Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 8

Glaciergate
From the Telegraph, is apparently the title of this business now. There is so much info I think we may have to write a new article about the entire affair. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh and from here, the lead author admits the info wasn't verified and knew it was "grey literature." The author then goes on to say that they put it in there to influence policy-makers in the region. Additionally, there is criticism in the article about how the IPCC tends to be rather alarmist in there predictions, which is why I laugh when I read the wikipedia article since it says they are criticized for being conservative. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Or as Newsbusters accurately describes it, "IPCC Scientist: Fake Data Used To Put Pressure On World Leaders."TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And from Fox News: '' The IPCC "made a clear and obvious error when it stated that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035," added Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, in an interview.

"The absurdity was obvious to anyone who had studied the scientific literature. This was not an honest mistake. IPCC had been warned about it for a year by many scientists."''TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to me all this should be in this article as it is a crit of the IPCC and not of AR4 as it was to begin with. I was writing up a section for here but you seem to be ahead of me, why not write up what you have and we can go from there mark nutley (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Full protection
Seeing the dispute is flaring up again, I've fully protected the article until disputes are resolved. -- JForget 15:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

More IPCC blunders, per Times of London
"UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters", by Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor, January 24, 2010. Arguably more serious blunders than the Himalayan glacier fiasco. The Times is doing some interesting investigative reporting on the IPCC. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, it all goes back to them using inadequate sources to make incredible claims. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The IPCC has responded to the Times article here, and Roger Pielke, Jr. comments on the IPCC statement here: "This press release from the IPCC would have been a fine opportunity to set the scientific and procedural record straight and admit to what are obvious and major errors in content and process. Instead, it has decided to defend the indefensible... Not a good showing by the IPCC." Pete Tillman (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This error was one of five "glaring" errors
I reverted TGL's, for the obvious reasons: it is wildly controversial stuff which he has made no attempt to gain consensus for on talk.

There are any number of problems with that text; lets start with the most obvious: if this error is so "glaring", how come a mistake in a 2007 report (which was publically available as draft in 2006) wasn't spotted until late 2009? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is hardly wildly controversial now is it. It is well sourced and pertinent to this article. You have broken the 1R rule on this article btw i left you a message on your talkspace --mark nutley (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * More news on this, Interview with Dr Lal--mark nutley (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong about AGW being linked to natural disasters Wow thats three massive errors found already in a few minutes, what exactly was your issue with this WMC? --mark nutley (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, he wasn't "misquoted" (by the IPCC) - since we know the IPCC quoted the text from the WWF report. Secondly the 5 errors are in the same paragraph as before. It is still only one paragraph that is in error, the error comes from the WWF report. Third, Dr. Hasnain according to the Times certainly has a lot of the blame by not pointing out the error, despite acknowledging that he knew about it. And the whole "glaring" thing is simply POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1 - WWF got it from new scientist who got it from a short phone call so yes the IPCC have misquoted him by using material they should not have.
 * 2 - AGW being linked to natural disasters This is more than one paragraph in error. The entire report should be in doubt along with the IPCC when such obvious lies are told.
 * 3- The people to blame are those who wrote and released this report by using material they should not have, which would be the IPCC. Dr Lal says that they knew it should not have been in but they used it to promote an alarmist agenda. So failing to see an issue with this inclusion --mark nutley (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but do you consider Newsbusters a reliable source? I'm going to make you aware here that BLP rules do apply to talk-pages as well, and that your statement that Dr. Lal "lied" is a breach. You are inferring here, and you aren't basing it on reliable sources but instead on your own personal POV. (Nowhere is it said that Dr. Lal "lied" sorry). There is nothing wrong with the IPCC using "grey literature", it is in fact (as pointed out earlier) stated clearly that they can do so. When the IPCC are quoting from the WWF report, they cannot be "misquoting" something when they state the same thing as the WWF report. If anyone is misquoting - it is the WWF (and they didn't do so either - since they also quote a reference where the same information is located). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Were in the above statement did i write "Dr Lal lied"? mark nutley (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, WWF didn't get it from NS, they got it from ICSI, as they said. Your #2 looks like speculation. Dunno what you're on about in #3. Try to avoid mud-flinging; concentrate on one secure thing at a time instead of multiple poorly supported ideas William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

what exactly was your issue with this - well, I've already provided one clear objection that you have failed to answer. Have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WWF got it from ICSI? Source please, and a reliable one not a self published one from WWF as all sources to date say it came from NS. #2 How can you say it`s speculation? read the article and of course Chris Landsea Leaves IPCCkinda verify`s it. 3 i was responding to kim saying that Dr Hasnain had to shoulder a lot of the blame, the blame lies squarely at the feet of the IPCC for wishing to push their alarmist agenda. mark nutley (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of "reliable" sources out there that have been hopelessly wrong on this; you're clinging to them because they support your POV. As to how we know, how much spoon feeding do you need? Its already written down in the Criticism of the IPCC AR4 article: and I quote, from the WWF report, quoted there: In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood [sic] of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”. [p. 38] I think you'll agree that does rather suggest that they got it from ICSI, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry man, once again it is you who need spoon feeding,


 * "In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high."

This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded.


 * Yes. There is no dispute about that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The essence of this quote is also used on page 3 in the Executive summary where it states: The New Scientist magazine carried the article "Flooded Out - Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley communities" in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming" See that part there about It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain'' now were do you think that quote came from? The NS of course. Even the WWF says it came from there. --mark nutley (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well no. The material on p3 (p3? I thought it was p2) doesn't mention 2035. Also, it is quite clear from the material quoted that the WWF text has come from the ICSI text, not the NS text. You've got this wrong; stop digging; you just make yourself ridiculous William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm right, and you're wrong: it is on p2. Did you read the report, or are you just parroting someone else's error? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously man, do not chop my posts up again. Now what part of this are you confused about? The New Scientist magazine carried the article "Flooded Out - Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley communities" in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming Why is it so hard for you to comprehend the WWF`s own words? The 2035 quote came from NS, from an interview with Hasnain, Hasnain has said it was speculation. The only link to the ICSI is the fact that hasnain was working for them then. Any further questions? --mark nutley (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've explained it above. may also help William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW - we should not be using that interview with Lal as a RS: Lal has an enormous COI over this issue. As I read it, Lal was the guy responsible for putting 2035 in, and he knew at the time, cos Kaser told him, that it was wrong. *Now* he has been caught out, and he needs a good excuse for why it isn't all his fault, so is desperately trying to spray blame around William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not page two of the wwf report, page 12. The New Scientist magazine carried the article “Flooded Out – Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley communities” in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming”. The article also predicted that freshwater flow in rivers across South Asia will “eventually diminish, resulting in widespread water shortages There ya go, any further proof required? Are you seriously saying that only lal knew of this? How many people helped write that report and missed this? Come on man. And perhaps you should not be accusing people of stuff, i got a bollocking from TS for just that today. --mark nutley (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold on. What are you on about? Just up above you said it was on p3 William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should hold of on the beer, you said page 3 i never said a page number until my last post mate :) mark nutley (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a New Scientist editorial, 16th Jan, says that they believe that they are the primary source for '2035': "The claim later appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent report - and it turns out that our article is the primary published source". --Nigelj (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree on the opinion that the '2035' is the result of the "interview alike" contact between New Scientist and Hasnain (being in a leading position of ICSI at this time) - if you really need it more precisely you might need to ask all involved parties from that time. That statement as it looks today is far away from anything like the outcome of a peer reviewed study. IPCC should in theory have a footnote for each claim it reproduces during their document creation process and probably marker for the scientific quality of each such statement. How else would they be in state of deciding between plain white and greyish sources when it comes to the final document assembly? providing the footnotes to their reviewers and even to the rest of the world is something i would expect to be the normal case for scientific standard work procedures. any note on just an interview (might it be 8 years old as in this case) for such thrilling news would lead any serious reviewer to ask how reliable this projection is and if there was an update on the insights in the insights in the time in between. A simple call between colleges would have unveiled the truth about that not at all that serious statement. no one would blame you if you dont check that much on already reviewed materials but not reviewing ans unreviewed statements with that magnitude is a hoax for the whole process. listen to the IPCC critics on the India research - they were told having ignore most other sources around them whilst performing a mostly solid authentic and original research. so the IPCC told them "we have alternate insights" (did they? they have not yet provided any replacement, if i heared right), more knowledge and whatever - but it looks like they did not show them to anyone, else it should have popped up rapidly that those '2035' prognosis was far beyond any expectation area of what anybody else sees as the future development. picking the most thrilling statement and ignoring any other stocked insights does not lead you to anywhere but shipwrecking your works. having a best-/worst-/standard-case estimation is a recommended normal doing. with that you can open up your mind for any case and prepare for that up to some degree. hey, if i wanted to read some main stream science media then i go for NS directly. sometimes i might go for such an offer, but often i would rather like to abstain that. lets see if i'd now like to read any of the past or future IPCC reports. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alexander, the IPCC does footnote it, to the WWF report, which itself sources it to an ICSI report, which again sources it to Kotlyakov (who says 2350 not 2035), the WWF made the mistake, the IPCC ate the mistake raw (which was their mistake). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No kim, look above please you will see what i copied and pasted from the WWF report. It came from that interview in the NS. I have also read that the WWF has been used extensively by the IPCC in the preparation of AR4 Check out this list in see also. Still waiting on WMC`s reply to the above . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 07:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: What does WP:DUE indicate regarding errors in an IPCC report?
A 2007 synthesis report by the IPCC (main article, sometimes referred to as AR4) included inaccurate statements on the rapidity of glacial melting in the Himalayas. This was based on literature that had not been peer reviewed, in contravention of IPCC's stated process. Choose just about any diff here to see the proposed text. Is it WP:DUE weight to include a section along these lines? Does it give WP:UNDUE weight to one aspect of the topic Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? What is the WP:PROMINENCE of criticisms of one report to the topic of the article on the Panel? For background discussion, see and. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC text fixed for neutral presentation here. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Section for comments from uninvolved editors only

 * I've looked around this and as far as I can tell the only purpose of including the text is to try to portray IPCC as unreliable, which in general they are not. It's not a criticism that makes the mainstream reviews of the subject I've read and seems to be considered massively important by the global warming denial community and nobody else. As such it looks very much like undue weight to me, something considered significantly only y a fringe minority (there are analogues in the debate around the big bang theory, some people seek to exploit minor debates around tiny facets of what amounts to an overwhelming consensus in order to overstate the extent of the dispute and the solidity of the evidence base). I guess I am reminded of the infamous hockey stick, criticism of which is used to deny the late 20th century temperature uptick which appears in so many different models that those using the hockey stick critique give a very strong impression of deliberately choosing the thing they can criticise in order to avoid answering an unanswerable case. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea what the current status of the RfC is, but. The "Himalayan Glaciers" section seems to be about a rather small issue that is given too much weight/space. But the same can be said about all sub-section in the "Criticism of IPCC" section. I think it is important to present the criticism, but it is also important to inform the un-informed reader that there are also many scientists who agree with the finding (and all of these have not gotten their own 10-line description in the article). I also miss a description of the possibly-unfair criticism from politicians and others. To summarize, I think the criticism should be included but it is necessary to have a meta-description about what the general consensus in the scientific, and political, community is. Labongo (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the edit history, and it looks as if the material relating to the apparent use of non peer-reviewed data is a clear case of undue weight. A neutral source suggesting that this might be a noteworthy problem for the report would be required, at least. What we appear to have is some decidedly non-neutral criticism coupled with an admission that the sourcing could have been better. I long for the day when Wikipedia subscribes to the standards of the IPCC. --FormerIP (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The place where this is really important is wrt the WPII reportEli Rabett (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I've gathered around here (talk page, edit history, some outside reading), this particular tempest focuses on a relatively minor error in one IPCC report...this article is about the entire IPCC, its goals, methods and impact. Therefore, the scale of this issue in proportion to the scope of this topic doesn't justify much, if any, coverage in this article. Given that there is a Criticism of the IPCC AR4 article, anything more than a brief allusion to said error (and its associated controversy)seems hardly necessary. Anything fleshed out in the 'criticisms' section of this article should focus on issues of broader relevance (e.g., systemic concerns on the evaluation process). &mdash; Scientizzle 19:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Himalayan glaciers are the water sources for a huge chunk of Asia. In addition, Pachauri is being told to resign in major newspaper editorials.  If the subject is a resignation issue for the leadership, it probably merits some discussion in the page about the body.  Slowjoe17 (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Section for comments from involved editors

 * Include - The IPCC is not immune from controversy or criticism. The sources provided are clearly reliable for this material.  --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Disclosure: I am not sure what "field of articles" refers to but in this case I am suitably independent of this article and it's talk page.  My only contributions to this page were to place a  on the claim that the IPCC is a scientific organization, to correct a broken reference, and to add a link to the see also section. I have now become an active participant.


 * Too new / minor - on including some mention: this is a minor point in the WGII report, not in the more-known WGI report. It is also too new - wait a month, the view amongst WP:RS about this may settle. On including the text proposed : it clearly violates WP:UNDUE and fails to understand the issue William M. Connolley (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's an extreme case of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. The cause is one error in the WG2 report. The effect is (nearly) as long as the whole section on the AR4 so far. Moreover, it mixes criticism of process with criticism of results, and significant parts of the later seem to be unsourced. And on the Meta-level: The RfC is horribly spun. You are supposed to at least try to make it look neutral. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Google glacial melt 2035 and see how many hits you get. Look above for the rest of my arguments mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are hardly uninvolved with this article Stephen. Oh, and TS, why'd you remove the list of those for/against? Was it because the talk pages show a clear case for inclusion? You also removed my editting to make my post look ugly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, you are quoting WP:COATRACK which is NOT wikipedia policy, and indeed, the talk pages show the vast majority of involved wikipedians voted AGAINST making it policy due to, among other things, its potential abuse for keeping relevent info out of articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As for "spin" I can only present the counterarguments that your side has made - like your quoting of non-policy. It isn't my fault that it looks bad. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't use votes for this kind of thing (hence I guess people are commenting not voting) we use arguments here WP:UNDUE is a heavy argument against including this, given how much coverage IPCC gets and how little this one has got. OTOH is is hardly something to get worked up about. --BozMo talk 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And again, not only has this gotten a lot of coverage, but an expert on the subject, as quoted and sourced in the inclusion, has said that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" - if it is "major" then it certainly isn't undue. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Expert meaning the red link above? Do we know anything about him? --BozMo talk 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Note after refocusing discussion: the red link above refers to Michael Zemp. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He works for the World Glacier Monitoring service and is a doctor - here is a list of his publications. He is certainly far better qualified to determine how important this is than any of us. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This mistake was still being cited by the ipcc on on third of november.
 * (Jean-Pascal van Ypersele IPCC Vice-chair, said at UNFCCC, Barcelona, on 3 November, 2009):


 * ImpactsGlacial retreat in the Himalaya
 * receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming; in addition, high population density near these glaciers and consequent deforestation and land-use changeshave adversely affected these glaciers
 * the total glacial area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2(or disappear entirely) by the year 2035
 * Bearing in mind if the himalayan glaciers melt to 100k`s2 then it actually no loss at all is that is their current estimated size :) So it`s impact is still ongoing, google glacial melt and you would think that this was an accurate date.mark nutley (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark, Please assume that some of us are actually trying to understand you in good faith and don't use all these shorthands. --BozMo talk 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry bozmo, what do you mean by shorthands? mark nutley (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The last couple of paras here is written assuming the reader is deep in conversation with you and knows what you are talking about. What in this last couple of paragraphs is the quote and how does it fit with the point you are making (which is that some IPCC data used was not peer reviewed prior to use, I think)? Whose figures are which etc. What's the significance of the date you would think was accurate by googling glacial melt etc. All this is on the road to proving sufficient weight for inclusion I take it?--BozMo talk 20:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ya sorry about that, the last part is a copy and paste. the google search is to show just how far this mistake has reached. mark nutley (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to William M. Connolley @ 09:58, 1 January 2010, once again i see the words "minor point", you fail to address the fact that this 2035 date was widely published and reported as fact by both the IPCC and the MSM. This failure of the IPCC to follow their own guidlines in no using non-peer reviewed literature has lead to a massive belief that 2035 is correct and not 2350. I also fail to see how balance can be achieved in this article if a section "Praise for the IPCC" can be viewed as ok and not be WP:UNDUE but a proposed section to point out major mistakes is called WP:UNDUE ? Sorry makes no sense. I would also like to point out from one of the conversations which has been collapsed, User:Stephan Schulz cites WP:COATRACK as a reason against inclusion, this is not actually WP policy at this moment in time. --mark nutley (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That glaciers are melting is major. That Himalayan glaciers would melt by a given date isn't. The idea that all Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 is ludicrous. I agree that date is in the PDF you've linked above; I disagree that anyone took it seriously (though that is hard to pin down; (twice)) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry william i strongly disagree with your statement I disagree that anyone took it seriously
 * Jean-Pascal van Ypersele IPCC Vice-chair took it seriously.
 * The Telegraph took it seriously.
 * The hindustan times reported on the indian government releasing a statement to help quell panic.

I can get plenty more examples from reliable sources which show that it was most certainly taken seriously. --mark nutley (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we all know you disagree. But you need better sources. Your Telegraph link sources the statement to "Indian climate experts", not IPCC. The third example is very weak too William M. Connolley (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, how about
 * CNN
 * The Guardianon 9 Nov 2009 (good one this as Pachauri slaps down india's environment minister and says, "his report is not Peer Reviewed", bit of a cheek that really :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 11:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Grossly biased
This RFC is so grossly biased that it will inevitably accomplish nothing. The first argument "WP:UNDUE Specifically is stated to apply to viewpoints - the proposed section contains facts." is so amusingly incorrect that it makes the cases against the authors viewpoint quite effectively. This discussion should be at the AR4 page - as TS has said. The text is clearly UNDUE; it is inaccurate (it speaks of the report instead of one of several); I don't believe the 3 sources stuff; etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone is well aware of your bias Connolley. If there are any facts that need correcting then you are free to point them out. Anyway, you are welcome not to "believe" anything you like, but the sources we have say otherwise. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just my 2c: The error isn't a mere typo, it's a gross error on a topic that's used as one of the main examples of climate change in the media. If it was a mere typo, I'd agree, it'd just be nitpicking. But there is more going on here, it's a mistake that's the result of sloppy work done by the IPCC and it also happens to have been reproduced frequently in the media; both the number being used incorrectly (as is mentioned above) as well as by media pointing out the mistake. The FIRST hit I get on google is a big player, CNN: "The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report." and another editor mentioned a BBC article that pointed out the error, so it's not just obscure climate change bloggers writing about these things. So yeah, this perhaps little mistake has had considerable consequence and has been picked up by the big players in the media, so it's well worth including. Considering the article even has a praise section for the IPCC, I think it's not throwing the article off from a NPOV either.BabyNuke (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are aware that all that this shows is confirmation bias - right? If you look for something that you know is there, then when you find it, it shouldn't come as a surprise.... Yes, it is an error - No, it isn't important in this context. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed per undue wt. and full of errors. Should be in AR4 if anywhere. Vsmith (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are errors then list them and source them. The undue weight complaints are completely without merit. Also, the cry to put some information into satellite articles, where less people are likely to see the information and even fewer people are likely to discuss it seems like a tactic to keep it out of the encyclopedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying it should be in the ar4 article is pointless as those who oppose it here also oppose it`s inclusion there mark nutley (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets take it again this is: one error in one paragraph in chapter 10 (of 20) section 6 subsection 2 in the WGII report which is 1 of 3 main reports in the AR4 (which is the 4th report) from the IPCC - the proposed text presented above is larger than the paragraph with the error. => Grossly undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely irrelevant. The weight comes not from the number of words in the paragraph but in where the paragraph resides and the significance that it carries.  The mere fact that it is an error in the IPCC report gives it far more than enough weight for inclusion.  --GoRight (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Refuting errors often takes more work than simply making them - in the same way that deletion/destruction is easier than the creative impulse (the difference between destroying books and writing them). Also, the section explains the impact as well - and there are many areas on wikipedia that expand. Additionally, their error has been cited so many times in the mainstream media which increases its "size." TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and those warring to include can't even take time to correct obvious errors in the proposed text. Vsmith (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already asked you to tell me what the errors are and to source them - be specific. You can't just say there are errors without explaining yourself. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm by no means convinced that we yet have consensus or policy reasons sufficient for giving this proposed addition the kind of prominence it gets here. I have reverted pending a justification for the amount of weight, and the presentation. What happened to the idea of seeing if it can go into AR4? --TS 23:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They won`t have it there either. @Kim, it does not matter if it is one small part of the main report. They used non peer reviewed papers and made statements based on them. Sorry but if a group like the IPCC make statements like "all glaciers will be gone in 2035" in will cause widespread alarm. This should be in here, they messed up and you guys seem to want to hide it mark nutley (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This article gets more traffic, and therefore more outside opinions (as shown by the number of people who keep restoring the section). Anyway, we don't need policy to keep it in, we need policy to keep it out - and a reliable source has stated that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" - obviously it can't be undue if an outside expert thinks it is important (plus the other reasons against the UNDUE charge). TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no, you're wrong there. We do need to establish whether there is consensus and policy support.  I don't think the case has been adequately made yet.  Edit warring to get it in won't work unless we establish consensus. --TS 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From a dictionary
 * con⋅sen⋅sus  [kuhn-sen-suhs]
 * 1.	majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
 * 2.	general agreement or concord; harmony.
 * Currently the majority want this in, therefore a consensus has been reached. mark nutley (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The policy support is trivial. Please review WP:V and WP:RS.  --GoRight (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We probably don't have consensus, else you wouldn't be having such a devil of a time getting it to stay. Vsmith, I, Kim, William, and Stephan have removed it.  Some of those inserting it are scibaby socks (certainly Jong-C having now been permanently blocked as a scibaby sock).  So it doesn't look like consensus at all. --TS 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And yet there are still more just on this talk page who want inclusion - and even more, obviously not socks, who've restored the text, but not gotten involved in the talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who? I see Nutley, Bluefield and Goodlocust doing the reverts. All voted above. Please name the (non-sock) others and be very careful with such claims. There is such a thing as reputation. --BozMo talk 08:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you missed GoRight, VegasProf's edits - also, Cadea and BabyNuke, said they want this included. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The main case against inclusion of the error has been assertion of UNDUE. The main proof presented that the error is UNDUE is that the amount of text it takes up in AR4 is relatively small! This is not a logical argument for exclusion. There are multiple reasons highlighted on this talk page why the error is important, none of which have had reasonable counter arguments presented. A majority of the editors want it in. Those opposed have used a set of technical tools to thwart its inclusion - and it's getting rather tiresome. Cadae (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I do think errata that have been published and criticised by acknowledged experts should probably be included in relevant articles. The problem I have here is that those people editing the article on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)--the report which contains these apparent errata--don't yet seem to have reached consensus to mention it at all there, and we have no consensus to do so here. I'd like to see editors make an honest case to include a description of their errata and their significance in the AR4 article, rather than this tiresome edit warring.

Another problem I have here is that the question of the significance of the errata doesn't seem to be treat seriously. Do these items mean global warming isn't happening? Obviously not, because the report in question is by Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability). Perhaps the errata mean that we don't have to worry about the Himalayan glaciers melting in our lifetime, or perhaps they mean something different. We need to approach this correctly or it just looks like we're saying "this paragraph on page X is wrong" and the next question is "so what?" We need to make sure the answer is clearly given from reliable sources.

But as I have said, I think the correct place, in the first instance, is the talk page of the AR4 article. That's where one might at least find people have more than a cursory acquaintance with the material.

Now I won't edit war on this because if we continued along that path we could easily end up making the atmosphere here very bad. Please respect this. Let's discuss the possibility of adding the item to AR4, at the relevant talk page. --TS 03:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My take on this is similar to Tony Sidaway's. If the appropriate way to describe this error (in whatever level of detail) has not been established at our article on the report which contains it, it seems a bit excessive to include a detailed description in this much broader, higher-level article.  Specific errata (particularly if they represent very small portions of the report in question) don't warrant extensive, detailed description in this overview.
 * The bulk of the criticisms included in this article seem to focus on more general, structural concerns (plus the ever-popular and very high-profile hockey stick controversy). The glacier error doesn't appear to be anywhere near that high in profile, and certainly shouldn't make up a large part of an article on the IPCC as a whole. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh. This bit is a clear example of a breach in the much ballyhooed IPCC process.  As such it is appropriate to list it here rather than bury it in the report.  The weight of the issue comes from this fact alone.  It derives it's weight from the weight of the IPCC process and the importance and the claims thereof.  --GoRight (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, the IPCC and its proponents have always loudly shouted that they use peer-reviewed literature to make their assessments - this has now been categorically shown to be false. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Shall we produce a tally from the opinions above to make an orderly assessment of the state of consensus? Or will that be viewed as pointy and controversial? --GoRight (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thing is we don't decide things by vote. Anyway, didn't you do that further up the page, but not including ones who made a change either way with edit comments? If you do a list please exclude socks, include article editors and mark me down clearly as "unable to generate a flicker of interest from anywhere deep within my soul on this issue". And if you get anything other than "no consensus" stand in the corner until you can recount straight. :-) --BozMo talk 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why included article editors? The initial criticism was that the source wasn't good enough, but that criticism no longer applies. Also, some people appeared to just be reverting the edits of the sock. If someone wants to put their name on the list then they are welcome to do it, but we shouldn't count article editors who are unwilling to state and defend their reasons for reversion and who may have changed their mind.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Progress of this RFC
In over 8 days the RFC has gathered four comments from editors previously uninvolved. They appear to me to be unanimous in rejecting the case for inclusion of the section on errors in the IPCC AR4 report in this article, though one or two suggest thatit might be appropriate for the article on the report itself. Accordingly I assess consensus to be against inclusion at this stage. Discussion should continue, but I am removing the section for now. I encourage those wishing to see encyclopedic coverage of these errors to gain consensus for coverage in that other article, which is called IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. --TS 10:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

2035/2350?
I have noticed that both this article and Criticism of the IPCC AR4 have subject headings saying that the date used is 2035 and that it should be 2350. This makes the whole incident seem like a typo. Do we have a source for this claim? The only supposed cite for 2350 in Criticism of the IPCC AR4 is this, which doesn't mention the date 2350. None of the sources I have seen mention this date. Does anyone object to removing the 2350 date from the subject headings or can we get a reasonable source for it? Oren0 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not a typo. [Interview with Dr Lal] As i point out above even the wwf has admited the 2035 date came from an interview in new scientist, which they have admitted to in fact in the updated report linked from the crit of ar4 article. WMC seems to be having trouble grasping this concept though. --mark nutley (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I've patiently explained to MN the truth above. You can read it for yourself, too. As for 2350: how did you miss: The degradation of the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising ocean level already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic rise of the ocean thereafter caused by the deglaciation-derived runoff (see Table 11 ). This period will last from 200 to 300 years. The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates—its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes [p 66] which is a direct quote from the ICSI report? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is original research/synthesis. Who is to say that this is the date they meant?  Do you have a reliable source that says they merely substituted one date for another?  This isn't the way I've seen the story reported in sources. Oren0 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of people getting this badly wrong. That doesn't mean we should copy them. This really isn't that hard if you pay close attention. the WWF report says "In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood [sic] of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”. [p. 38]". That is a direct statement from the source itself that they got the date 2035 from ICSI. Yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any reliable source that, by your definition, is "getting it right"? You can't say "all of the sources are wrong therefore I'll make up my own interpretation."  The IPCC cited the WWF source.  To claim that they really meant to cite the ICSI or that they checked that source and made a mistake is unfounded speculation.  All the sources say is that the IPCC cited an erroneous figure in a non-peer-reviewed source.  To pick a primary source that the IPCC didn't even cite and to use that to justify a claim about what the IPCC authors may or may not have read or meant is synthesis without a source making that connection, which I still haven't seen. Oren0 (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Syed Hasnain, the guy who's the source of the 2035 claims, publicly admitted they were unsubstantiated. Now Connolley is trying to make it all look like a typo. This just keeps getting funnier.
 * interesting read, ICSI says 2350 whilst WWF and their sources say 2035. its just about where you put the zero in. i took the link in first AR4 chapter discussion pointing out that the IPCC was unable to update their web sites (inlcuding this up to my current writing). there i found that interesting quote:
 * The 30.2 km long Gangotri glacier has been receding alarmingly in recent years (Figure 10.6). Between 1842 and 1935, the glacier was receding at an average of 7.3 m every year; the average rate of recession between 1985 and 2001 is about 23 m per year (Hasnain, 2002).
 * using just the last rate given with 23 m/year a glacier of 30.2 km length will have vanished in about 1313 years. thats enough time for a warming period and a little ice age together or even more of them. but wait, other mini(!) glaciers are only 4 km long - so if the suffer the same shrinkage rate (but i doubt that is good science to do so) they will vanish in nearly 174 years. added to the publication date will make the first glacier vanish in the year 2176, provided that the decrease rates are roughly constant for that already long period. truely critical peer review pays out. dont ask me how they did it at the IPCC with their helpers out ther in the world. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nasa took a different quote - vanishing of glaciers at about 2030. found in an article underneath an image illustration for the Gangotri glacier. interesting how science and journalism can be done by hear-say with an ever changing (closer) final date. but the WP article about that glacier tells of a decreased shrinking speed in 1996 to 1999. for what i would call sad - i have not seen any measurement data for the time in between 2000 and 2010. maybe the glacier was growing for the first time in about 250 years? --Alexander.stohr (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have posted about this at the No original research noticeboard. Oren0 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We really should be allowed to use blogs, those guys put the msm to shame :) More WWF ShenanigansThe WWF are all over AR4, how the IPCC can have used them so much is beyond me :) Waiting for this one the hit the papers in a few days :) --mark nutley (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is that Connolley's interpretation of events runs completely counter to what the sources are saying, which is that the date came from an interview in 99. Or even, as the Daily Mail reports, "the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air."  It's OK to say that these sources are wrong provided you have a better source, the problem is the current 2350 thing isn't sourced to any reliable secondary sources. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC is very wrong on this one. Page twelve of the wwf report, The New Scientist magazine carried the article “Flooded Out – Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley communities” in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming The source for this quote is in the report itself, The only link to the ICSI is the fact that Hasnain was working there at the time he gave the interview. This is something WMC appears to have overlooked. --mark nutley (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We really should be allowed to use blogs - sounds good to me. I recommend http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/ipcc_use_of_non-peer_reviewed.php William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

i want to add this image to the 2001 report section
for me it looks like there are relatively few images helping the reader to get a picture of the activities and result the IPCC does deploy. the image below seems to add up nicely with the already existing text and thus supports the purpose of easing the access to information contained in the paragraph. i think it further makes clear where the IPCC published predictions do significantly differ from what a simple statistical analysis of world climate would produce from climate date humans recorded out in the wild. i ask for your support for this addition. (2010 - the year i started asking for other peoples support before editing something in wikipedia.)) --Alexander.stohr (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this have any reliable source? As far as I can tell it's statistical nonsense. Obtaining a 42 year "period of oscillation" from 120 years of measurement?   --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oscillation is everything for cliatology, see this article on US-Today. If you doubt that 42 years cycle, you might want to apply the mathematical method of fourier analysis to the publically available original data. Having some 120 dots should allow you to extract aplitude, frequency and phase value of the included frequencys up to some few percents precision. You might be even in state of add 10 more years of measurement to that. (BTW wikipedia explicitely allows you to mathematically process data, e.g. for calcuating the age or birth date of a person from public data, but that rule is not limited to that.) --Alexander.stohr (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WIkipedia allows "routine calculations". A Fourier analysis hardly is routine. Moreover, the choice of a linear increase with cyclic variation as the underlying model is pure original research. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like pure WP:OR to me. The sources cited on the image page include only other WP images, and so on up the chain. There are no error bars and no source for the numeric data, let alone whatever smoothing functions may have been added to the numeric series, least of all for the fourier analysis or its extrapolation into the coming decades. Total fantasy, from what I can see. It must be a very attractive fantasy for anyone who just bought a new coal-fired power station, or Hummer, though! --Nigelj (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whats wrong? Any sort of trend analysis (advanced math: FFT, standard math: mean value & slope & average deviation & max deviation calculation; you will find the wikipedia articles on that on your own, i am sure) is routine for making such data more meaningful for the human eye. Those toolset is in fact not a part of a 16 button pocket calculator, but it is e.g. for MathLab, Mathematica, free Octave and a bunch of other programs that are the standard programs for preparing and visualizing such data. In most computer languages bind the matching library (like GNU scientific math library) and call one function for getting the values. Its routine for that sort for data. BTW, your human ear pair all the time does this - convert a signal into its frequency (by a few hundreds of selectively tuned cells) and phase (by probing the form of the incoming edges) components. It even can do acoustic localisation with that. And be assured I truly did not built that curves in any way my selves. The only thing I "added" was taking the frequency out of the diagram with sort of a ruler and writing it down in numbers to that legend object. You can do that as well - nothing complex because that data is already there. Just load it in an SVG viewer and check the temperatures periodicity. And even if it would not be periodic, the max deviations around the averaging linear approximation would make the very same long term perspective - for the pure climate data so that the IPCC specific prognosis (based upon their theoretical models) is as outstanding different as it is with any other standard prediction method. By the way, the mathematical determined increase trend is some 0,7-0,8°C/100 years. Read this for a comparison: But the warming trend in 1909-2008 (the fastest “modern” 100-year trend) was +0.87 °C per century. (source article) The value in the diagram is probably a little bit lower since the additional few years are a "high" and thus damper the slope. A very clear diagram for the missing years from 2000 compared with the IPCC data can be found here in this article. The data is out there. And if you even don't trust that - print it out in A4 and then take a ruler for determining your own linear approximation, even if chances arent that high that you will get to something that different. Its all just about to create a diagram out of it that combines it in an evident way to show whats needed. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's sourced to two private blogs, is it? A person with a ruler can disprove all the combined decades of work by thousands of climate scientists? And get it published for the world to see on Wikipedia? It's amazing what people can do these days. I'm amazed that none of those scientists saw it coming - if only some of them had paid attention in fourier analysis lectures when they were younger. --Nigelj (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the graph was made by Akasofu as a critique stripping down the discussion to the bare essentials. I do think this method and graph merit further discussion. 85.77.176.39 (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but not acceptable for many reasons. It's either OR (and bad OR at that) or traceable to a non RS. I wouldn't mind seeing a graph of IPCC projections versus actual observations, but IPCC projections versus some guy's naive and uninformed alternative projections has no place here. SPhilbrick  T  23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

New criticism - from Indian government


India says it may pull out of the IPCC and will form its own organization to study the climate:

"There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report ... [the] IPCC doesn't do the original research which is one of the weaknesses ... they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks.

"I respect the IPCC but India is a very large country and cannot depend only on [the] IPCC and so we have launched the Indian Network on Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment (INCCA)," he said."

-Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister

Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but the bit about pulling out looks like tory newsspin. Jairam Ramesh was complaining about those westerners in the IPCC back in November, so now he wants to set up research in India, while correctly noting that the IPCC doesn't do its own research (but cites peer reviewed publications or currently grey material subject to procedures), and saying he respects the IPCC. Wonder if he'll invite the eminent Indian scientist Syed Hasnain to join the team. . . dave souza, talk 22:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was actually being a bit kind too, the yahoo news article contains far more biting criticism. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Read it, he's still going on about November's discussion paper. Maybe the new body will produce useful peer reviewed publications instead of inadequate talking points that jump from describing a few glaciers to making unexplained claims about global warming. Not that it was wrong, but it was inadequate to shift the scientific consensus which remains right – its unstated target was the famous paragraph which didn't reflect the science but was a bodged repeat of an Indian news report. Somehow I suspect there will be a big crackdown on using any grey material, and about time too. . . . dave souza, talk 23:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, he is obviously right about the activism/science being mixed (e.g. Hansen) - is this mentioned somewhere in the article? TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting development. I would say, at a minimum, the bare facts need to be included, such as: "The mistake made by the IPCC, and the way in which the IPCC initially handled the mistake has led India to establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri.Sirwells (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How remarkable. The Daily Getsalaugh, living up to its nickname, has suddenly changed its article title, and noted that Ramesh said that the Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment is not a rival to the IPCC. See. For all Ramesh's politicking about the glacier issue, the network had already been announced as part of the implementation of the Copenhagen Agreement. So, the bare facts are that Ramesh made some complaints about the IPCC when giving out further details of the previously announced Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment. . dave souza, talk 10:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I believe it was in November, before Copenhagen, that Pachauri called the Indian's work on glaciers "voodoo science." TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Indian PM seems to disagree with his minister: India has full confidence in the IPCC process and its leadership and will support it in every way. RKP didn't call India's work on glaciers voodoo: he called a particularly bad report they wrote voodoo (haven't we done this before? is your ref William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Voodoo? Ah said Voodoo? Ah said who do you think you're foolin? TGL has it roughly right, as far as I've found it was back in November that P was harsh about the review paper by the retired Vijay Kumar Raina. Apparently P called it "voodoo science" and had to retract that . Lonnie Thompson said "First and foremost this is not a peer reviewed report and nothing scientific can be claimed based on 25 glaciers out of over 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas.... if Jairam Ramesh can write up these results showing just how he came to his conclusion for a quality peer reviewed journal then he should do so. Otherwise the report certainly does not challenge the conventional wisdom." See Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri for a bit more on it, WMC's blog gives links to the main sources. . dave souza, talk 21:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, considering the IPCC had 5 "glaring" errors, as pointed out by the IPCC author of the section, about glaciers (you can ask Connolley why he removed that info), I think it is fair to say that the Indian report's "voodoo science" may be a bit more scientific :). TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Africagate!
Uh oh Scooby looks like the IPCC's claims about a 50% reduction in rainfall in Africa are unsupported. I'm still waiting for that IPCC error that isn't alarmist. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my. Without any opinion on the Times article, how does "In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020" get morphed into "50% reduction in rainfall in Africa"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Too bad the IPCC wasn't so nitpicky - then they might not have had so many grossly incompetent errors in their reports. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, the grossly incompetent act was yours, in completely mangling the given source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why thank you Stephan, since you seem to think my minor omission is so very notable I guess we can skip the usual dance where ya'll claim this isn't notable and just include it! :) After all, when I make a small error I get lambasted, but when the IPCC makes errors like this they are scaring entire countries and costing billions of dollars. TheGoodLocust (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One (Murdoch owned) source? Please remember why WP:NOTNEWS. . . dave souza, talk 12:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Dave, you've made it clear how you feel about "tories" (is that the plural form?), but honestly, it doesn't really matter what you think of who owns certain news outlets. Anyway, this is a developing story, and remember they also put this in their synthesis report and has been used as a PR tool by Ban Ki Moon and Pachauri (I think Gore too). 9another source). This little "mistake" of the IPCC's is likely why African nations were demanding 100 billion bucks in Copenhagen. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust] (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I`ve not looked at the times yet but the full story by Dr North is on his blog [ — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 10:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts, Mark. Ah, so the Euroskeptics are on the trail, but not a RS. The Times story is making more hoopla out of WGII reports not being peer reviewed, when that still complies with the rules. Undoubtedly the rules will be tightened, this issue is something to clarify in the criticism article. . . dave souza, talk 12:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually they probably did break their rules. A history lesson for you Dave, when we were trying to include the glaciergate information and all the sources said they broke the rules - your "side" said they didn't and pointed to a small section of the rules that allowed grey literature. The problem is that the IPCC later said they DID break their own rules and I'll tell you why - grey literature is discouraged and should only be used in certain circumstances, but they did not follow those standards. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please learn to be more sceptical, especially about FoxNews and Co., and read more carefully. Using non peer-reviewed material isn't against the current rules, though that may change. As the criticism article has shown for some time now, there are procedures which were not followed properly, leading to an unacceptable lapse in standards. Probably not the only instance in WGII, expect IndiaGate next, but because something wasn't peer reviewed doesn't automatically mean it was against the rules. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a very skeptical person. I used to sort-of buy into that "Fox is evil" nonsense but when I actually looked into it I found it to be largely without merit. Every single time I've looked at a "Media Matters" interpretation of them I've found it to be extremely dishonest and, in fact, I've seen far more dishonest crap from places like MSNBC. Anyway, as I said, there are specific rules for using grey literature, which the IPCC did not follow - those are the rules they broke. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you don't seem to have noticed what jumped out at me from what you call "Uh oh Scooby" above – the article says "The paper was not peer-reviewed", but doesn't touch on the real issue, that non-peer reviewed papers can be used on the basis that "Authors who wish to include information from a non-published/non-peer-reviewed source are requested to: a. Critically assess any source that they wish to include......" etc. All under "1. Responsibilities of Coordinating, Lead and Contributing Authors." Rather wishy-washy phrasing, in my opinion, that should be toughened up considerably. The Sunday Times is attacking with overstated headlines at the same time as missing the target. Of course with all newspapers you have to read the detail, and be very sceptical about the headline which in many cases isn't written by the journalist. . dave souza, talk 23:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course their rules should be tightened up, but the problem is that the IPCC authors are volunteers - and that will inevitably attract activists with all the biases that one can expect from such people. Rules are irrelevant when nobody is willing to follow or enforce them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an accurate diagnosis. . . dave souza, talk 09:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Article still claims AR4 is based on peer-reviewed literature
"Scope and preparation of the reports The IPCC reports are a compendium of peer reviewed and published science"

I think the IPCC has admitted that this statement is not true. That is, "published science" is not the only kind of published information repeated in the report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveCrane (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's an ambiguity about the phrase, which may come from their mandate but the link gives a 404 Not Found. It's based on published science in a broad sense, and the WGI hard science section is very much based on peer reviewed publications, but the effects section from WGII makes great use of "grey" material which isn't peer reviewed, and we should show that. dave souza, talk 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We've discussed this before. The sentence above is deliberately ambiguous (is the ref not found? It was there when we last argued this amonth or so back). The reports are indeed based on research that is peer-reviewed, and research that is published. the WWF report, of the "2035" fame, was published. It may even have been peer-reviewed. But it wasn't a journal pub William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Need link to Expert Review Comments
The mention of "Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft (16 November 2005) IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report" is in dire need of a link to those published comments, preferably for all Working Groups. And preferably a link to an easily searchable text rather than the messy method used at Harvard.DaveCrane (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is this link needed? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why
I took out the letter to Nature. Its too new (as usual), it isn't clearly notable, and it is (maybe) in the wrong article William M. Connolley (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right article, well sourced, pertains to this article, too new is not a policy. I restored it for those reasons. --mark nutley (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Mark. This is the right article and it is clearly notable. RonCram (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the inclusion of the material. I read about it this morning on the front page of the Japan Times in an article by AFP-Jiji.  Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you read about it in the news doesn't mean it has real long-term importance for the topic; see WP:RECENTISM. These scientists are just five out of thousands who worked with the IPCC, and out of millions who have an opinion on it. There is no reason why their opinion on it deserves so much weight in the article. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RECENTISM is an essay. Also, it doesn't preclude something just because it's recent.  Many sources have picked up on this:      just to name a few.  Certainly more notable than, for example, the puffery above it regarding "praise for the IPCC".  It's clearly covered enough to be covered on WP, and there is no better place to put it than here (though it should be under the criticism section). Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These five are not the management of the IPCC. This is an isolated suggestion in a letter to the editor. It's not only recentism but it's the extreme WP:N non-notability that discounts it from this overview article of the organisation and its history. When a body with any authority starts publishing plans for altering the organisation's set-up, that'll be something to report. This is just noise, chatter and personal opinion. Putting it in would give huge undue WP:WEIGHT to the personal opinions of these five individuals. --Nigelj (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WEIGHT leads to a foreign language wp? However given these five are main contributers to the IPCC means their word carrys a lot of weight, plus it is well covered and is wp:notable mark nutley (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a copy of the article, that they can send me? I'm rather wondering if Hans von Storch really was an author (lead or otherwise) to the AR4.. (goes for one other as well). Does the Nature source state this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why
The Booker book is a polemic by a non-scientist and has no place here William M. Connolley (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the anon's edit as simple vandlaism William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It`s not vandalism though, please self revert. You are on a 1r restriction and so is this article mark nutley (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You VIOLATED 1 revert rule (for this page) and you made offensive remarks agains me. Your bias is very transparent. Shame on you Mr Connolley! Please self revert.
 * On the contrary, it most certainly is vandalism. Who is Mr Connolley? Perhaps you should address yourself to him William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not know you are a lord. I am sorry Sir Connoley! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.141.167 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your probation says, obvious vandalism, someone disagreeing with you is not vandalism, you are breaking your parole and the 1r on this article. Self revert now or i will do it for you mark nutley (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * MN please explain first why the book needs to be mentioned about something that seems to me to be a summary of the hockey stick controversy article, because that article does not mention the book nor the author at all. To me it would make sense to only include it in here, if it takes a prominent place in the hockey stick article. The bit should not be in this article and so reverting WMC because you feel he violated his sanction seems to me just bureaucratic. Unless you feel it should be added, but then please explain first why. Also to 108.1.141.167 you only use the title mister when someone has no other title, including academic ones. WMC holds the title of Dr so if you want to use last name with title, use the correct one so it should be Dr Connolley 83.86.0.82 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking it over, it's clear the Dr. Connolley has violated his probation and the 1RR restriction on this article; however, it's not at all clear that the book should be mentioned here, rather than only in the hockey stick article, so I'm not reinstating the edit. (Signed, Dr. Rubin).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if *you* really think so, OK. I've self-reverted back to the broken anon version. Since you self-reverted, you're now free to use *your* revert to restore the article to a sensible version. However, I repeat my assertion that this looks like simpla anon vandalism to me William M. Connolley (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pertinent question: Are secondary reliable sources in agreement with the text as written? Ie. Is it the general view in RS's about the graph that Booker provides a good overview? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have copy-edited the section, and in the process tried to place the book citation into a better context with regard to its global importance and notability. If more details about its coverage of the 'hockey stick controversy' are actually required, of course the right place would be in that section's {main} article, not here in the summary of that article. I hope this meets everyone's requirements. --Nigelj (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My question goes more towards WP:WEIGHT. Is Booker generally considered an authority on this topic? Is he often mentioned by secondary reliable sources in connection with this topic? Has the book generally received good critique? Does any of the critique mention his coverage of the HS? In effect: Why are we citing Booker, and why the book? The copy-edit you made was good, but i'm still wondering...--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No-one has a good word to say for Bookers book. Why have you left it in? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I`d imagine those who read it have a good word or two about it. It is an excellent critique of the hockey stick, and as the hockey stick was the poster boy for the ipcc for a good long while then a few pointers to it`s critics is a good thing. mark nutley (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my questions. I'm not interested in your opinion (which is irrelevant (just as mine)), i'm asking what secondary reliable sources say - which is the only thing that WP is interested in. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if Misters (or Doctors) Connolley, Petersen and Schultz were little less partizan and accepted possibility that not everything in AGW theory is true. Also if they accepted possibility that people who see the issue of climate change differently are not always ignorant or malicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.141.167 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:NPA. You may also want to consider that no one here is actually arguing for removal of the critique of the HS. We are contemplating a single source and its merit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @ kim the answers you seek are here mark nutley (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Mark, that doesn't answer my questions. It reinforces them. None of the reviews regard Booker as an authority, and reviews are sporadic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Booker reference and the IPCC's Third Assessment Report
Booker's book deals at great length (one whole chapter, chapter 4, 'The Hottest Year Ever') and lists at the end 50 fully reputable sources specifically dealing with the Hockey Stick and its history/relationship with the IPCC's Third Assessment Report. If this is indeed an article on the IPCC and this is indeed a criticism section of which the Hockey stick is a major part then the reference seems not only fully justified but important. My wording seems fair and fully neutral, thus:

In his 2009 book The Real Global Warming Disaster, Christopher Booker gives a detailed account of how the graph came to prominently feature in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report.

If the problem is that Booker is not a scientist then this may have to be revisited, as the sources above are almost exclusively scientists and scientific journals. I would appreciate input from other editors regarding this question -- perhaps different wordings of the above? Jprw (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would you need to be a scientist to write about the hockey stick? It is a full critique of the hockey stick based on the 50 sources you mention above. Seems open and shut to me, your wording is fair and neutral and i agree this reference should stay in this article mark nutley (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Booker is neither a scientist nor even vaguely neutral - he is a far right wing columnist. Try reading our article on him. OR indeed, read the article on the book. lists at the end 50 fully reputable sources sounds very much like the arguments made for State of Fear - that it had references, so obviously must be scholarly. Having references means nothing - it is what you do with the references that matters. So, in partilcular, who says he "gives a detailed account" - him? You? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh, once again you allow your pov to cloud your judgement. He is not far right, why would you link him to nazi`s? Perhaps you should redact it? Your statement is pointless, all it shows is your dislike of the man. mark nutley (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: ''So, in partilcular, who says he "gives a detailed account" - him? You?''

We are talking about 30 pages containing 50 fully reputable scientific sources. Do you know of a more detailed account of how the graph came to be a major feature of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report? Does one exist? I also have to say that the speed at which you are willing to resort to ad hominem is a cause for concernJprw (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know - there's little to suggest that Booker should be taken at face value. If the reliability of his work has been questioned in the past, and he appears to have no specific expertise on the subject, why should we use his work?  Are there third-part sources that attest to the reliability of this book?  Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of - other than its publishers. --Nigelj (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As before, the pertinent question here is: Who says that Booker "gives a detailed account"? Does any sources consider Booker authoritative on this? Has any review commented on the books coverage of the HS? Is Booker generally considered a reliable source on such information? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is from the Guardian review which was the most negative review I could find when researching the article:

"Another of Booker's techniques is to latch on to genuine flaws in the science or its dissemination with the tenacity of a bulldog. Predictably, he attacks the infamous "hockey stick" graph, a plot of global mean temperatures over the past 1,000 years produced by two scientists in 1998 which shows little change for the entire period until suddenly soaring in the 20th century. It is now mostly accepted that the analysis that produced these data was wrong".

And the references ARE scholarly and well assembled -- so I repeat: given that this is a critical section on the hockey stick graph/IPCC the Booker quote seems not only justified but important and a useful source for intersted readers wishing to find out more about the subject.Jprw (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The review you quote makes it quite clear that Booker is an unreliable source. To begin with, what do you mean when you say "scholarly and well assembled"?  "Scholarly" is a comment on the sources, not on whether they are appropriately interpreted.  The denialists use scholarly publications all the time.  They just pick and choose the one or two they like, and ignore the rest.  Or they misrepresent what they say - either intentionally or simply because they don't understand the subject matter.  "Tenacity of a bulldog" says nothing about understanding - on the contrary, a bulldog does its job purely through the strength of its jaw.  Bulldogs are not known to skilfully interpret and dissect problems. Nor does this tell use whether Booker's selection of papers represents the state of the science.  The creationists quote "scholarly" sources all the time - sadly, they pretend that ideas can't change and that science does not progress.  So saying that someone has 50 "scholarly and well assembled" refs doesn't tell me anything I need to know as to whether that person's analysis is useful.  Guettarda (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the whole (very negative) review, the impression I have is that The Guardian is begrudgingly admitting that Booker did a good job re: the hockey stick graph/IPCC and that his analysis on this particular subject stands up. The chapter in his book (chapter 4, 'The Hottest Year Ever') specifically dealing with this subject may therefore also stand up as a reliable source for this section, and therefore improve the article. Perhaps the only solution is for you and other detractors to actually read the chapter objectively and look at the sources.Jprw (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether Booker is reliable, it doesn't belong in this article if that is the material to be sourced, it may be appropriate for hockey stick controversy, even if not reliable, as a notable example of the controversy. (I'm not weighing it, at this time, as to the question of whether it's reliable.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see anything in the review that Booker "did a good job". Guettarda (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not for us to decide if he is a qualified person to write about this. It is for us to present the options to our readers. Reliable third party sources say this book is both notable and a good critique of the hockey stick and that is all we should be discussing here. mark nutley (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. It's very important to figure out whether a source provides useful information.  In this case, there are several problems.  Arthur Rubin identified the most important one - this isn't an article about the hockey stick, so why should be care about a "notable and good critique" of the hockey stick?  Secondly, of course, is the idea that Booker's is a "notable and good critique".  Who says this, and where?  Guettarda (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As I point out above, this is the hockey stick controversy sub-section of the Criticism of the IPCC section of this article. That's why the Booker reference is fully appropriate here. Jprw (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason I originally posted it here and not at the Hockey Stick controversy article is that the chapter outlines how the hockey stick controversy was inextricably linked to the IPCC. It therefore seems to fit best here.Jprw (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you using bolding a bit more sparingly? Thanks.  Guettarda (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Booker statement can be attributed with the few sources presented here. Please folks, lets avoid the orginal research and work to have balanced text that matches the sources. Trust that Wikipedia will be better for it. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While it may be useful in describing his fringe views, we should be cautious about giving undue weight to such non-expert fringe positions. . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all dave, fringe says if it is notable then it can be allowed, the book is obviously notable given the publicity it got so not problems there mark nutley (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't take Booker's opinion as anything more than Booker's opinion. So, why is his opinion notable enough to be included in this article?  Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave, you seem to think it is up to us to decide on bookers opinion? This is not the case, it is the book as a source which must be decided upon. And the book has achieved wp:notable has it not? Nor is it self published, it meets all the criteria for a source and for inclusion mark nutley (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out Booker. Its a polemic by a non-scientist nad has no value, per discussion above. Don't add controversial stuff like this without prior discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You may have missed where is says "detailed account" in bold above (from this source ). That is new an beneficial information. Booker provides greater value because it presents unique and reliable sourced information not included in this article. see  for ref.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, you've been reading the Daily Mail. They're so wrong they're not even fringe. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Alarmist subsection
The following subsection, added by an IP, is both one-sided and inaccurate, so I've moved it here. See Criticism of the IPCC AR4 for a balanced view of the % Netherlands below sea level. . . dave souza, talk 06:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Alarmist Nature of IPCC Reports===

Several groups including the nation of The Netherlands and the Petition Project as well as former IPCC chairman Robert Watson have criticized the current IPCC for overly alarminst predictions and errors. The errors include the claim the Netherlands would be severely affected by accelerated melting of polar ice pack beacuse "more than half" of The Netherlands is below sea level. In actuality, only 26% of The Netherlands is below sea level.ref>UN must investigate warming ‘bias’, says former climate chief</ref

It's one of many minor claims – the covarage on this main page might be worth reviewing to provide a concise summary of the revised "criticisms" article. . . dave souza, talk 06:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I modified the section to make it read more, hopefully, neutral. It is criticism of the IPCC but I think it could be classified as constructive criticism. Cla68 (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I took out the bit about below-sea-level, because it is wrong. I agree that Watson is notable thought. Dubious about NOTNEWs but no-one seems to care much about that William M. Connolley (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sea-level bit is covered in the "criticisms" article, I'm sure the Dutch are greatly reassured that only 26% of their country is below mean sea level, while 60% is vulnerable to high tides and storms. They actually have very extensive flood defences which seem well prepared for projected sea rise. I've added Parry describing the IPCC investigation that Watson has said is needed. . . dave souza, talk 10:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)