Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Question about the second sentence
The second sentence says "Its job is to advance scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities.". I am not sure if this is strictly correct? The reference given doesn't say it like that but says "the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies". For me "advancing scientific knowledge" would sound like IPCC is doing its own research which it isn't. Maybe better: Its job is to disseminate scientific knowledge ..." Or "compile" or "make available existing scientific knowledge"? EMsmile (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting question, thanks. You're correct that we don't want to imply the IPCC is doing its own research. But it is doing more than disseminate and compile. Its role is to assess all the published scientific information relevant to climate change, to say this is what we know about the subject, this is the state of knowledge. The concept of "assess" is complicated and I'm not sure whether it would be clear and readable especially in the lead. I would argue that the assessment process does result in advancing knowledge. But perhaps it's not the best word. Can anyone suggest a better one? Jonathanlynn (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really useful. Perhaps we need to use a different reference in that case as the current ref for that sentence says "to provide governments at all levels with scientific information" which doesn't go as far as "assess". Are there any good articles or books about the IPCC, i.e. from a third party perspective? If so, they might have used the wording "to assess" or "to advance" in which case we could use that as a ref. EMsmile (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Changing the lead back to the 20 Feb version
Hi, I have just changed the lead back to the 20 Feb version. I felt that the changes made in this edit were not really an improvement. The edit summary stated "Improved grammar and syntax in introduction and removed details best left in body" but I felt those changes were making it harder to understand it (e.g. changing active voice to passive voice, making sentences longer). Also I felt that the old summary of 510 words was a good length for this kind of article (although it might be better to change it so that it becomes 4 paragraphs instead of 5). Also, it might be better to make any changes to the lead incrementally not in bulk. EMsmile (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Add a bit more about the conservative nature of IPCC?
I've had a discussion with User:FeydHuxtable at the talk page of effects of climate change on human health about the conservative nature of the IPCC. FeydHuxtable has made me aware of an interesting 2019 publication that explains this aspect. I think we could nicely use it in this article to update this aspect of the criticism: "Here's a good source that show's why even in relatively climate skeptic countries, the IPPC estimates are distrusted by policy makers as massive underestimates of the CC threat." FeydHuxtable also said: "I'm not sure about adding the source to the IPPC page. It already reflects the perspective that the org can be overly conservative, adding more on those lines may not be due weight." - Wondering what others think, e.g. User:Jonathanlynn? EMsmile (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with User:FeydHuxtable that the IPCC article already addresses the conservative nature of the organization (it has a whole sub-section on that topic). So I'm not sure further material is required, but we should keep an eye on it. Yes it is a conservative organization like any that requires consensus from 195 countries to agree something, whether it's a report or a change to the way it works. Many countries say that the report underestimate the CC threat but accept that is part of the policy of building consensus among members under the guidance of the scientists who hold the pen. But some governments argue that draft statements overstate the case. Anyway, I also agree that AR6 is the best current summation of climate science and should be referred to. 86.67.88.220 (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgot the Jonathanlynn (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Add something from the challenges section to the lead?
The lead is pretty good now but I think it's missing a couple of summary statements about the section "challenges and controversies". As the lead is already 510 words, we might have to condense a bit in another place to make space (I think 500 words would be a good lead length). Pinging User:Jonathanlynn. EMsmile (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Add some photos?
Hi User:Jonathanlynn, do you have any more photos that we could add to this article? EMsmile (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

American English spelling tag?
Any reason why the article is written in American English and tagged as such in the discussion page? The article is about a UN body, which uses en-GB-oxendict, and related articles on Wikipedia all follow this convention (See United Nations and WHO). Also, it it's also a bit jarring to read United Nations Environmental Programme next to the verb/noun program. Addionally, see MOS:TIES. 202.1.199.68 (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * When I gave it a comprehensive edit I stuck with the spelling convention I found, but you are right that as a UN-related body it uses British English and it would be more logical to go with that. I'll have a go when I have a few moments.Jonathanlynn (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now done this. Jonathanlynn (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. Normally I stick to WP:ENGVAR and in particular MOS:RETAIN. I don't see why the IPCC should have strong national ties to Great Britain? The UN is not a country? Overall, I have no particular objections to changing over to British spelling (most of the climate change articles are in British spelling) but I think your justification might not quite match WP:ENGVAR. If nobody objects, it can stay like it is now, I guess (i.e. British English). EMsmile (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad that this will be retained but adding a small clarification. IPCC does not have any strong ties to the United Kingdom, its ties are with the United Nations. The UN uses British English as denoted in the very spelling of United Nations Environment Programme (I note this is still spelled incorrectly in the article's infobox). --123.176.11.5 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)