Talk:Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report/Archive 2

Guardian article - How to reform the IPCC
We have a small discussion of process issues - this article speaks to how to address them How to reform the IPCC I think that discussion goes beyond the scope of this article, but as this article quotes WMC, I wanted to post the link. SPhilbrick T  14:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Disasters
Another criticism, of potential increased risk of disasters, has been anwered by an IPCC statement describing it as a "misleading and baseless story". Also covered in comments by RealClimate, auhor not identified so probably not a rs. . . dave souza, talk 18:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Science, math, and probabilities.....
Scientific integrity has been hugely compromised.

If all of these things were just honest mistakes, then half of them would make global warming look worse than it really is, and half would make it look better than it really is.

Since every one of these things makes it look worse, I find it hard to believe that there are honest mistakes.

This is a huge blow to anyone who believes in factual, objective science.

So, why hasn't there been widespread criticism from the majority of the global scientific community over this?

Why are so many scientists defending these lies, instead of criticizing them?

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there have been an incredibly small number of objections to the conclusions, and some go in both directions. The Himalayan glacier incident clearly goes in one direction, but the sea ice extent goes in the other direction, as does the glacial dynamics issue. The Netherlands error was an error, but I'm not aware that it was used in any meaningful way to propose policy, so it isn't obvious that this could be characterized as making things worse or better. It was just an error. SPhilbrick  T  23:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of clarification – the Netherlands issue wasn't an error, it was a discrepancy as to whether you work from mean sea level or from high tide during storms. The latter is the problem that causes flooding, being above mean sea level does not help when the tide is in. . . dave souza, talk 09:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out those errors that went the other way. Maybe they were all honest mistakes. But then why try to cover them up? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Human nature, and the fact that the IPCC is a small organization, and doesn't have its own media arm. (See the second page of this article, which is where I got it.) SPhilbrick  T  23:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please respect the notice on top of this talk page: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject (or even wider subjects, such as the "global scientific community" in general). See WP:NOT. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. OK. I just thought we could mention it in the article. But I'm done in this section. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * why hasn't there been widespread criticism from the majority of the global scientific community over this? - good point. Perhaps we should indeed mention in this article that there *has* been wide support from the IPCC William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

IPCC errors: facts and spin
Is this RealClimate piece (published by The Guardian) of any use?: IPCC errors: facts and spin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikispan (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good and useful analysis. Since it's not self-published, presumably we can use it as a source. It's described as "From RealClimate, part of the Guardian Environment Network." . . dave souza, talk 09:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I looks like the biggest spin is that the IPCC report is based solely on serious peer reviewed literature. According to this review 5600 articles referenced turn out to be non peer reviewed. http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.196.155 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why
I reverted HiP. This article doesn't just contain crit; that would be unbalanced. See the refocussing discussion above William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can see my edit summaries for appropriate justification. However I may as well note here that your revert featured a misattribution of an article to the wrong author and a POV fork (also described here WP:NPOV), hence my reversal of it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By "pov fork" you presumably mean that it included discussion of content issues rather than purely process issues. For some reason you forgot to remove the content issue allegations, so I've taken them out and rephrased things to meke it clearer what Parry said about the process issue. Thanks for the correction about the article author, my mistake.
 * That removes the useful information that the IPCC has investigated the issues and Parry has stated that "What began with a single unfortunate error over Himalayan glaciers has become a clamour without substance". The IPCC had investigated the other alleged mistakes, which were "generally unfounded and also marginal to the assessment". That could work as part of the content section intro. The IPCC report on the Amazon rainforest was described by Daniel Nepstad, an expert on deforestation in Brazil, as correct and supported by his peer-reviewed publications which had been used as a basis for the World Wildlife Fund report.. It could be worthwhile adding this Amazon rainforests issue as another alleged content issue. . . dave souza, talk 09:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By POV fork I meant mention of the correctness of the report on Amazon rainforests in a section on the use of gray literature. This should be left out as per WP:POVFORK. I also don't see Parry's Himalaya quote as meeting standards for inclusion. No mention was made of the Himalayan glaciers "incident" anywhere else in the section and its relation isn't justified by Parry. It's a non sequitur.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "content issue allegations" but I'll look over your diffs.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you meant the clause, "regarding amazon rainforest predictions" ? I suppose I didn't notice it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As requested, I've added back in the Telegraph claim about "student dissertations". Seem to recall that what could be acceptable would be graduate theses, or "student dissertations" to the snobbish, but don't have a source to hand. WP:POVFORK refers to new articles, the issue is WP:NPOV which requires giving the main views on the topic, showing majority expert views when fringe views like the Telegraph's claims on rainforests etc. are mentioned. . . dave souza, talk 10:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd been thinking of this in particular - NPOV - but you've made me think I've misinterpreted.
 * In the US only grad students write dissertations, whereas undergrads write theses. Is it the same in the UK? As to the rainforest thing, at least when I got to this article, the correctness of that data wasn't mentioned by detractors, so a display of the 'majority view' was irrelevant even on your criteria (which I don't particularly believe we should adopt [incidentally, for the sake of those trying to increase respect for the reality of global warming, it should be recognized that people are receptive to cases of "thou dost protest too much" and will respond negatively. It doesn't help anyone]). However, even had it been mentioned by detractors I would have removed it from this section all the same. The section isn't about data. A student dissertation can get everything right, that doesn't change the fact that it's gray literature, which scientists in all fields are uncomfortable with. Hope I'm being clear.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I may well be wrong about the theses / dissertations issue, it seemed dismissive to me but the distinction didn't apply in my subject. The "gray literature" issue is a bit complex, covered in some more detail here. While most citations in AR4 are to peer-reviewed publications, "Especially for Working Groups 2 and 3 (but in some cases also for 1) it is indispensable to use gray sources, since many valuable data are published in them: reports by government statistics offices, the International Energy Agency, World Bank, UNEP and so on. This is particularly true when it comes to regional impacts in the least developed countries, where knowledgeable local experts exist who have little chance, or impetus, to publish in international science journals." It goes on to stress the importance of getting leading researchers to check and assess such literature. In simplistic terms it would be nice and simple to require everything to be peer-reviewed, and I originally felt that would be a good move, but can now see the problems that could introduce. However, there was a clear failure on the glaciers and procedures will have to be much improved. . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. I didn't mean to suggest that grey literature wasn't handy, but simply that it is something scientists generally view with discomfort. N=1 data set to back this up: even as a student, writing student articles, I recently came to a professor asking whether I could use a dissertation published on google.scholar, approved by the corresponding university's department, that had some key data that would have helped justify the hypotheses I was making in my study, and the answer was no for the simple reason that it hadn't been formally peer reviewed. As I understand it, the criticism isn't about whether or not grey literature is correct or expedient, but whether it is appropriately scientific. Your explanation seems fair to me, I just want to point out that most scientists will consider the use of grey literature a problem that needs to be justified, and not simply "something that was done." Not that it can't be justified, but that it should be, and that this justification must go beyond "the results were correct" (which could have happened accidentally).
 * You suggest here that there's a connection between the glacier thing and the use of grey literature? Did they get that faulty information from, e.g., a government source?--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s. I removed another clause, which you can check out. It seemed a non sequitur and sounded odd, so I looked it up and turns out it was referring to something entirely unrelated. I left the section where he actually addresses concerns about the use of grey literature. Let me know what you think.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Its your second controversial revert of the day. Don't do this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a constructive criticism you'd like to raise go ahead. You're the first to express this opinion so far, and not for lack of discussion of my edits (see this thread), so you'll have to excuse me for thinking my actions weren't controversial.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what comes of trying to strip content away from process issues, in the interim I've clarified what Parry was talking about. The above source could allow useful improvement on this point, but not today for me. . dave souza, talk 20:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. By content one means "the results or aims of research," by process one means the research methods. The process is what's relevant to the section, not the content. What you call "Clarifying what Parry was talking about" is an insertion of material irrelevant to the section at hand. There can be no good reason for this. Self-revert?--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Redundant "Climate expert and"
There is no need for the above phrase, as the following sentence makes it utterly redundant. Chairing Vice-chairing the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC kind of illustrates (without having to tell) that he's a climate expert. A hallmark of good writing is showing, not telling. A hallmark of bad writing is including redundant phrases. Scott aka UnitAnode  12:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. He is not the Chair but the Vice Chair, for starters.  And take the example of his boss, an industrial engineer, not a climate expert.  If it were obvious I'd agree, but there mere title "Vice Chair of the IPCC" absolutely does not convey any professional expertise in climatology. --TS 12:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. And if being the vice-chairman of the IPCC doesn't automatically qualify you as a climate expert (I think in the minds of most laymen, it would), isn't that a problem with the IPCC? It reads as wholly redundant to my eyes to say "Climate expert and" before listing his position at the IPCC. Scott  aka UnitAnode  12:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think any climatologist would mistake Rajendra Pachauri for a climatologist (nor would Pachauri). There is a distinction, and whatever misconceptions the layperson might harbor is not our concern.  We're not a remedial class. --TS 12:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Our articles should be written for the layperson, not for the experts. If the IPCC regularly appoints non-climate experts to positions of authority, that should be made clear. Your condescension to the regular readership of these articles is not acceptable. Scott  aka UnitAnode  13:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that articles should be written for laypeople, and given the amount of publicity given to Pachauri being an industrial engineer, not a climate expert, it's reasonable to note that Parry's field is climate change. "He has published about 150 scientific papers, mainly in the field of climate change and agriculture, including 5 books. From 1983 -2005 he was editor of the journal Global Environmental Change." Also note he's no longer the Vice Chair, but was for the 2007 report. I'll amend it accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavia-gate?
"In recent years the Swedish scientist from Stockholm University, Karlén, has tried to create attention to the fact the Scandinavian temperatures when represented by IPCC cannot be recognized in the real data from the Scandinavian temperature stations [...] IPCC shows temperatures around year 2000 should be approximately 0,7 K higher than the peak around 1930-50, whereas the actual data collected by Karlen shows that year 2000 temperatures equals the 1930-50 peak, perhaps even lower." Scandinavian temperatures, IPCC´s "Scandinavia-gate" More evidence that IPCC's claim of global warming in the Scandinavian area is yet another home-made "fact" from IPCC. and this was already pointed out by Wats up with that in november 2009 When Results Go Bad … 29 11 2009 Guest post by Willis Eschenbach stating "One of the claims in this hacked CRU email saga goes something like “Well, the scientists acted like jerks, but that doesn’t affect the results, it’s still warming.”

I got intrigued by one of the hacked CRU emails, from the Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth to Professor Wibjorn Karlen. In it, Professor Karlen asked some very pointed questions about the CRU and IPCC results. He got incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers. Here’s the story, complete with pictures. I have labeled the text to make it clear who is speaking, including my comments.". Maybe this should be covered in one section in the text? Nsaa (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to be sourced from some conspiracy theory blog or other. --TS 12:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Iff you read the actual emails you can make up your own mind ... Maybe we can agree that this is something that is a great problem, and should be covered as soon as it is covered by more reliable sources than these blogs. Nsaa (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you may want to consider that the IPCC graph is for the region NEU (Northern Europe) which is the grid 10 E W-40E,48N-75N - which is quite a lot more than Scandinavia, it includes all of Britain, Germany, Northern France,.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [corrected 10E => 10W --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)]
 * Ah, perhaps with Norse-Gaels, Vikings and Normans etc. we're all Scandinavians? . . dave souza, talk 14:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point Kim.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, you must know we cannot use your blog. Do you intend to discuss this article or are you simply abusing this page to get some free publicity? --Tasty monster 13:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My blog? I've never written on any blog, and don't own any ... Nsaa (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Article rename
There is a discussion above that also came very close to a consensus on renaming the article. The reasons why are covered above and do not need repeating here, but the discussion seemed to stall over the exact wording. The following three options seem to have emerged as the front runners. Please indicate your preference with a reason why (they all look as good as each other to me). Please don't introduce new options just because you can. --Nigelj (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reactions to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
 * Responses to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
 * Reception of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report


 * Is "don't rename the article" an option? "Criticism of..." articles are commonplace.  The reason I'm inclined to oppose this rename is because I believe it is step 1 in a criticism removal.  Step 1: rename the article to "reactions".  Step 2: Add a bunch of science academies, etc, that have cited or commented positively on the report.  Step 3: Remove or greatly reduce the current notable criticisms per WP:WEIGHT.  The existing criticisms may be less notable than other reactions in the context of the whole AR4, which is why they are only briefly mentioned in the AR4 article.  However, these criticisms have each been covered widely by sources and should be adequately covered by WP.  I'm concerned that this rename will result in an AfD-by-proxy of anything negative regarding the IPCC. Oren0 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you probably guess correctly, within the limits of article size. This is a kind of POV-fork representing only one side of the reality. It is fundamental to WP:NPOV that, "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." This article currently is a one-sided discussion of the available facts re this document. --Nigelj (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why it's a subarticle. The main article here is AR4.  You put a  tag on the top of the page and then it's clear that it's a split per WP:SUMMARY.  Sufficient precedent exists for criticism subarticles, see for example Criticism of Islam, Criticism of capitalism, Criticism of the War on Terrorism, etc.  If you want to delete this article, that's what AfD is for.  Oren0 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you follow the link above? This was all discussed a few days ago under . --Nigelj (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the section. The discussion above seems to take as a given that a "criticism of..." article is a POV fork, when in reality they can be a perfectly legitimate application of WP:SUMMARY.  WP:NPOV is achieved by including notable responses to criticism.  It is not achived by shutting out notable criticism by retitling an article to be about something else entirely. Oren0 (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "reception of..." William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. somebody mentioned that in the other thread and I'm quite warming to it. It's a bit odd to have an article about only one type of response to the IPCC, when the overwhelming response has been the opposite.  While it may sometimes be legitimate to include only criticisms of the main subject, where the subject has received an overwhelmingly positive response (Nobel Peace Prize, massive endorsement by national academies of science, governments nearly all on board, etc), an article for criticism alon seems like undue weight.  It's not perfect, but it's incredibly popular. --TS 06:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. This kind of article is common and warranted, and the alternative is just random. Imagine moving Critiques of Slavoj Žižek to Responses to Slavoj Žižek. I'm sure we could find some glowing reviews of his work to tack on, but that wouldn't be especially encyclopedic and definitely wouldn't be worthy of a serious reader's attention, even if positive reviews were the majority. Incidentally, Nigelj, your WP:NPOV quote isn't germaine. The article is not one-sided simply because it only contains critique. Quite the opposite, the article is about critique.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse critique (which in that academic context roughly means scholarly reception) and criticism (in the sense of disapproval, as in this article's current title). (And this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument also rests on the assumption that that article is a shining example of NPOV, which has been severely challenged on the talk page there.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a concise summary of known errors and corrections of IPCC AR4 somewhere (either as a section of this article, a section of the parent article or a new article). Provided that, I am neutral whether the subject of this article will be kept to be "criticism" or broadened to "responses" etc.--Masudako (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Responses" or "Reception" both seem an improvement to me. WP:NAME requires titles to be neutrally worded. "A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject." While other "criticism" articles exist, WP:NPOV "Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing" is better met by a title covering a wider range of responses than the currently implied too much / too little type of arguments. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Prefer Reactions If the choice is between “reactions” and “responses”, I could live with either, but prefer “reactions”. When the AR4 was in draft, I read it and offered commentary on some aspects. I viewed my commentary as a “response” and viewed it as a “conversation” between myself and the IPCC. The audience was the IPCC. In contrast, when other parties are writing aboutAR4, I view their commentary as a reaction to the content, with an audience of the general world, not the IPCC. As the content we are discussing has an audience of the general world, and not the IPCC itself, I slightly prefer “reactions” over “responses”. (At this time “reception” is not growing on me.)
 * However, I am troubled by the exchange between Oren0 and Nigelj. If renaming means we have to devote the bulk of the article to the bulk of the reactions which are largely positive, we will miss the point of this article’s existence. I accept that WP must treat each subject in a neutral way, reflecting appropriate weight to various views, but I think that can be done within the penumbra of a set of articles, not necessarily in each individual article. Surely no one reading Criticism of Islam comes away thinking, “Gee, that’s odd, I thought there were some who supported Islam. I guess they must be fringe.” It was my presumption that we had a decently long article on AR4 itself, implicitly or explicitly noting it was well-received in general, but noting there were some dissenting views, some feeling it portrayed a view too conservative, others not conservative enough, and the length of the AR4 article was such that the points could not be properly fleshed out in the article, so were to be summarized in the article, with in a separate article covering the specific points in more detail.  I think if this is identified as a subarticle, it is acceptable to discuss only the views departing from the middle view. I reread NPOV, and I don’t see this as a problem.  SPhilbrick  T  19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Think I agree with your point, a concise statement of the wide agreement that it reasonably summarises the science etc. would be enough to set the context for the various detailed disputes or updates. There is a problem of a widespread misperception that the whole report is somehow overturned by the agreed error and any other disputed aspects, will try to warch out for the best sources dealing with that. "Reactions" would be a third preference for me, but will review that. . dave souza, talk 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lacking a {main} link at the top, it doesn't look like a sub-article at the moment. On the other hand, renaming without significantly altering the content would be a mistake, as it would leave the reader with the impression that the majority of reactions (responses, whichever) have been negative. It is precisely that POV that I was trying to balance here. If you asked the average US media-consumer this month (or UK Telegraph/Mail reader, etc), and if they had heard of it, my guess is that the majority would say that IPCC AR4 has been largely discredited and found full of glaring errors. I wanted to avoid the present situation where, as it stands, you can say this now and provide a Wikipedia link that pretty much confirms it - i.e. to this article. This should not become a poster child of CC denial. --Nigelj (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If one really wants to go into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, as Oren0 has done: Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, Criticism of Barack Obama, Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Mother Teresa and Criticism of The War on Poverty are all redirects. There is a reason for that - Neutral point of view is unambiguous about this kind of thing: "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.'"


 * I also don't think that the NPOV policy lends itself to the interpretation that it applies "not necessarily in each individual article". But even if one were to accept this interpretation and only strive to give proper weight across a set of articles, one could not deny that currently one side (negative reception) is given vastly more space than the other (positive reception) in this "penumbra" (Criticism of the IPCC AR4, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). That this creates severe NPOV problems should be obvious. Following SPhilbrick's thoughts, one alternative remedy would be the creation of another article Praise of the IPCC AR4, but I don't think anyone would be happy with such an article title.
 * Also one should be aware that currently Criticism of the IPCC AR4 has only about half the size of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report; so the "squeezing out" concerns seem quite far-fetched.
 * Sphilbrick's argument against "responses" has some merit, and "reaction" has indeed been used by the BBC. However, "reaction" has a bit too much of a news flash tone for me (as it hints at a certain immediacy), and I would still prefer Reception of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report for the reason the "reception" carries a component of value judgment (as in "cold reception" or "warm reception"). In the end though, I could live with all three.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sea level rise
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk refers to a relatively conservative study, which apparently went against the trend of projections indicating much higher sea level rises than indicated in AR4. Until the study is corrected and republished we won't know for sure, but without it criticisms that there was an underestimate in AR4 are strengthened. This article doesn't seem that specific, may be useful elsewhere. . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If a corrected version is published showing a larger estimate (which would be in keeping with other recent studies) then it may be worth including all the studies, with appropriate secondary source commentary, on the apparent under-estimation (IPCC's own report did, I think, acknowledge that the estimates employed very incomplete data). --TS 08:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, good plan. SPhilbrick  T  19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

References up to here
(Just to clear them so the next section is clearer --Nigelj (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Proportion of Netherlands below sea level is never 60% under any definition
Criticism of the IPCC AR4 misrepresents the seriousness of the error in the IPCC report. Statistics Netherlands states in this report (p. 65): "Only one fifth of the Netherlands lies below sea level" and "19% of national income is generated in that area". Martin Parry may say "A figure of 60%, for land that lies below high water level during storms, is used by the Dutch Ministry of Transport" but that's simply not true. I'll translate a small part from the original article in Vrij Nederland, the magazine that found out about the error:


 * How is it possible that the IPCC is so wrong on such basic figures? "These figures originate from us", says Joop Oude Lohuis of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. The IPCC has combined two  numbers: the area that's below sealevel and the area that's vulnerable to floods". But the text of IPCC  states literally that the 55% is about the part of The Netherlands below sea level. Isn't that simply  wrong? "I agree", Oude Lohuis admits relucantly. "Sometimes it's better to be more precise about what you  mean."
 * Moreover, the calculation of the Agency of the total area that could flood a bit on the dramatic side. The CBS concludes it's only one third instead of more than halve of the The  Netherlands. They have calculated which part of the "potentially floodable area" really is  in danger. "A better indication", says Oude Lohuis. But according to him that's a typical case of  "advancing understanding", because this estimate was not available yet at the time the IPCC report was written.''

As this is a Dutch magazine, it presupposes that the reader knows how it's possible that areas above sea level are still vulnerable to flooding. This is because The Netherlands is the delta area of the Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt, and flooding because of those occasionally does happen (it always has). This has absolutely nothing to do with storms, it's simply higher levels in rivers because of melting water and rain up river. I highly doubt the Dutch Ministry of Transport would use this this as "the figure for land that lies below high water level during storms." The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency states on it's web site:


 * In the chapter Europe the reports states on page 547 that 55 procent of The Netherlands is below sea level (“The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river  flooding because 55 % of its territory is below sea level”). This should have been that 55% of The  Netherlands is susceptible to floodings; 26 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level, and 29  percent is susceptible for river floods. The near-floodings in the mid-nineties of area alongside  the Waal and Meuse -areas above sea levels- are examples of the latter.

IMHO (but this would classify as "original research"), anyone in The Netherlands with higher education (and that would include the people from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency) would have noticed this error immediately as the areas that are actually below sea level are pretty much known to any 15 year old. The word "error" is therefore probably a bit misleading. Joepnl (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * RC states Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”. This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding”. It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by … the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Do you find anything to disagree with in that? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes.

Joepnl (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That sentence was not provided by a Dutch government agency but calculated by the IPCC by taking the sum of 26 and 29. That is wrong anyhow because you don't know how much those percentages overlap (0% is obviously wrong). Max Posch of the same agency was, however, expert reviewer and somehow missed it.
 * Then RC tries to depict Dutch Parliament as the Pot calling the kettle black, and totally misses the primary function of Parliament, which is to check the government. Somehow everyone in Holland missed the blatant irony.
 * It's not "Dutch Parliament" "deriding", but 2 out of 150 members.
 * 30% is not "below mean sea level" but below NAP, which is flood level.
 * While at it, it's not 30% but 26%
 * The Dutch Ministry of Transport does not use 60%. Of course not, because that would imply a storm more than doubling the area below sea level. The Netherlands is called "flat", but it's not that flat. (State Secretary of Transport: "a quarter")
 * Sadly RC failed to comment on "65% of its Gross National Product (GNP)" which is only 19% which obviously affects any conclusions about how grave the situation is. Oh wait, RC does tell us that the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions which makes one wonder how IPCC does reach conclusions.


 * That sentence was not provided by a Dutch government agency but calculated by the IPCC by taking the sum of 26 and 29. - how do you know? Have you read the sentence provided by the Dutch govt? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe because Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency says so? Joepnl (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't. You forgot to translate the first part of the PBL correction, which says that the IPCC sentence was provided by the PBL. (then it goes on describing what should have been provided). "het Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving geleverde formulering over het overstromingsrisico van Nederland.". You may also want to read this.. where they've changed the critique, to not being a direct error by the IPCC, but instead to a review error, by not catching the wrong wording by the PBL ("Scientists missed the incorrect wording of the claim that they received from the PBL") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That contradicts "Het IPCC heeft twee getallen opgeteld: het oppervlak dat onder de zeespiegel ligt én het gebied dat vatbaar voor overstromingen is." (IPCC added two numbers) here, a statement by PBL. My interpretation is that the original data sent to IPCC was too vague, leading to an incorrect sentence made by IPCC, so that's why PBL is to blame anyway. Joepnl (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So, this is becoming unclear. To clarify: neither you nor anyone you know has seen the text that was sent to the IPCC? Do we even know what langauge it was sent in? English, I would presume William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No I don't, but the explanation in Vrij Nederland is quite clear to me. PBL sent something along "26 such, 29 so", wording it vague enough for IPCC to combine the numbers, ("Sometimes it's better to be more precise about what you mean." and then didn't catch the error later. The literal sentence in the report is in no way vague. Joepnl (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is your (personal) interpretation - the nrc article states that it was the PBL who shortened the sentence, and that can be read into the rest of the references - so that is what we have to go by. The mistake is rather simple really - PBL should have sent "at risk of being flooded" but sent "below sea level" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And, don't forget, mean sea level is commonly quite some way below high tide at certain times of year and in certain storm conditions. The Dutch ministry is using a datum which I understand approximates to mean sea level, a source giving precise clarification of that would be useful for the relevant article. . . dave souza, talk 15:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't use mean sea level, but NAP which is high tide. See the picture here where they show the area below NAP (beneden NAP, 26%) and above NAP (29%) (alongside the rivers). (mean sea level differs about 20 cm from NAP Joepnl (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find out what NAP may stand for in Dutch, but your comment seems to imply a tidal range of only +/- 20 = 40 cm in the North Sea. This is incorrect, as the tide tables on http://www.dutchportguide.com/page/55 show. For Hoek van Holland I'm seeing 197 cm range on 3 Jan. Have you seen MHWS - tides only tend to cause flooding at high tide on spring tides, usually with an added storm surge. But all this is none of our business really. I thought there was a clear statement somewhere that the PBL originated the wrong description of the 55% figure, and IPCC just trusted it. Is this not so? --Nigelj (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, Normaal Amsterdams Peil which I added to the article but didn't have to hand. It says the "zero level of NAP was the average summer flood water level ... in the centre of Amsterdam, then still connected with the open sea, in 1684.... Currently NAP is close to mean sea level at the Dutch coast." Is the 20cm difference from mean sea level up or down, and is that a suitable source for the NAP article? Note that on 2010-02-28 the tide at Rotterdam goes from 0.16 to 2.09 metres, and I don't think we're at the highest tides. So, at least a metre above mean sea level is to be expected at times, but I'm no expert. . . . dave souza, talk 16:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just found North Sea flood of 1953. "A combination of a high spring tide and ... a tidal surge ... the water level locally exceeded 5.6 metres above mean sea level". Quite a lot of the Netherlands were 'below sea level' that night, I think. 'Sea level' is, in itself a complex subject. 'Mean sea level' is one simplification, as are NAP and MHWS. So all this is still WP:OR - we need reliable refs as to what was said to IPCC. --Nigelj (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Luckily we have Delta Works now, and even without them only a small part of the Netherlands was flooded. All I can find is PBL saying "you can't blame IPCC for quoting such high [and wrong] percentages because they can be found in brochures by the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. So for outsiders [sic] it's not a strange number." If this isn't proof enough that Parry's claim is wrong (or at least denied by a subsidiary of Dutch Government that admitted the claim in the first place), may be we can just put this remark in the article? The remark having been made is not OR, is it? Joepnl (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I commented somewhere before, there was a newspaper article making it clear that the Netherlands has protection measures which can fully accommodate any conceivable sea level rise in the foreseeable future. The whole quote looks good and seems to specifically refer to the IPCC AR4 issue, so it doesn't look like OR to me, and could follow Parry's statement. It seems to me to confirm his statement, while showing that such figures are technically wrong and explaining the emphasis on river flooding in the IPCC statement. So, I'd support you adding that statement. If they've released an English language version that would be useful, but I think translations are ok. . . dave souza, talk 19:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's my translation of the last two paragraphs of the de Volkskrant article, I don't think an official translation is available:

Also spokesman Burer says: The confusion is partly to be blamed to several EU-articles by the Transport Ministry in which numbers like 55 and 60 percent land area are mixed up. Sometimes it refers to floods, sometimes the sea level. That is what Parry refers to. On the other hand, PBL employee Oude Lohuis points out that IPCC cannot be blamed that during the process the wrong "55% below sea level" wasn't noticed. "The ministry says in some brochures that during spring tide The Netherlands is 60 % below sea level", he says, "So for outsiders it's not a strange number".

The author of this article is the Science Chief of De Volkskrant, known for being "strongly anti-denialist". Do the other people agree as well I can put this in? And if so, how to transform this into a proper English quote instead of 2 paragraphs? :) Joepnl (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would depend rather strongly on what you are going to put in - i think the strongest take-away message from the De Volkskrant article is this: "‘De blaam treft ons, daarover geen misverstand’, zegt beleidsmedewerker Joop Oude Lohuis van PBL erover." - which is a rather strong message and rather difficult to misunderstand (paraphrased translation): The PBL says it is their mistake, no doubt about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is also strongly implied in the last two paragraphs. I want it to be clear that Parry mistakenly (I'm assuming good faith even IRL :)) says that 60% is just a matter of definition, where it really is wrong according to PBL. Joepnl (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "strongly implied" is not very good, when the PBL says it this clearly:
 * "The blame hits us, there can be no misunderstanding about that" says policy advisor Joop Oude Lohuis from the PBL about it.
 * That is a rather strong statement, it leaves very little to the imagination. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words: we've gone from "the IPCC made an error" to "the IPCC copied an error, but should have caught it" to (finally) "the PBL made a mistake, and the IPCC had no real chance of capturing it, since we have confused the terms in our own documents". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, but that's only part of the conclusions one can draw from the article. "According to PBL: 1) PBL made error sending messy data, 2) IPCC cannot be blamed, it's PBL's error. 3) Parry's rebuttal is wrong 4) again, IPCC cannot be blamed, PBL and Transport Ministry are too sloppy." Just "The blame hits us" after Parry's remark leaves out the nice-to-know 3 and 4. Funny detail: the (then-) Minister of Environment has asked PBL to look into the IPCC. Joepnl (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) It's like the DDOS attacks that some CRU guys were complaining of. It only takes five minutes for some bloke somewhere to think up another daft claim (like "the IPCC made an error": Hollandgate!), but it takes 3 Wikipedians half a day to find the references, translate and evaluate the sources, and compose and agree the full factual rebuttal. Meanwhile, the 'forces of darkness' are thinking up three more X-gate claims that we and everyone else will have to rebut tomorrow. --Nigelj (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Help ma boab! Have you been following Leakegate? :-/ . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Funny, I do think Hollandgate is a proper "gate", namely the total failure of the procedures IPCC brags about for even the simplest facts, and I think it's pretty stupid for Parry and RC not to consult PBL first before telling the world that "60%" is just a matter of definition. The "forces of darkness" have been saying for ages that there are errors in the reports, and now many more (after the Stick) come to light. But I think it's a good thing just to present the neutral facts, and leave it to the reader to decide if this is plain clumsiness or that there is a reason all small mistakes happen to be on the alarmist side. Joepnl (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Himalayas error was bad, the Netherlands is an awkward misunderstanding but if you read it in the context of the report it didn't really seem very important either way. It's a good point about consulting PBL before making the statement, but Parry spoke after a long period (in newsroom terms) of investigation which presumably included consultation, and was already being criticised for not having instant answers to the critics. It's noticeable that investigative journalists didn't manage to notice the contradiction for about three years. Either way, checking of working group 2 on impacts was sloppy, the procedure isn't that firmly stated, and they're going to have to do much better. Crucially, the working group 1 science seems solid, no errors. Of course the science keeps getting updated, and more frequent reports have been suggested. It will be interesting to see how it goes. . . dave souza, talk 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How about the following. --Nigelj (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC) De Volkskrant reported Mary Jean Burer, a spokesperson for the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) as saying that the confusion can partly be blamed on several EU articles by the Transport Ministry in which numbers like 55 and 60 percent land area are mixed up. "Sometimes it refers to floods, sometimes the sea level". PBL employee Oude Lohuis added that the IPCC cannot be blamed for the fact that the statement of 55 % being below sea level wasn't noticed. "The ministry says in some brochures that during spring tides the Netherlands is 60 % below sea level", he said, "So for outsiders it's not a strange number"


 * That looks perfect to me, thanks for cleaning up my Denglish. Tiny detail: the original does have "he says" instead of "he said", but that may look strange in English and doesn't really change the meaning. "Transport Ministry" is a made up abbreviation, in the original it's also abbreviated V & W which is not the official name; "Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management" would be a bit too much.. May be a link to Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management would suffice. Joepnl (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the past tense ('said') is better now, as it's no longer today's news. It looks normal in English. I've added a few wikilinks. Now, where does this go in the article? Also, Kim, "The blame hits us, there can be no misunderstanding about that" says policy advisor Joop Oude Lohuis from the PBL about it. Do you want that in this addition? It is a clear statement. Is it sourced from the same article (pls excuse my total ignorance of the Dutch language!) --Nigelj (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is in the same article :). The article already mentions "When the Dutch government raised questions, the PBL acknowledged in a statement that it had supplied the incorrect wording to the IPCC" so I think it's not necessary to supply a PBL quote confirming a PBL statement. I'd say we can boldly add it at the end of the paragraph. Joepnl (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean: you can, I don't know how to do the references correctly :) Joepnl (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in. I just had to copy everything between the &lt;div> tags, it was already formatted ready to go. --Nigelj (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus within 24 hours on a GW page, we're fantastic. Now all we have to do is to keep pressing F5 on our talk page to see them flooded with barnstars! Joepnl (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Politics in India
In India, a Clear Victor on The Climate Action Front by Isabel Hilton: Yale Environment 360, which is rather informative about the political developments in India, including the voodoo glaciers spat. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Open letter
Joe Romm's Open letter to U.S. government from over 250 U.S. scientists on climate change and the IPCC reports « Climate Progress article gives the text of an open letter with specific commentary on several of the "criticisms". . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

ICSU statement
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/02/statement-by-icsu-on-controversy-around.html William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And another from von S on a Dutch report: http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/07/niederlandischer-bericht-uber-wg2ar4.html William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism re. sea levels
[http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230 How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet] by Rob Young and Orrin Pilkey: Yale Environment 360. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What a curious admixture. Some very interesting comments, but some others that make one wonder if the authors have a clue. Starting with a couple negatives (admittedly minor, but it makes you wonder):
 * in many parts of Asia the rice crop will be decimated by rising sea level — a three-foot sea level rise will eliminate half of the rice production in Vietnam Decimated? In the word of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think it means what you think it means”
 * Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in sea level this century One could be churlish and question whether they understand the meaning of the word “certain”, but let’s be generous and quip, “Certainly, one can say this isn’t a science article”.
 * “(a potential of a 16-foot rise if the entire sheet melts)”. In the context of a discussion of next century, this is misleading, unless someone seriously thinks it is a possibility.
 * On a more positive note, I agree that AR4 gives short shift to glacial dynamics. Frustratingly, they tantalize us, but don’t point to any research. Another WP editor promised to send me a paper on the subject, but seems to have forgotten ,[edit -  and did, but I haven't read it yet] so I haven’t had a chance to read some of the more recent work in this area. This article hints at it, but doesn’t mention a single source.  SPhilbrick  T  14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * More criticism from the FT . . dave souza, talk 17:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, although the real meat (other than the methane issue) appears to be summarized in the Wiley publication, which I assume is subscription only. I bet someone here has a subscription, and can summarize, or cite relevant excerpts to the article. (I'm not sure "criticism" is the right description to the extent it summarizes new information,or perhaps my sarcasm detector is on the blink.) SPhilbrick  T  18:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As you say, the real meat will be in peer reviewed papers. However, a new summary by Stefan Rahmstorf at RealClimate: Sealevelgate makes some interesting points in specific relation to the AR4 projections. . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Ramsdorf's summary has been republished by The Guardian as IPCC under fire in blogosphere for 'sealevelgate' | Environment | guardian.co.uk which can be seen as a more reliable publisher of his notable views. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article re the Amazon stuff http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/leakegate-a-retraction/ William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The section of "African crop yield projections" is largely based on Leake's article of Sunday Times which is now likely to be an unreliable source. I hope some of you check what Ban, Pachauri, Field and Watson actually said about this claim, or completely rewrite the section. (Excuse me, this is out of context of the issue of sea level. We should move to a new section of this talk page.) --Masudako (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

New NAS study relevant here?
I haven't read the actual study yet, but this review of it seems like part of it's conculsions may be directly relevant here. Quote (from the review): "In particular, recent activity by the global warming denial machine is aimed at undermining support for the comprehensive IPCC climate change assessment reports, by attacking the overall integrity and credibility of the IPCC and its hundreds of participating scientist-authors. There are legitimate procedural questions to be considered and dealt with appropriately in developing the next set of IPCC reports. But those who propagate the phony argument that there are two “sides” – an IPCC side and a “skeptic” side – with comparable overall climate science expertise and credibility and deserving of comparable consideration – are doing a public disservice and should be called out on it." --Nigelj (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So, the study says, if there are two 'sides', scientists convinced and those unconvinced by the IPCC's evidence, then one is comprised of 97-98% and the other is 2-3% of the relevant scientists. Members of the convinced majority demonstrate at least twice the 'expertise' of the nay-sayers, represented by 119 vs. 60 publications each, or 84 vs. 34 depending how you measure this. Approx 80% of the unconvinced have published less than 20 times, compared to around 10% of the majority group. Finally, 'prominence' was quantified by comparing citation-rates for those published works. Convinced researchers’ top papers were cited an average of 172 times, compared with 105 times for those of the unconvinced researchers. These figures become 126 citations per paper compared to just 59 when all climate researchers, not just the most prominent in each group are compared. Is that a fair summary of the actual study? Does it support the review quote above? --Nigelj (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See also to John Nielsen-Gammon
I've removed JNG as classic see-also abuse. If you want him in, there is a section he could readily fit in. Though that section says someone else started it (for me, who found the error is of little interest, so I haven't bothered trying to resolve this difference) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 'twasn't JNG who found the error - he was the first to analyse it indepth though. (that is also what the refs' say). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Editor WMC reverted a new "See also" to John Nielsen-Gammon, who was the first to widely-publicize the now-notorious AR4 "Glaciers will melt by 2035" error, commenting "classic see-also abuse." I came here to correct the misstatement, & found WMC's revert. Please explain how this is "abuse". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillman (talk • contribs)
 * How do you know he was the first? How do you determine that JNG "widely-publicize"d it? (its a blog). What purpose exactly does a "See Also" to JNG's bio provide for this article? There is rather little of interest (in the context of this article) in JNG's bio. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First man in space to eat a chocolate bar; first man in space to read the New York Times; first man in space to eat a chocolate bar whilst reading the NYT; etc. Simply not warranted. Wikispan (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @T: as I've already said: there is a perfectly good section this could go in. Coatracking things off the see-also list is bad. KDP's objections are also cogent William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We already cite earlier international publicity about the error including Cogley's in-depth analysis, and cite JNG's excellent analysis of the source of the error which added new details. I've tweaked it a little, and also clarified the explanation in the John Nielsen-Gammon article. . . dave souza, talk 23:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dave. That should take care of it. This started out as an effort to get rid of JNG's Orphan tag, so thanks for the help. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Economist: Bias & the IPCC report
An interesting new article:. H/t to RPJr

Quotable bits:
 * ... in general, negative impacts are stressed over positive ones. The table in the summary for policymakers is almost unremittingly bad news; the conclusions in the chapters that fed into it, while far from cheery, were more mixed. ...

. ..
 * In all ten of the issues that the PBL categorised as major (the original errors on glaciers and Dutch sea level, and the eight others identified in the report), the impression that the reader gets from the IPCC is more strikingly negative than the impression which would have been received if the underlying evidence base had been reflected as the PBL would have wished, with more precise referencing, more narrow interpretation and less authorial judgment. A large rise in heat related deaths in Australia is mentioned without noting that most of the effect is due to population rather than climate change. A claim about forest fires in northern Asia seems to go further than the evidence referred to—in this case a speech by a politician—would warrant. ...

A good article, well worth reading. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Add new reports defending findings ... U.K. and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

 * Moved here for info – As well as the news item above, there has been other coverage which can be also used to improve the article when time permits. An IP editor made the following comment at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy but as it's more appropriate here, I'm copying it for reference. . dave souza, talk 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dutch review backs U.N. climate change report http://www.pbl.nl/en/index.html Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, also see in WSJ print Tuesday 6.July.2010 page A10; other reports this week from the U.K., and in August 2010 from the InterAcademy Council. 99.88.231.82 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)"InterAcademy Council Report Recommends Fundamental Reform of IPCC Management Structure" InterAcademy Council news release 30.August.2010

openletterfromscientists.com is a spoof site now
There is a link in the article to http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/ but at least today it is a spoof site. Maybe they lost the domain?--Qgil (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In press
IPCC climate models do not capture Arctic sea ice drift acceleration: Consequences in terms of projected sea ice thinning and decline, "In this study we show that IPCC climate models underestimate the observed thinning trend by a factor of almost 4 on average and fail to capture the associated accelerated motion." . . dave souza, talk 22:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Arctic Sea ice melt
I think this section needs an update. There are an increasing number of studies suggesting a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean not just by 2100, but well before that. The current section quotes a CNN article reporting on a NCAR and NSIDC report from 2007. So much has happened in Arctic research since 2007. Google Scholar returns over 16,000 results from "Arctic sea ice decline" since 2008. EthicsEdinburgh (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

National Snow and Ice Data Center Graph
Does anyone else feel that a graph that has an axis that points downward is misleading? By having the axis at a 3D angle such is shown, a constant value would be represented by a line pointing downwards. Any chance we could get a graph that isn't so biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjansson (talk • contribs) 09:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not the best graph for the job due to the perspective, but I think it is very important to have a graphic that shows just how seriously the IPCC report underestimated the rate of Arctic sea ice melt. For instance, the Australian Climate Commission (an official government body) published a report in 2011 called The Critical Decade, which has a suitable image in Figure 4. Unfortunately, this is (a) under copyright and (b) only extends to 2008, but it gives the idea of what we're looking for. (Also, I haven't yet learned how to upload an image to Wikipedia, though I'm sure there are easy guides to be found and I will look them up if I come across the right graph to use here.) EthicsEdinburgh (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)