Talk:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report/Archive 1

Rv: why
I took out a "further reading" ref to a distinctly non-neutral WSJ piece.Because it was distinctly non-neutral. Please don't use "further reading" as a coatrack William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's rubbish. That WSJ story is very good and, yes, neutral. --bender235 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it "very good"? Why is it "neutral"? It seems neither to me William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's turn this around. Quote something from this article that is biased or factually wrong. --bender235 (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The headline. The assertion A months-long crisis at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has upended the world's perception of global warming . The assertion after hacked emails and other disclosures revealed deep divisions among scientists. The assertion Take sophisticated and sometimes inconclusive science, and boil it down to usable advice for lawmakers. All of this is wrong. You're adding in a highly biased source which contains no iseful information merely because it reflects your POV. But you're adding it: you're supposed to be able to say why it is useful. Go on William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A months-long crisis at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has upended the world's perception of global warming
 * If you would've read any newspaper lately, you'd see that this is actually true. In the last couple of months there have been a number of reports (true or false) about errors in the IPCC AR4, about Panchauri's questionable business deals, and so on.
 * after hacked emails and other disclosures revealed deep divisions among scientists
 * That is true as well.
 * Take sophisticated and sometimes inconclusive science, and boil it down to usable advice for lawmakers.
 * And again, true. You can even see it in the IPCC AR4, where the complex scientific report was boiled down to a "Summary for Policymakers", leaving out all the details and questionmarks.
 * This WSJ story is useful, because it summarizes the controversy of the past couple of months. --bender235 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, none of that is true. Clearly we disagree here, so I invoke the "its controversial, and in the climate change probation area: get consensus for change" clause William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What? I guess you're the only person calling WSJ an "unreliable source", and no, this is not a "probation area" and we don't need consensus for anything. You're the only one to complain, and given your "history" of manipulating climate change articles on Wikipedia, I suppose you shouldn't be in charge to decide what's neutral and what's not. --bender235 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you not run into the climate change probation yet? Never mind, I'm sure someone will come along and tell you soon enough William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As this seems to have been an edit war with minimal discussion I've taken the unusual step of reverting the last edit. Think of this as a "casting vote" in favor of discussion to justify the inclusion of this newspaper analysis as further reading. The reason I do this doesn't reflect on the article in question, but on the unusual notion that a newspaper piece, necessarily of its time and written to a deadline, is adequate for a further reading section. I'm open to persuasion, but as this article is obvoiusly covered by the probation I would like to see the parties discuss this unusual edit properly with a view to arriving at consensus. --TS 20:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I considered this article noteworthy because it delivers an in-depth account on the recent controversy regarding the IPCC. It is therefore useful to the reader to provide background information why the scientific process behind the IPCC reports will be changed (or was changed, from the 2014 perspective), see NYT (but I'm sure Connolley will call this yet another "unreliable source"). In my honest opinion, that WSJ article is neutral and balanced. --bender235 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I integrated the cite into the article, so there need not be a dispute about whether it should be included as further reading. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't help I'm afraid. Its still a badly biased piece that contains no useful information, even if you do know enough to sieve out the falsehoods William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And anyway... why *here*? The WSJ piece isn't about AR5. Are you looking for a low-traffic little-watched page to put this stuff into? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The IPCC will modify the process behind the AR, only because of the "incidents" of the past months. Therefore, these incidents should be mentioned in this article. --bender235 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed this rather overweight discussion of what appears to be an opinion given by a newspaper reporter. Is the Wall Street Journal now considered to be an expert on climate change bureaucracy?  Any pub bore is such an expert. --TS 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "expert on climate change bureaucracy"? What the hell are you talking about? It's a newspaper report, not a scientific article. They don't propose a theory on climate change, but rather an account of the past months. This is getting ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies are due. I misread your edit as a restoration of an earlier, inappropriate wording. --TS 23:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see that an honest difference of opinion can be worked out. I think the WSJ is a good source (i.e. professional) but that does not make them unbiased (or incapable of sensationalism). JustMyOpinion Awikipedian42 (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Leak of Draft Report
For better or worse, a copy of the second order draft is available at this critics website: http://stopgreensuicide.com/ I found the draft there by chance this evening and, if its looks and the outrage of others is to be believed, it appears to be legitimate.

-- Xenomancer (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Its there and its elsewhere. There are perfectly decent sources for the fact-of-the-leak, like http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-14/ipcc-draft-climate-report-leaked/4429036?WT.svl=news0 William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with WMC who questioned whether it belongs in the lead. There's a perfectly appropriate "Current status" section. (I decided to move it, the leak is current news, but doesn't belong in the lead, as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the report. Breathless coverage of the leaking of one interesting nugget doesn't qualify, as it is more about process than content.) -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Calendar?
The status section notes: For the schedule of AR5 related meetings, review periods, and other important dates, please refer to the calendar. There should be a link. If no link, reword, with a reference.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There's quite a bit of this article that needs bringing, if anyone can find the enthusiasm William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

IPCC citations
Just an advisory: Until the Fifth Assessment Report is actually published it shouldn't be cited. But I am preparing (at Talk:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report/citation) the forms and data for citing it, similiar to what I have prepared for the other ARs. Draft reports will likely be coming out soon, and can be tricky to cite; ask here (or on my talk page) if you have questions or would like assistance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

With AR5 practically on the door-step and anticipating that it will be widely cited: should I update the forms and data at Talk:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report/citation? (The existing data are from the draft report, and the forms would be easier to use if they were more thoroughly parameterized.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

On Reverted Edit
In order to defend against any edit war, I'm posting the original revert, and explanation of my subsequent changes. Original revert -- " 08:46, 6 February 2013‎ William M. Connolley . . (faux news is a joke; we don't care who the leaker is, or who he's the son of) " --->

I took part of that edit under advisement. I added the leakers name and association in the review process, since almost all sites reporting this have mentioned it. Also I indicated a valid criticism on the review process from a valid NYT site, in order to not get anyone up in arms over a Fox News citation. 10stone5 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You can't use El Rego. You could quote AR direct, but is a blog acceptable? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Revkin is a reasonable source per WP:NEWSBLOG. The Register is not WP:RS. I would suggest to split the edit - have the leak in the lede, but the rest in a later section - possibly in the conveniently titled "Other". If nobody complains (or does it...hint, hint!), I'll do that after dinner... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The AR5 report is published Friday, i see no reason to include the mention of the leaked material from 2012, in the lede or under "Other". It is pretty much irrelevant, because there was only some manufactured buzz from the usual suspects, with no credible scientific assessment (This topic on Cosmic Rays has been debunked many times). Under "current status" the mention of the leak with 1 sentences is enough. Though it could be seperated into "Development status" or something like that. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Prokaryotes, my understanding is that only the release of the WG1 report is imminent. It was the WG2 report that was leaked. NCdave (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, then write 1-3 lines but not in the lede, current status and other at the same time :) Maybe make a section for WG1 and WG2, and put it into WG2. Prokaryotes (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Some questions about the SPM section
The Summary for Policymakers section of the article contains a list of items, introduced with the phrase "The principal findings were:" followed by a bulleted list.

I'd like to discuss several aspects of this list. For convenience, the following collapsed table contains all the items in the SPM which are highlighted, along with the comparable item in the list.

Observations for discussion:


 * The Wikipedia list indents some items but not others. It is not clear to me what distinguishes indented from outdented.


 * The SPM does not use the word "principal" This does not trouble me, as it is clear from the style that a number of items, enclosed in a box, with coloring, are the main points.


 * The SPM contains 19 items. Nine of the 19 are discussed in the Wikipedia list. It is not clear to me why some are included are some are not. I am fine calling all items in the SPM as principle findings. If we choose to privilege some over the others, we need a solid rationale.


 * In several cases, the SPM identifies the level of confidence associated with the statement. That level of confidence is included in some Wikipedia entries, but not others. This should be consistent.


 * Item 3 is a single item in the SPM, yet written as two bullet points in the Wikipedia list. I think this is entirely defensible, as the SPM item is really two related, but different thoughts.
 * Item 4 in the SPM is a single sentence, yet written as two bullet points in the Wikipedia list. I think this is not as defensible to break the SPM point into two separate points.


 * The wording style of the sea level rise item (see item 5) is unlike the others.


 * The concentration of greenhouse gas item (see item 6) as described in the Wikipedia item includes a comment not in one of the colored boxes. This is the only such example. What makes that statement deserving of inclusion, when dozens of others are not included?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wrote this section, quite quickly (there was an ITN nomination) during my lunch break at work. The choice of which headlines to include was essentially my entirely subjective judgement as to what was most important/interesting. Please re-write more comprehensively as you see fit. --LukeSurlt c 22:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting that. I was trying to determine whether there was a rationale I was missing. I'll come back with a suggestion. 19 items is a bit long for a single list, I think we can do some grouping, without venturing into OR territory. For example, several are about the metrics, several are about the models.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My cursory review suggests that the key findings could be grouped in the following way (numbers refer to the Count column in the collapsed table)

General 1, 8, 11

Past climate metrics 2,3,4,5,6,7

Models 9, 10

Predictions 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This would allow a list of the 19 items, without making it too linear. Of course, we want to stay away from OR, but this categorization seems rather straightforward. If no objections, I'll work up a straw summary.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Split "Other" section
I suggest to split "Other" into "AR4 Report" (with link to AR4) and something like "New stuff/Updates to AR4". The non-issue about the leak should be removed, irrelevant no substance/credibility.Prokaryotes (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No -- the leak is key, as it wasn't simply one incident, but rather a whole series of leaks. The summary was leaked at least two weeks before release date, early Sept. Keep. 10stone5 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that the leak info is already part of the article, no reason to cluster it all over the place. Prokaryotes (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You proposed removing leak info, no reference to clustering. Keep leak wording. 10stone5 (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

IPCC AR5 citations
To improve the citation of the IPCC AR5 reports I am updating the citation data at Talk:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report/citation. I am also going to try a somewhat different approach than I did for AR4 in providing nearly complete citations using Harv-based short-cites and citation-based full citations. This should make citation of the AR5 reports easier and ultimately more consistent and even more accurate. If you have questions or comments feel free to ask here, or at my talk page.

Please note that these templates currently lack some details (such as ISBN, links to on-line text) that are not yet available; these will need to be updated later. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Friends of the Earth link - WP:5
ThePowerofX thanks for reeding my edits. Since your argumentation for removal of the Friends of the Earth link  was base on personal political opinion, the reasoning is not valid here. See Five pillars '' We describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". ''  This means that you may add supplementary views, but the removal is not desirable with the given argement. Watti Renew (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The IPCC is a scientific body whereas Friends of the Earth is comprised of environmental groups. The briefing document is a product of FOTE (their summary and interpretation of AR5). The link is appropriate and better suited for our article on Friends of the Earth. — TPX 18:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed wording for the Summary for Policymakers section
Following is a draft of a possible replacement list for the Summary for Policymakers section, resulting from discussion in previous section above. I largely used the wording suggested by LukeSurl for items in the original list, then added my proposed wording for the missing items:

The reports contained 19 principle findings: -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * General
 * Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
 * There is a clear human influence on the climate
 * It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, while the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.
 * Historical climate metrics
 * It is likely (with medium confidence) that 1983—2013 was the warmest 30-year period for 1400 years.
 * It is virtually certain the upper ocean warmed from 1971 to 2010. This ocean warming accounts, with high confidence, for 90% of the energy accumulation between 1971 and 2010.
 * It can be said with high confidence that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass in the last two decades and that Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.
 * The sea level rise since the middle of the 19th century has been larger, with high confidence, than the mean sea level rise of the prior two millenia.
 * Concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased to levels unprecedented on earth in 800,000 years.
 * Total radiative forcing of the earth system, relative to 1750, is positive and the most significant driver is the increase in 's atmospheric concentration.
 * Models
 * Climate models have improved since the prior report.
 * Model results, along with observations, provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.
 * Predictions
 * Further warming will continue if emissions of greenhouse gases continue.
 * The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2,0 °C for many scenarios
 * The global water cycle will change, with increases in disparity between wet and dry regions, as well as wet and dry seasons, with some regional exceptions.
 * The oceans will continue to warm, with heat extending to the deep ocean, affecting circulation patterns.
 * Decreases are very likely in Arctic sea ice cover, Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover, and global glacier volume
 * Global mean sea level will continue to rise at a rate very likely to exceed the rate of the past four decades
 * Changes in climate will cause an increase in the rate of production. Increased uptake by the oceans will increase the acidification of the oceans.
 * Future surface temperatures will be largely determined by cumulative, which means climate change will continue even if emissions are stopped.
 * I'd change the first one a little bit:
 * Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system in unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
 * I'd also like to see key words italicized as it is right now in .that section of the article. Other than that, it looks largely ok to me. Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  11:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I made the changes per suggestions. I changed "expected" to "very likely" in the fourth to last bullet, to match the term used in original.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, maybe we can incorporate briefly all the main impacts listed from that report? Such as Ocean heat content uptake, sea level rise, ocean acidification, antarctic and greenland ice mass loss, permafrost thaw, glacier retreat, snow cover decline, arctic sea ice decline, precipitation changes, more weather extremes including more heat waves .... Prokaryotes (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the Report say anything about abrupt climate change or permafrost thaw (Arctic methane release)? Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The final version was released today. I checked the principle findings and did not see any changes (as expected).-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Japanese edition required
Nothing is translated in Japanese Wikipedia. I would like your help to make the Japanese edition. 北野坂 (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms of and reactions to AR5
A selection of early criticisms of the new report, for consideration for  a new section of the article:


 * Richard Lindzen: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."  -- copy here.


 * Judith Curry: "Diagnosis: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science-policy interface. ... The IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs."


 * Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger:  the new report "is completely useless as a basis to form opinions (or policy) related to human energy choices and their influence on the climate." "Cato at Liberty", Cato Institute


 * Marlo Lewis, Fox News:  "Radical forms of social engineering, it turns out, are the real short-term threat of climate change. And the science-policy community that is pushing them is substituting heated rhetoric for real data that doesn’t support their agenda." . Tillman (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you need to find something more sensible. "hilarious incoherence" just isn't believable; Curry's stuff is junk William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your negative personal opinion of Curry (here and elsewhere) is noted. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about you stop the bad-faith attempts to turn this into a BLP issue? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The "hilarious incoherence" comment is elaborated on at IPCC’s pause ‘logic’ by Curry. As she remarks, " reading that text and trying to follow it is positively painful." Remarkable reading. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * These are all opinions without scientific reasoning, could be added to the Climate change denial article. Prokaryotes (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article by Lewis is a warning not to be fooled by the latest attempt to discredit the skeptics who are attempting to discredit the IPCC. That is all way too meta for this article. As for the science cited by Lewis, it is the same old stuff. For example, John Christy is still attacking the climate models in the same way -- he forces the models to make high-end predictions, applies the predictions to parts of the atmosphere that they are not designed to predict, and compares the predictions to his own satellite data, which many scientists say have a distinct cool bias. This was never very persuasive, and it's not particularly relevant to a first-order article on AR5. (If someone wanted to start an second-order article on the campaign to discredit AR5, it might be relevant there.) Margin1522 (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Prokaryotes that those points could make a good addition to Climate change denial as clear examples of denialism. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  02:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't these go under a criticism section/article? Hard to understand a non-subjective rationale where that wouldn't be the case. 4th Assessment has a Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report article. 10stone5 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the "criticisms" cited above amount to nothing more than name calling using politically charged terms like "social engineering". The article on criticisms of AR4 at least identified a couple of actual(if minor) errors. The full text of the working group has only been out for a couple of days. If and when an actual error is found, I'm sure that there will be an article on criticisms. For the sake of the debate, let's hope that someone writes a criticism of the CMIP5 model that scientists can take seriously. Margin1522 (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Steve McIntyre has started posting detailed criticisms of the final report. Here are the first two:
 * Marotzke’s Broken Promise, regarding the IPCC's promise to address the global warming hiatus “head on”.
 * Jochem Marotzke's comments are reported in the Christian Science Monitor
 * IPCC: Fixing the Facts, his analysis of the new report's graphic comparing projections from the climate models to recent observations. Note that ths post appears to be analyzing an "Approved Draft" rather than the actual AR5 SFP.

Both are interesting reading. I'll post more of these for consideration as I see them. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment Pete: climateaudit.org is a WP:SPS blog and as such not suited to be used as a source. That said, posting blog links here "for consideration" is discouraged as per WP:NOTFORUM. If there's an edit/correction/etc you'd like to propose please do so with the appropriate WP:RS. Please note this is a friendly message, not to be taken aggressively. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  18:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. McIntyre not being considered a RS here is unfortunate, imo. Fortunately, his better analyses generally get picked up by "official" RSs, and there's certainly no hurry to put together a "Reactions" section to the new report, which has just been published. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So far the criticism seems to be the same people making the same old points. Maybe we could rename Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to Criticism of the IPCC Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports? This would be until we see some actual science published under peer review that explicitly says that it is a critical response to AR5. --Nigelj (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the best approach is to follow the model of the 4th assessment. A separate article on criticism, which can go into some detail, with a short summary section in this article. I agree with Nigelj that many of the arguments will be similar, but I think there will be substantial differences. For example the Himalayan glaciers issue was prominent in Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, but won't be in the Fifth.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Veteran climate reporter Fred Pearce has interesting remarks at Has the U.N. Climate Panel Now Outlived Its Usefulness?. Pearce reports that "Some scientists are saying the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is overly conservative and fails to mention some of the most worrisome possible scenarios." --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * All of this is bullshit. You might as well put ad hominems in the "criticism" section. 79.223.183.221 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ??? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Roger Pielke, Jr. has a long, interesting post on his positive & negative reactions to the new report:
 * 1. The core scientific understandings remain unchanged
 * 2. The IPCC itself is still engaged in PR spin and messaging
 * 3. We will not be able to clearly distinguish the influence of that human influence from natural variability for decades
 * 4. Actions to mitigate climate through reductions in carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) will not have a detectable effect on climate until after mid-century.
 * 5. There is not a strong scientific basis for claiming a discernible effect of human-caused climate change on hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought.

None of these are very controversial (imo), but Pielke (as always) writes well and knows what he's talking about. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again that source is a blog and blogs are by definition self-published sources thus not suitable for referencing in WP. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  19:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that we use Roger Pielke, Jr.'s blog postings under the "expert" subclause at WP:RS. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Did the AR5 take the ‘dangerous’ out of AGW?" by Judith Curry

Several commentators have discussed Section 12.5.5 in the WG1 Report, specifically Table 12.4. Curry quotes Andrew Montford's remarks: "The only disaster scenario that the IPCC consider at all likely in the possible lifetimes of many of us alive now is "Disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice" ... Curry writes "The IPCC has high confidence that we don’t have to worry about  any of the genuinely dangerous scenarios (e.g. ice sheet collapse, AMOC collapse) on timescales of a century." -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And once again that is a blog, not a WP:RS. As per WP:NOTFORUM this is not the place to be posting links to blog articles you might consider interesting so I'm calling for this thread to be closed and hatted. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  20:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And once again, please read SPS. If Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, doesn't qualify as an expert, I'm not sure who would. Certainly this will work for a discussion page. OK? Pete Tillman (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I will concede that even though those are obvious WP:SPS, the authors probably qualify as experts on the field (keep in mind WP:EXCEPTIONAL though) In any case WP:NOTFORUM still applies to this whole thread. If you want to propose an edit based on any of those sources then please do so and it will be discussed. I ask you to please stop posting links to blogs (no matter how much of an expert the author is) and instead try to contribute to the article in a suitable way. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  21:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Curry has revised her criticisms of AR5 for her recent formal presentation to the US Senate Envrionment & Public Works Committee, 01/16/14: -- the better source to use, since it's third-party, avoiding the SPS hassle.

Her conclusions:
 * Multiple lines of evidence presented in the recent IPCC 5th assessment report suggest that the case for anthropogenic warming is now weaker than in 2007, when the 4th assessment report was published. -- Quote source

This is here basically as a memo to self, since it doesn't look like anyone else is going to work up a criticism section. Maybe soon?? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, it's a year-plus later, and still nothing critical here or (sfaict) at Attribution_of_recent_climate_change, re what seems to me the "Elephant in the room": the Models run Hot. But why listen to me? Here's mainstream climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon, Re: Models vs. Reality:
 * "How can the IPCC increase their confidence in anthropogenic global warming at the same time their model projections are diverging farther and farther from reality?" – "Your Logic Escapes Me" by JNG, January 22, 2014.

Guess I should actually do something about this (sigh). It does look like the long-awaited self-correction of Climate Science (that climate change doesn't really look so fearsome as we thought) might be underway. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141126061207/https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf to http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)