think it is extremely unlikely the quotes were "out of context" or "made up from whole cloth", because at this time of day Lal would have been heard objecting loudly in many media -- let's see how it plays out over a few weeks. To ask the question once again, do you think, at this time, there is a chance that this is misquoting??? You did not answer in your previous comment, you just said "You .. don't take consideration of the probability that the quotes from him were taken out of context." Yes, I did take consideration of that possibility, and indeed, I was/am asking your opinion on the possibility of it. In MY opinion - at this point, evening - it is NOT possible they are misquotes, nor is it possible DM just "made it up." So that's my opinion. What is your opinion? 83.203.141.87 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of the facts is as irrelevant as my opinion of them, my considered view is that we need verification of the significance and interpretation of this from more than the instant news hits of campaigning newspapers. . . dave souza, talk 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sad to say, the Daily Mail is notorious for exaggerations. However, I've not seen it tell outright lies and there is a strong likelihood (bordering on certainty) that this quote is genuine.
 * But - although it's part of a breaking story (the kind Wikipedia often follows) there is no urgency to add it now. It took almost a month for WMC to add the 2035/2350 IPCC disaster to this article and that's as speedily as we have to move now. Readers will not hold it against us for being a month out of date, it's POV and censorship they don't like. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "However, I've not seen it tell outright lies", interesting... Since the same author in the Daily Mail on the same topic was misquoting and misrepresenting Mojib Latif (a thread in which you btw. were part). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, certainly, it could take months to solidify.

As I said just above "Assuming Dr. Lal DID say these things, it changes the breaking story tremendously and (eventually, if it plays out over a few months ... ) it would change this article tremendously."

Dave, you have avoided answering the question again, so I won't ask again The other fellow below votes MaybeLalNeverSaidIt, the other fellow above votes LalProbablySaidIt and I vote LalProbablySaidIt.

Thus, it appears to be an issue worth watching as it completely changes the "glacier issue" if indeed Lal Said It. (ie, if the quotes are not just an fabrication from the paper in question).

("Let us proceed at glacial speed" - pun) 83.203.141.87 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but i do not "vote" either way. It is not a reliable source for this sort of thing - and that makes it irrelevant. I would note one thing though: The condemning part of the article, doesn't lie in what Lal said or not - but rather in the journalists interpretation of what it means, and that btw. is a wrong interpretation - since there is no restriction or even problem with using "gray literature" (almost all government expert reports for instance are "gray literature")... peer-review isn't a necessity for "verification", it is just one type of "verification". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf
This is an excellent ref to the area and issue in general, and this issue in particular. See Slide 40.

Point 5 from that page: ''This was a bad error. It was a really bad paragraph, and poses a legitimate question about how to improve IPCC’s review process. It was not a conspiracy. The error does not compromise the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which for the most part was well reviewed and is highly accurate.''

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, very pithy and concise. The same ground is covered in their letter published by Science on 20 January, which clearly notes that "A bibliographic search suggests that the second WG-II sentence is copied inaccurately from (8), in which the predicted date for shrinkage of the world total from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 is 2350, not 2035." That's a further clarification of Cogley's statement at the start of December 2009. More refs in recent NS articles, a clearer picture is now emerging. . dave souza, talk 23:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, using that as a major source I've set out the sequence more clearly, including the inportant quote above from Cogley et al.'s paper. . . dave souza, talk 00:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

IPCC-bashing (and calling it X-gate) becoming a national pastime?
I see an IP editor has recently tried to shoe-horn brief one-sided coverage of what is already being called 'disastergate' into the lede. Before that happens, of course the facts and RSs need to be properly covered in the body of the article. There is a Times article that seemed to start it all off, then there are two articles giving a more balanced view of the whole situation in the Grauniad: and. (I'm amazed at what a political rag The Times has become under Murdoch, newspaper of record no more I'm afraid) --Nigelj (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is perhaps best semi-protected for a while, if this continues William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Huston we have a problem
In the current text it we attribute this to Lal:
 * "The IPCC authors did exactly what was expected from them. ... We relied rather heavily on grey [not peer-reviewed] literature, including the WWF report. The error, if any, lies with Dr Hasnain's assertion and not with the IPCC authors."

There are two problems with this: --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Combination of two quotes that may or may not have been said in that order. The combination makes it seem as if the IPCC expected that Lal should use gray literature. Which is not what the source states.
 * 2) There is a substantial reason to think that Lal didn't in fact say this / is misquoted. See this  and this (it is a blog yes, so cannot be sourced - but it raises an interesting question-mark)
 * Houston? As that nice rural link shows, I'm not an expert. The links you give question The Mail on Sunday's sensationalist piece of Sunday, 24 January 2010. (all their stuff is sensationalist, a Tory dream world of misinformation. Not to be confused with the older and more reputable Sunday Mail ) The quotes I included are from the New Scientist of 13 January, which has a fuller version I can't read without a subscription – if someone can check that out I'll be grateful. Now, the NS has been a bit sensationalist of late, especially with article or issue titles. In the interim I've commented out the quotes, and summarised them as "The question of whether it was acceptable to use material which had not been peer reviewed has been disputed." That can be expanded if appropriate, but I don't want to go into too much detail on it. Thanks, dave souza, talk 10:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Process based criticism non scientific?
Since science is a process, the application of the scientific method to questions, it is at best infelicitous and at worst POV pushing to call process based criticism non scientific, because all the scientific criticism could fall under the same label. I am not a regular editor here so could someone who is please change this.173.52.8.150 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

More breaking news on Sunday
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

Hmm - is it getting to the point where this article as it stands is now wildly out of date?

Let's think about this .. last week Dr Lal says (let's quote him) : ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in." and "‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

(see the extended legalistic discuss above in "Breaking news on Monday")

Of course, wikipedia has to wait a week or two (or five, or 10) to make sure Dr Lal doesn't retract this and that it isn't BS, etc etc.

But eventually there has to be some sort of "admission" (if you will!) by wikipedia that there is widespread comment, belief, and at the extreme least discussion about the (now obviosity) that the section in question were "politically motivated" - per Dr Lal's direct quotes.

But this week we have this .. "The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine."

Currently, the IPPC article section "Criticism of IPCC / rojected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers; use of 2035 in place of 2350", simply says this:

"A paragraph in the 2007 Working Group II report ("Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"), chapter 10 included a projection that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. [...]  The IPCC has since acknowledged that the date is incorrect, while reaffirming that the conclusion in the final summary was robust. They expressed regret for "the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance". [...] "

That is an astoundingly soft description of the fact that: (1) Dr Lal has openly and plainly admitted he included it for political reasons and (2) the claims were based on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

This article, and also the section "critcism" in the general IPPC article, is really in danger of becoming something of a laughing stock, you know?

Certainly, there's room for "let's wait a little while." And there's certainly room for "oh, the newspaper XYZ, Everyone Knows that is a trash newspaper." And certainly, there's room for trying to avoid sensationalism. But wikipedia has to LIVE IN REALITY.

Wikipedia is supposed to DESCRIBE REALITY. This article (for example) is supposed to (presumably?) describe the "critcism of AR4", since the title is "criticism of AR4"

There is just an overwhelming, vast, every-newspaper, widespread amount of Criticism of AR4 going on that is, weirdly, not being DESCRIBED in the article.

Even if you are an incredibly ardent fan of the IPCC, there has to come a point where you want the wikipedia article to NOT LOOK like it was written by the PR company of the IPCC, doing "damage control". You know?

Put it this way - this article is being conservative IN THE EXTREME about basically mentioning ANYTHING, ANY criticism (no matter how popular, widespread, or ridiculously central and sourced such as DIRECT QUOTES) ... the article is being astonishingly "patient with" the IPCC and is becoming increasingly divorced from DESCRIBING REALITY (such as any, say, "criticism of the IPCC" which is the article title).

Hope it helps! 83.203.208.242 (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do all these people type in capital letters, or is it the same one over and over? --Nigelj (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NIgel, I like occasionally using capital letters for words or phrases (or bold words, or italic words), when trying to explain something clearly. In any event, your attitude is disturbing. "These people" .. you mean people who disagree with you? Blacks? Europeans?  Or what do you mean exactly?  Can you explain yourself?


 * It's quite frustrating when someone writes a long, considered comment, and the only response is a very ignorant "meta-comment" that completely avoids all substance. If you have anything, at all, of any consequence to say - anything - at all - any opinion, any fact, any vague thought that comes through your head - type that thought of yours in English using your keyboard.


 * "Meta-comments" achieve absolutely nothing (unless you're trying to build a folio for comedy writing or something). When you answer, try to include SOME, ANY substance, no need for any metacomments. And please explain precisely what you mean in English about "these people". 83.203.208.242 (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * DON'T SHOUT and don't believe the Torygraph. Your stuff about Lal is wrong: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/25/un-scientist-refutes-daily-mail-claim-himalayan-glacier-2035-ipcc-mistake-not-politically-motivated/ William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Curious: Joe Romm calls Dr. Lal and writes about it in his blog, and that "refutes" Roses' story? Romm clearly has an agenda (as anyone who reads his blog can tell), so I'm not sure that his claims are what we should be relying on to accurately portray the truth. Isn't there some relatively objective source that refutes the DM piece?Jurban48 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * William Connolley, you can't be serious here? "my" stuff about Lal is "wrong" because you read a blog?


 * You need to step back and have a cup of coffee, reality is receding in to the distance ...


 * No chance of an apology or anything else from user 'Nigelj' ? 83.203.138.48 (talk)


 * IP, please apologise to William Connolley and Nigelj, your lack of knowledge has led you to misunderstand the situation. Also, as for the credibility of the Torygraph as a source for breaking news, see below. . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave Souza, if you are trying to make humorous metacomments (perhaps to build a comedy writing folio, or something?), please stop wasting time. Address improving the article or just be quiet. 81.51.247.234 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can anyone contact "Nigel J" and have him explain himself above? Were his comments racist? 81.51.247.234 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

More breaking news .. India rejects the IPCC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html

Um, this article at hand is now so out of date it is nutty.

There is now so much criticism of the IPCC that India has formed it's own counter-IPCC body.

Wikipedia - certainly this article - is becoming marginalised and bizarre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.203.138.48 (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Silly stuff! A classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. That newspaper's story lasted how long – maybe 12 hours online, bet it never got into print. Click on the link now to check. The story that so excited you is mirrored here at present: "India has threatened to pull out of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is to set up its own climate change body because it "cannot rely" on the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri. The Indian government's announcement is a snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he fights to defend his reputation after the disclosure that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035." What a difference a few hours makes. "The Indian government is backing Pachauri to the hilt. Let there be no doubt on that. There is no wavering in the support of the Indian government. The Prime Minister and others in the government are supporting him as chairmen of IPCC. Let there be no two opinions on that," Mr Ramesh said." . . dave souza, talk 12:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Useful new analysis
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/ is excellent. It takes everyone to pieces. The analysis of the reviewers responses to people pointing out the errors is great William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it really worth mentioning a minor blog like this? It's an opinion piece. Who cares?


 * Also, it's not an analysis of "criticism of the IPCC" (it's not - say - a histiograph of how many newspapers are critcising the IPCC or a list of who and what is critcising the IPCC). It's not actually about "critcism of the IPCC". It's just a thought-piece blog article in support of the IPCC. Note that this article is about "criticism of the IPCC". It's not about "who's writing thought-pieces on blogs about the IPCC".


 * The page is about "criticism of the IPCC". So, observe and report on criticism of the IPCC.  That's a very simple idea.


 * Since Dave and William prefer to own this page, and have the time to do so, I really suggest you DELETE the page. It is pointless. It is supposed to be about "critcism of the IPCC". As it stands it's really a growing embarrassment to wikipedia. It's a typical example of the sort of politicised page that is owned by a couple of editors who have the time to do so and which has drifted off in to dreamland.


 * I suggest you delete the page. It would be a more honest straightforward approach. 81.51.247.234 (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your arguments that we shouldn't cover this issue properly are poor, you assertions about other editors are baseless and do nothing for your own anonymous credibility. . . dave souza, talk 11:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting and useful examination of the developments, however The Yale Forum on Climate Change and The Media doesn't seem to meet WP:SPS standards so care is needed. In broad terms it seems to support the other sources used for the article, there are some useful clarifications and details that are worth considering. In particular, it's notable that the origin of the wording and a table in the AR$ WGII report came from Mridula Chettri’s April 30, 1999, article for the reputable Indian environmental magazine Down to Earth. We've already cited the IEP which gives the April edition of Down to Earth as the source, so I've added that title in. Worthwhile as further explanation, but I'm cautious about citing it directly. . dave souza, talk 11:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC) oops, so many akronyms. . . dave souza, talk 14:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully "AR$" was a typo not an analogue of "micro$oft" :-). The point the Yale text brings out most clearly is that most (all?) of the mistakes were spotted in review. This is an underreported part of the story, and I think it casts those who revised the draft in a poor light: in essence, it looks to me as though they simply weren't interested in constructive criticism of their draft (erm, have you seen ? It is soooo true) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

criticism of the IPCC: Robert Watson (previous chairman of the IPCC)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

"A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility. Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming."

Let me guess .. William and Dave will reply to this explaining that Watson is an unimportant figure and the Times is a political rag.

Wikipedia is becoming a joke. More specifically it is being turned in to a joke by politicised editors - such as William and Dave - who owns pages like this.

This wikipedia page is supposed to be about criticism of the IPCC. But the page is beyond laughable .. it is sad. The IPCC is going through a bout of severe world-wide critcism by every major newspaper but it is all being gleefully ignored or worked around by William and Dave.

The fact that "anyone can own" a page on Wikipedia just by putting in a large number of hours and endlessly referencing minor politicised blogs that favour your position --- unfortunately for you also means that "anyone can embarrass" themselves, in public, in front of zillions of readers. This is all going down indelibly in history. It's very silly.

Of course, the editors that own this page will probably delete this comment! Fortunately it remains forever in the history files. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.247.234 (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me guess – you're trolling and IP hopping? Pity your rant gets in the way of a reasonable issue, that we should include coverage of various opinions about how to improve the IPCC. It's a bit of an emerging story with the usual problems that require WP:NOTNEWS, but it is interesting to note that Professor Bob Watson, who chaired the IPCC before Dr Pachauri, called for changes in the way the IPCC compiles future reports. “It is concerning that these mistakes have appeared in the IPCC report, but there is no doubt the earth’s climate is changing and the only way we can explain those changes is primarily human activity, [Dr Pachauri] “cannot be personally blamed for one or two incorrect sentences in the IPCC report”, but Watson stressed that the chairman must take responsibility for correcting errors.
 * Watson and Beddington are among those also covered in this story, and it's interesting to note allegations that Bush, at the behest of ExxonMobil, got Watson replaced by Pachauri. A better source is needed for that point.
 * Since we cover various views, we should also include the issue that Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent. So, some points to be added. . dave souza, talk 12:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Crop yields?
What is the criticism in the new "African crop yield projections" section. It says, Chapter 9 of the Working Group II report states that "In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)." Is this supposed to be wrong in some way? Which are these "other countries"? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As a point of information, the version of the statement in the synthesis here (p. 50 of the report, p. 28 of the pdf) is that "By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition." The pdf includes {WGII 9.4, SPM} at the end, not apparent in the html version. The Sunday Times says that Bob Watson said such claims should be based on hard evidence. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report”. Since he was replaced by Pachauri, allegedly at the request of Bush and ExxonMobil, the implication is that Watson is criticising the rules permitting use of non-peer reviewed papers, but that thought looks rather like original research. Haven't checked what the rules were under Watson. . . dave souza, talk 12:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I took the section out:


 * ===African crop yield projections=== Chapter 9 of the Working Group II report states that "In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)." This claim was also included in the AR4 Synthesis Report, and has been mentioned in speeches by IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.  The source cited in the report for this claim is a non-peer reviewed policy paper published by International Institute for Sustainable Development, a Canadian think tank.  Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's climate impacts team, questioned the claim, telling the Sunday Times that "I was not an author on the Synthesis Report but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines" 

It isn't really notable, and it doesn't have much to say. Come back in a rmmonth; if anyone still cares then it might have some durability and be worth considering William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Another good source
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/10/ipcc-reform William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Structural issues
The lede implies an article structure. The article starts to follow it but then falls apart. The led implied structure is first the distinction between scientific and process issues, then, within scientific, the possibility that the report understates or overstates dangers. (As an aside, the word "dangers" doesn't accurately reflect the content, but we can come back tot hat.

The distinction between scientific and process exists. But then, within scientific, there is a heading referring to understating, but no comparable heading referring to overstating. The "understated" section has one subsection, which itself is bad form, but that can be fixed. If you number your sections, then sections 1.2 and 1.3 conceptually belong to an "overstatement" section.

Additionally the Netherlands issue has been folded into the process section, but it is not preally a process issue.

There are also come content issues. There's a reference to the year 2035 being a type, which was a working hypothesis but never turned out to be true.

As noted the "understated" section shouldn't have one subsection, but this can be remedied. There are two unrelated issues in this section, the first being the discussion of the seas level extent dropping faster than predicted, and the second being glacial dynamics, which could use some copy editing. The seas level extent issue isn't a sea level issue (I don't believe, see discussion upthread). If that can be resolved we can work on the content.

I'll mock up a proposed structure, but I'd like some feedback - is it desirable to follow the implied structure of the lede, or should we create a different structure?-- SPhilbrick  T  03:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This thing has grown, from being a receiving ground for a couple of incidents. The entire structure should be re-thought William M. Connolley (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Process-based in opening sentence
I have tried to clarify what 'process-based' might mean in the opening sentence of this article. A Wikipedia search for the term shows that it is either ambiguous/confusing or non-notable and so can't be left in the headline without some explanation. Without this, does it refer to Process (computing), Process (science), or something to do with Process control or Process-based management? Clarity is needed in an opening statement, not the use of a term that is almost guaranteed to confuse the ordinary reader, that cannot be wikilinked. --Nigelj (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

More on Structure
This is the structure implied by lede:

A Scientific criticism 1. AR4 understates danger 2. AR4 overstates danger B Process criticism

However this is the structure actually used:

A Scientific criticism 1. AR4 understates danger a. Example of understatement 2. Example of overstatement 3. Another example of overstatement B Process criticism Other examples of overstatement

The structure actually used is flawed because of lack of parallelism. One option is to simply follow the implied structure. At the same time, we should separate out the two conflated understatement items.

That might look as follows:

A Scientific criticism 1. AR4 understates danger a. Arctic sea ice extent dropping faster than predicted b. Glacial dynamic issues 2. AR4 overstates danger a. Himalayan glacier date issue b. African crop yields (if supportable) c. Rain forest issue d. Extreme event frequency (now under Process) e. Netherlands below sea level area B Process criticism

While this might solve some structural problems, it has it own problems. Three of these problems:
 * Treating issues as Scientific or Process implies these are opposites and Process is not Scientific (mentioned upthread). A better alternative is Content versus Process, although that may be too stilted for a general encyclopdia. Thoughts?
 * Sorting issues into "overstate" or "understate" misses that some may just be errors. The Netherlands issue (assuming is is backed up reliably) neither overstates nor understates, it simply is an error. I concur with the goal of including all meaningful criticism, not just criticism that comes from skeptics, but I'm not convinced this is the best metric.
 * The items in the scientific lists are clearly AR4 issues, while the Process criticism is more a criticism of the overall approach, rather than the specific deliverable. I don't feel strongly about removing the process criticism, but I'm not happy about the lack of parallelism.

One possible improvement (if one accepts that both overstatement and understatement criticism belongs, but sorting isn't needed: A Content Criticism  1. Arctic sea ice extent dropping faster than predicted   2. Glacial dynamic issues   3. Himalayan glacier date issue   4. African crop yields (if supportable)   5. Rain forest issue   6. Extreme event frequency (now under Process)   7. Netherlands below sea level area B Process criticism   1. Dismissal of concerns (Landsea)   2. Uncertainty   3. Recommended procedural change

-- SPhilbrick  T  15:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That organization sounds reasonable to me. Do it. Oren0 (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at a new organization, following the outline proposed here. The draft is here

Important note - this only addresses organizational issues. Some items still to address: If there is consensus the structure is an improvement, I can make it, then we can work on improving the content.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sea ice extent graphic has been criticized. At a minimum, it is dated. I've also written to the creator about copyright and other issues, and have not yet received a response. If copyright isn't a problem, we need a more recent version, although some have criticized the appearance, so we may need a different graphic for other reasons.
 * The glacier dynamics discussion is confusing, as I think it misleads the reader into thinking that melting of glacial ice is in question, when it is really (I think) concerns about increased ice flow. While the increased flow ends up in seas and melts, to simply call it melting is misleading. Another editor promised to send me some relevant research, but I haven't received it yet.
 * I think the gray literature section is problematic. I've seen the criticism, but I don't think either example in this section is an example of gray literature. After further review, the term is broader than I realized. In addition there are no references, so work needs to be done.
 * Well spotted. I've tagged the section for now as a reminder to all. --Nigelj (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nigel, a source was added, the not very reliable Sunday Telegraph. I've noted the source and added the info that grey literature is allowed. In related news, today's Observer featured sea levels claims and a spat about Peiser misquoting a scientist involved in setting up the IPCC, who's demanded an apology. In tomorrow's Grauniad, Martin Parry defends the IPCC against these accusations. Will add a mention of that. dave souza, talk 20:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work. It's always amazing how much clearer things become once they are sourced, and are balanced by including all relevant POVs. Well done, Dave. I've just tweaked the wording at the start of the 2nd sentence to make the context and tense clearer, now that we have a context for these remarks. --Nigelj (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Total re-write
This thing needs a total re-write and a new title. It needs to become "opinions on the IPCC AR4" or somesuch (at least, I think "Crit of..." articles are uncommon and intrinsically POV; I can't see any reason why this one should be so one sided William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ROFL! Why don't you and the other article owners simply delete it?  It would be more honest and straightforward. After all, there's no criticism of the IPCC at the moment right? Classic wikipedia moment.  81.51.78.218 (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In fact WP:NPOV suggests, as an example, 'renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"', to 'encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing'. --Nigelj (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. While "criticism" is used by some in a neutral way, it is often pejorative, so I'd support an alternative title. I stills see value in my proposal for organization, possibly just changing "criticism" to "issues" for section heads, although that doesn't work for the title.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to diss your proposal by ignoring it :-). But I do think the article needs to be expanded to include the numerous people who have said nice things about it; its substantial influence on misc goverment thinking; its implicit agenda-setting (for example, most skeptics set themselves up in opposition to it) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not convinced that a total rewrite is appropriate, but agree with ideas of restructuring and retitling. Would "Views on the IPCC AR4" work better than "opinions"? . . dave souza, talk 17:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To WMC -I didn't interpret your comment as dissing, thanks for being concerned. I simply agreed that the word "criticism" was problematic, then realized my proposed structure uses it.
 * To Dave, I like that. -- SPhilbrick  T  18:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Views is the right direction, but I'd like a name that allows me to sneak in its substantial influence on misc goverment thinking; its implicit agenda-setting William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reactions to IPCC AR4? --Nigelj (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We do have Reactions to the September 11 attacks-- SPhilbrick  T  20:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe expand one of the acronyms: Reactions to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report --Nigelj (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At least one. I'd say expand both.  Guettarda (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So, shall we go ahead and move the article to Reactions to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or Reactions to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, or one of the other suggestions above? I think it would be good to get the move in asap, so that it will flag to us all the expanded, more NPOV, scope that the new title suggests. Votes? Comments? Consensus? --Nigelj (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I like Reactions to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report


 * Why?
 * The initialism IPCC is sufficiently well-know to leave it abbreviated.
 * The initialism FAR4 is not.
 * Parallel format to related article IPCC Fourth Assessment Report


 * I suggest (unless we hear objecting views) that you move the article, then I'll change to the new structure, then we can all work on improving content.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it's been over 24 hours since I proposed a restructure, and some have affirmatively supported, with no one opposed. I thought it might make sense to do the move first, but perhpas we should wait for more feedback; I was thinking it made sense to do the move then the restructure, but I'll do it the other way around. I'll add an "in use" template and remove it when done. SPhilbrick  T  22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I checked edits made between the time I copied the article and now to make sure intermediate edits (mainly to grey literature) were included. I think I got them. SPhilbrick  T  22:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer responses to the IPCC AR4. This report has been a game-changer, and focussing solely on critiques, many by fringe elements, is missing its overal significance. To discuss the report correctly, a more even-handed article discussing all responses to the report, placing the few controversies and criticisms into perspective, would be more in keeping with the Neutral point of view policy in my opinion. --TS 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm catching your point. Are you arguing for "responses" over "reactions" or "responses over "criticisms"? If the latter, I agree, but the current proposal is "reactions". I have a slight preference for "reactions over "responses" as "responses" sort of implies that someone was formally asked for a response, that isn't the case, but anyone can have a reaction. I like reaction over criticism as it is less pejorative. SPhilbrick  T  00:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that we've somehow talked ourselves into a hole where we're only discussing a few negative reactions to AR4, which has overall been one of the most influential and well received review documents in the history of climate science. The article, I would argue, is destined to be unbalanced because it is based on the premise that only negative reactions are eligible for inclusion. --TS 00:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I specifically rewrote the lede to address the point you made. The use of "nevertheless" is intended to connote that these are exceptions. However, each of the exceptions is notable, and deserve a place somewhere. If you have ideas on how to strengthen the lede, or add sections, please do. However, I do not yet follow how "responses" as opposed to "reactions" relates to your points. I'm relatively agnostic on the point, if the consensus favors "responses" it works for me, but I thought Nigelj's suggestion had a lot of merit. SPhilbrick  T  02:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is probably best encapsulated by the phrase "the word reaction also has negative connotations in this context." I can live with it, though. --TS 02:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about Reception of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? I don't see strong objections to "Responses" or "Reactions" either, though. In any case, there are severe problems with the current "Criticism of ..." title; as is well known, such articles run the risk of becoming POV forks as described in Content forking. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To do section
I added a to do section. I'm doing something wrong - I added two items which appear, then a third which doesn't, although I see it if I edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 February 2010

Sea ice extent graphic
Regarding the first two points, the graphic is copied from the NSIDC. I left a comment at the creator's talk page, but haven't yet heard back. My question is whether the graphic is in the public domain; it may be, but I don't see the clear evidence. Even if it can be used, it is dated, and some have noted the perspective makes it difficult to read. I don't think it will be hard to find a current graph of sea ice extent, but it isn't so easy to find one with model error bars. If someone has a source of a good free graphic, let's discuss a replacement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 February 2010

Himalayan glaciers
Regarding the Himalayan glaciers, we go on and on and on when a couple succinct paragraphs would do. In particular, we talk about the possible typo, confusing 2035 with 2350. I think this has turned out to be a red herring, so it doesn't belong here. I'll work on an alternative wording, and run it by this group for consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 February 2010 (timings approx.)
 * Objection: it's well sourced and describes a complex situation reasonably concisely. It includes a source showing that there was indeed a typo confusing 2035 with 2350, which the IPCC adopted uncritically. . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Presuming you mean the BBC article by Bagla, it is simply wrong. There was some early speculation, including by me, that the 2035 date might have been a typo. But upon inspection, that makes no sense. That article was written back in December, when that was considered the possible source, but we now know the source and it wasn't the Kotlyakov paper. The situation is muddied because we know the authors did see the Kotlyakov paper, and indeed, lifted some wording without attribution. Note that Cogley doesn't say the 2035 was a typo, he says "he believes" they "misread 2350 as 2035". But, the article goes on to note, the authors deny this, and we now know the authors were right.


 * If you read the Kotlyakov paper, (which I suspect most reporters have not) you'll quickly see that it doesn't make sense to be the source. While it does talk about Himalayan glaciers, and it does talk about projected loss of glaciers, the 2350 date explicitly relates to glaciers other than the Himalayas.


 * I have read an infuriating large number of articles making the same error. We shouldn't perpetuate the error simply because an early report got it wrong, and others have parroted it. SPhilbrick  T  23:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just realized that the other cite attached to the 2350 claim also quotes Cogley. The December Bagla article quoted him as speculating that the 2035 might have been a misread, but Cogley's January article does not repeat the claim. He references the 2350, but he now realizes the point I was making it, is a date associated with non-Himalayan loss. (To be picky, it is associated with world loss, but IIRC, Kotlyakov explictly expected the loss to be primarily non-Himalyan.) SPhilbrick  T  23:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is clarified in this article which we've not cited as it's questionable as a source: discussed here. In the erroneous paragraph, "two numerical quirks - the 2350-to-2035 switch and the division error - and various other features of the language and presentation are lifted directly from" “Glaciers Beating Retreat,” Mridula Chettri’s April 30, 1999, article for the reputable Indian environmental magazine Down to Earth. The same typo was noted by John Nielsen-Gammon, cited in our article and an expert on climatology, and we quote the relevant Down to Earth paragraphs as reproduced on the Indian Environmental Portal. It was Chettri’s typo, which was adopted by WGII without checking the original source. Bad mistake. . . dave souza, talk 08:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read that before, and it helps put some of the puzzle pieces together. For example, I had assumed that the IPCC authors looked at Kotlyakov's paper, because they used a phrase from the paper, but that phrase appear's in Chettri's article (with the wrong year) so maybe they never looked at Kotlyakov's paper. I still have trouble believing that Hasnain, who is purported to know something about glaciers, could miss the blunder. Surely he knows that the Himalayan glaciers aren't disappearing by 2035. Unfortunately, my time window for working on this closed, so I'll have to wait until later to propose an alternative, but I still think the article spends too much space on this issue.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it may be possible to make it more concise, or alternately we could spin it off into a sub-article with a concise summary here. However, it's significant as the only proven error in AR4. As for Hasnain, he seems to have been promoting the "within 40 years" idea quite widely, and New Scientist state that he gave the 2035 date in an email interview. This gives a concise statement, emphasising that AR4 WGI chapters 4 and 10 gave a sound scientific analysis and projection of future glacier decline, but the references I've found to the Himalayas seem rather technical for me. Thanks for your time on this, dave souza, talk 18:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)