Talk:IPCC Summary for Policymakers

Some old discussion from 2006
Cut (unsourced POV):


 * The argument is that the scientists determine what can be said, but the governments determine how it can best be said.

Whose argument is this? Sounds like something Singer or his buddies would say. ;-) --Uncle Ed 15:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, please don't just cut out stuff you don't like. Its impolite. Just ask the question here instead William M. Connolley 15:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wasn't something I "didn't like", actually I agreed with it!
 * Nothing "impolite" about a Text move. I do it dozens of times per week. Yours is the first objection I've had in months.
 * You delete stuff yourself, when you think it shouldn't be in the article. How is it different when *I* do it?
 * Anyway, I found the source, fixed it up and put it back already.
 * Golly, you're testy these days. What's up with that? We used to get on so well . . . --Uncle Ed 15:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Errm, yes, you've found the source. Which is why taking it out was pointless. Why not do the obvious look-up *first*? It would cause less annoyance. Anyway... I've rephrased your word. In particular, the blunt "criticism" is inappropriate, because it makes it look like T is criticising the current SPM. I've seen this used by skeptics to argue that he thinks its pro-GW biased, whereas his intent, if anything, is the other way round. So I'd like to see rather careful wording of any paraphrases (like section headings) William M. Connolley 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If T is not criticizing the politicization of science by the UN climate panel, then there are other panel contributors who have. Can you help me make a list of them? Three years ago, it was easier to find this info at Wikipedia. I'm looking for the quote that goes:
 * We scientists draw conclusions based on actual science, and then the government reps go through it and change everything they disagree with, to make it look like scientist are endorsing political policy. (or something like that). --Uncle Ed 18:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect this is willful misremembering. --Stephan Schulz 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why so suspicious, my dear colleague? Here's the passage I was struggling to recall:
 * "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented.... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report." --Keith Shine, a lead author of Climate Change 1995
 * You cannot deny that the actual quote is something like my half-remembered version. And I will not deny that interpreted it in a nasty light, but I won't concede to having made it up completely.


 * Shine said policymakers go through it ... and change the draft, which is the essence of what I said. --Uncle Ed 20:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Its already in IPCC. Note that what Shine is complaining about is the US/Saudi lobby toning it down William M. Connolley 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Singer and SEPP
Ed, I took out your Singer quote. Have you read the full article? It gave no data about the supposed survey, it neither contained the questions nor the number of queried scientists, and it told us nothing about the degree and the direction in which these scientists supposedly disagreed with the report. As William points out, while Singer certainly tries to evoke the opposite impression, Shine complains about to much toning down in the summary. In short, the SEPP essay is a useless piece of propaganda and has no informational value. --Stephan Schulz 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to remove quotes from published authors who assert that the SPM is biased and/or fails to reflect the actual views of scientists expressed in the Technical Summary. In particular, any complaints made about the omission of the degree of uncertainty are highly relevant. So I'm putting all the quotes back. --Uncle Ed 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Singer is not a "published author" in this context, he is a bad propagandist who apparently invents "sources". An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (of all the scientific publications!) is not a reliable source in this context. And without access to the original survey and data, there is no useful information in this sentence. Giving any lengthy integration report, every scientist is likely to find something that could be improved. Maybe SEPP just asked if the use of Times/Roman vs. Sans Serif would have improved the report ("Scientists claim report not optimal!"). I don't claim that's the case, but we just don't know. Dig out the data (or the Gallup and Greenpeace surveys), and we can talk.--Stephan Schulz 14:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One columnist saying he couldn't find a cited paper is insufficient reason to exclude a source. I'm putting it back in, in accordance with WP:NPOV. If you want to quote The Guardian as dismissing Singer as a "propagandist", go ahead. Then readers can decide for themselves. --Wing Nut 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

deleting negative info
Dr. C., please don't just cut out stuff you don't like. Its impolite.

If you feel anti-IPCC info needs to be balanced with pro-IPCC info, you are encouraged to add it. NPOV contemplates including all relevant points of view, including the POV you support, i.e., that IPCC summaries for policymakers are flawless or excellent, or ... Hey, I got an idea: write it yourself!

What does 'the mainstream' say about IPCC SPM's? --Uncle Ed 12:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to extend the is article, I suggest you do your homework. The quotes by Shine and Trenberth are out of context and extremely misleading. --Stephan Schulz 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If by misleading, you mean that they advance the POV that the IPCC reports have biased summaries, then there's nothing wrong with being 'misleading'. If you adhere to the opposing POV, i.e., that the IPCC reports don't have biased summaries, well that's not a Wikipedia problem. Articles need not reflect editors' points of view.


 * If some published authors have asserted a POV opposing those of Shine, Trenberth, etc. please add them. I like balance in articles. --Uncle Ed 19:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have, as usual, misunderstood. Shine and TRenberth are complainig about the US/Saudi lobby watering down the language, despite you efforts to lump them in with Singer which they would not approve of William M. Connolley 19:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to you turning this into a battlefield. I also reject your std he-said-they-said article style. There is nothing to say here that shouldn't be better said on the IPCC page itself. Your version - Singers version - is too badly biased to be useful. The mainstream does the obvious - accepts the SPM as a useful document and says nothing much about it. Only the skeptics whinge William M. Connolley 13:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Unbalanced POV
Dr. C., if there is a "point of view" that politicians cannot or do not influence the wording of the SPM, by all means, include it. But do not remove well-referenced information which advances a point of view, simply because you disagree with it. --Uncle Ed 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you seem to be taking POV forks to the ultimate by starting new sections instead of continuing the discussion above. Why? I object to... oh look, its all been said above, what a waste of space William M. Connolley 15:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and it's a false dichtonomy along more than one axis, and its still misleading. Grrrr! --Stephan Schulz 23:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

More unbalanced POV
"Intended to aid" makes it sound like it's offering objective advice. Might it not be intended to sway?

Climate Change 2001 says:
 * This Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which was approved by IPCC member governments in Shanghai in January 2001
 * describes the current state of understanding of the climate system and provides estimates of its projected future evolution and their uncertainties.

I broke the sentence to emphasize the "approved by IPCC member governments" part. Does this mean that the scientists agreed with the SPM, weren't asked, or what? Did the member governments simply vote on what they wanted the SPM to say?

This is important politically, because Kyoto supporters say there is a scientific consensus on AGW, citing the UN's IPCC Summary for Policymakers. But if the SPM can say whatever the governments want it to, then it doesn't have a direct relationship to what the scientists say. That is, the "assessment" of the science is made by government representatives, not the scientists themselves.

This bears on dispute over whether:
 * there is a scientific consensus on AGW (believed by 75% of US liberals)
 * the "science is not settled" (believed by 75% of US conservatives)

Basically, what I want to know is the linkage between what the scientists tell the UN panel, and what the panel's SPM says to the public. --Uncle Ed 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As you should know by now, it was written by scientists. The final draft was then approved by the gouvernments. The full reports are available, and the SPM contains references back into them. If you are truly interested in the reliability, why don't you select some points and read both the SPM and the underlying full report? As for Wikipedia, extremely few WP:RS have shown concern about disagreement of SPM and full reports. --Stephan Schulz 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The part I've known for several years is that the initial draft is written by scientists. The part I don't know (and still don't know) is that the unchanged draft is voted up or down in its entirety.


 * Some have claimed that UN bureaucrats have made changes in the SPM - against the wishes or even without the knowledge of scientists. On the basis of this claim, it has further been argued that the SPM was "altered" so that it would conform to preconceived notions of the panel members and therefore does not represent a scientific consensus.


 * There is also a question of whether the "references" feeding back to the science from the summary support what the politicians agreed on.


 * I do not "know" that the SPM corresponds one-to-one (with no significant change) to the points made by the contributing scientists. If I knew that, I wouldn't raised the question. I only ask for information I don't have. If I knew the answer, I would simply supply it.


 * So what I still want to know is the linkage between what the scientists tell the UN panel, and what the panel's SPM says to the public. Where and when are changes made from what the scientists say, to what the SPM tell us? --Uncle Ed 18:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is VERY one-sided
Wikipedia is to provide FACTS, ie BALANCED articles.

This article only concentrates on the criticisms of the the SMPs. It seems that it is only written by climate change skeptics

I was myself an observer at the IPCC meetings finalising the Fourth Assessment Report SPMs and fully agree with THE LAST PART of Kevin E. Trenberth's quote (which I added myself to better represent his views): "In spite of these trials and tribulations, the result is a reasonably balanced consensus summary."

Come one, let see both sides of the coin!

Jacques de Selliers

--Deselliers 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Feel free to hack it William M. Connolley 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I added an intro text - feel free to improve it - and removed the Fred Singer section (because the source of his quote cannot be verified):

"According to the website of Fred Singer, it was written in a Wall Street Journal that Keith Shine, a lead author of the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report, said:

"'We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented.... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report.'"

Note that is just a one-sided excerpt of an alledged declaration. This quote cannot be found on the web other than in this article and Fred Singer' webpage (and in replications of these)."

Deselliers 14:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Crit
The crit section quotes FS; but the quote supplied doesn't address the headline, which is "SPM overstates the case for anthropogenic global warming". The quote, even if you believe it, says something totally different. The L quote is weird, because it asserts that the Summary is written by one person, whereas as we already know (and the article states) it isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No-one commented, so I've removed some William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The passage is fine. If you would like to discuss some modifications, you are free to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.112.29.167 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you haven't addressed the problem I've identified. Do you understand the problem? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


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


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

How to characterize dissent

 * That Singer and Lindzen in the past have commented on this does not a controversy make. (edit comment by Kim)

Our article says that the negotiation process ensures balance and accuracy. But Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen disagree with this. How much disagreement does it take, before something is controversial? Does Wikipedia have an editorial standard for contributors to make this decision? (I've read the essay on WP:Controversial articles, but (a) it's not a standard and (b) it doesn't answer my question.

We don't say the shape of the earth is controversial, because neither (1) a significant number of people nor (2) any published author asserts that it is anything but ball-shaped. Our article on the Flat earth call this is an ancient idea, and our Flat Earth myth article clarifies that it never became popular even in the "dark ages" of Europe.

We did report that some Democrats said Bush was "not our president" when he almost lost to Gore, but was that a controversy or just a few disappointed partisans voicing complaints?

Only 95% of scientists (in general) accept the theory of evolution, but do we consider 5% enough to call it a controversy? Go into any bookstore and you'll see dozens if not hundreds of books covering the "dispute" over the theories validity. But is there an Evolution controversy in science? Our article tags it cultural, political, and theological.

If 15% of scientists disagreed with the IPCC on some aspect of AGW, would that indicate a controversy? When we choose admins here at Wikipedia, we say that 85% acceptance indicates "consensus". So how about 20%? 25%? What level of dissent must there be among scientists for us at Wikipedia to call it a "controversy"?

Specifically, how many scientists, and of what standing in the field, must there be, to say that there is "controversy" over the UNIPCC process of preparing the Summary for Policymakers?
 * Or if we contributors cannot agree on the word "controversy", can we use the word "dispute"?
 * Or can we simply say that "Singer and Lindzen" have called the integrity of the process into question?

If some people assert that the summary produces accurate, balanced and relevant information, we should at least name them. If others disagree, we should name them (and say why they disagree). We should not say that a process ensures something, if reliable sources aren't so sure. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that it should be more than individuals that you quote for something to be a controversy. Otherwise you are conducting original research. It is no surprise that hard-core sceptics consider the IPCC a "bad thing". The question that needs to be answered is whether or not these individuals represent a significant minority - and you can't do that from individual comments, you will have to source that to reliable secondary sources, and since the NAS has investigated this, and not found any controversy - it will have to be some rather serious sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that a couple of people decided to delete Fred Singer's objection. Was this only because of link rot, or is there a more substantial reason? I found a link in Science here, if it's only a matter of finding a reliable source for the viewpoint.

As to your characterization of NAS, here is a January 03, 2011 press release:
 * The National Association of Scholars does not take a position on global warming but advocates for a full discussion of all sides of the controversy.

I don't know how you can interpret this as having "not found any controversy". --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Singer asserting something does not mean that it exists. And No. It was not link-rot.... I can't find the article, and thus can't verify it. Your reverting, and tagging on another link, doesn't even contain the text (or anything similar to the text) in the article (did you even read it?), and thus is 100% unverifiable and wrong. I suggest that you self-revert, since the link doesn't support the text. And in addition isn't a WP:RS. (the Oregon petition is not a WP:RS either - in fact every verification attempt made at it has shown it to be a falsification).
 * As for your humorous interjection about the National Association of Scholars (another non-WP:RS and a pure fringe advocacy organization), you should know this subject well enough to know that i was referring to National Academy of Sciences (which is a WP:RS). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, well. NAEG reverted. Correctly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware, at the time of posting, that there are two different NAS organizations in play. If I were getting paid for this, my employer would have words with me. A quick check verifies their existence:
 * 1) NAS => National Academy of Sciences
 * 2) National Association of Scholars

I'll even go so far as to speculate whether the latter's name is intentionally misleading. Good thing we have "many eyes" and can help each other uncover such mistakes. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, these misleading names. Why am I reminded of dissent from Darwinism? . . dave souza, talk 21:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on AR5 process by CLA Robert Stavins
This should be updated to incorporate the widespread coverage of the letter from Robert Stavins as a Co-Coordinating Lead Author (CLA) for AR5 in 2014, e.g. via the quote "Several of the CLAs present with me in Berlin commented that given the nature and outcome of the week, the resulting document should probably be called the Summary by Policymakers, rather than the Summary for Policymakers," said Stavins in a blog post. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree if we trumpet the key paragraph in the source you cited, which reads
 * "I urge the IPCC to direct public attention to the documents produced by the lead authors that were subject to government (and expert) comment, but not subject to government approval," Stavins said. "I believe that tremendous public good would arise from publicizing the key findings of the Technical Summary and the individual chapter Executive Summaries, instead of the Summary for Policymakers."
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight
The article is about process and credentials but does not say what what the Summarys actually conclude - what are they asking for? E.g. the upper limit of warming should be around 2 degrees maximum. Not even the existence or timeline of the different summaries is mentioned. There is no info about differences in the past summaries. Furthermore the artcile is not in line with the claims of Scientific opinion on climate change. Are the Summaries part of the science opinion or not? Serten (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The assessments change. See IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for the latest. Dmcq (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That might happen. The article doesnt need to repeat the AR 1-4, but should explain what differences came up with the summaries and may give an outlook of what will be different with AR5. So far it doesnt mention at all that there are different ones. Serten (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTPAPER. We don't need to stick everything into every article. Hyperlinks are easy to click and the scope of individual articles should be well delineated and their size kept within limits. Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Gosh, the summaries are about policy, not the ARs. Its sort of poppycock not to tell what content they have and what is different. Serten (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Gosh amazing, I was under the impression you would have though this article was just what you'd like as far as weight is concerned where one can go on about the process and reception and criticism and forget any tekki detail. Anyway I do agree that this article should have proper references to various assessment reports and a one paragraph summary. The policy part isn't out yet for the fifth assessment so you'll have to go to the fourth to see a proper description. Dmcq (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The summarys are the more political things and they propose sorta solutions. As said, we know from Oppermann, that the Fifth will be less consensus oriented. Serten (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013060349/http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session26/draftreport26.pdf to http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session26/draftreport26.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206221359/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html to http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206221359/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html to http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160330214626/http://grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Findex.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Findex.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501082410/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/004.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/004.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)