Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tillman (talk | contribs) at 04:14, 29 June 2010 (→See also to John Nielsen-Gammon: Thanks, Dave). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation

To-do list for Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2011-04-24 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Other : # Clarify copyright status of File:Arctic September Sea Ice Extent.png Identify more recent graphic of sea ice extent Gain consensus to remove the discussion of the 2350 date, which may be a red herring

CNN as a source?

In the "AR4 understates the danger of climate change" section, the third bullet point references a CNN news article. Is this an acceptable source of information? Is there another reference (like a technical report or publication, perhaps the ones released regarding the IPCC by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR))?

--Charlesreid1 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Conservative / ?

"Alarmist" is a POV opposite to conservative. I've tried "overstates the dangers of climate change" instead. There must be something better to put in that section than the trashy ISPM William M. Connolley 10:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You could use this - http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/01jan/gerhard.cfm - from the obviously self-serving AAPG. But are they any better? Dansample 02:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Has there been published criticism from the scientific community for the exclusion of ice-sheet flow? Given how widely the estimates of see level rise were cited in the popular press, it must have raised ire somewhere? Mostlyharmless 06:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term "conservative" is incorrect. Traditionally in risk assessment, the use of the term "conservative" is for assessments which err on the side of caution (i.e., because of the lack of data or other uncertainties, but in light of the potential consequences, the outlook provided is one that potentially overstates the risk (conforming to the "precautionary principle")). Therefore, in this case, the term "conservative" as it is used to characterize the criticism opposite that of "alarmist" is redundant and incorrect. Jurban48 (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is criticism?

The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one, and it's malfeasance w/r/t representing what can be actually called a consensus in the field is not exactly top secret. Is this one of those subjects where the fervent true-believers redact good opposition points?

If you have good points, supported by reliable sources, then you should add them William M. Connolley (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

SRES scenarios outdated?

I've read somewhere (can't find the link) that the atmospheric CO2 levels at present rise faster than the worst-case SRES scenario. This has also been mentioned as a criticism to the report in newspapers at least. Narssarssuaq (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The rise may be faster at the moment, but only if you look at just a few years. The trends are still at/below SRES levels William M. Connolley (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That depends on how you calculate the "trend". It's at least possible that the SRES scenarios are far too optimistic. But I can't find any citations for this. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you mean http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf. But its somewhat hard to understand: as I understand the SRES, they use ~ 1 %/y inc for GHG, which would be + ~50 ppmv since 1990. But the actual inc is more like +30. But the paper says "Carbon dioxide concentration follows the projections almost exactly" William M. Connolley (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/24/10288 is more like it. For instance, this article states that the carbon intensity of the world's energy usage is actually increasing, while all SRES scenarios project a decrease. SRES seems to have been too optimistic on behalf of renewables, and too pessimistic on behalf of the cheaper and simpler stuff: coal. Of course, it's hard to say if this trend will last, but maybe there's something in the article that can be used. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC) To quote the article, "The strong global fossil-fuel emissions growth since 2000 was driven not only by long-term increases in population (P) and per-capita global GDP (g) but also by a cessation or reversal of earlier declining trends in the energy intensity of GDP (e) and the carbon intensity of energy (f). In particular, steady or slightly increasing recent trends in f occurred in both developed and developing regions. In this sense, no region is decarbonizing its energy supply. (...)Continuous decreases in both e and f (and therefore in carbon intensity of GDP, h = ef) are postulated in all IPCC emissions scenarios to 2100". Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

But notice you haven't quoted any numbers for atmos CO2 growth William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See fig. 1 in the article I linked to. The graph is sort of low-res, but I guess this qualifies for the "criticism" criterion of this Misplaced Pages article? Anyhow, the "e" and "f" problems are so significant they could be mentioned no matter what? Narssarssuaq (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Biogeochemical factors

The biogeochemical factors are left out of IPCC's calculations, as they are too difficult to model. This means that the infamous methane releases from thawing permafrost and sublimation(?) of methane clathrate deposits under the sea are not part of the "1.1-6.4 degrees". Given that this is actually true, in my personal opinion the report could be criticised for not adding this extra uncertainty to the temperature increase prognoses, and that the latter thus become flawed. Since I'm not a reliable source, perhaps someone knows of some report that "criticises" the IPCC report from this angle. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Depletion of hydrocarbons

Another point is that depletion of hydrocarbons (oil and gas) isn't modelled by IPCC. At least earlier reports have been criticised by the Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group at Uppsala University, see http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warming/index.html for an article dating back to 2003 and http://www4.tsl.uu.se/isv/UHDSG/ for their home page. They have apparently been involved in the Rimini protocol. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Whether this makes IPCC's estimates "conservative" or not is not clear, as oil and gas can be replaced by coal, which will make things worse, or solar or nuclear power, which is a change for the better climatically speaking. Should we add this criticism? Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AAPG

The AAPG link is dubious and isn't clearly AAPG considered opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong

is a bit of a weird one. As far as I can tell, this is just band-wagon-jumping/self-publicity by J. Scott Armstrong. He is, after all, a prof of marketing William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Marketing seems a relevant discipline: 9 out of 10 cats prefer.... Anyway the co-author, Kesten Green seems to specialise in the field of forecasting methods and so would be an expert for the section in question. Your prejudice against these authors requires a source to substantiate it otherwise it is just OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with prejudice, and everything to do with notability. This particular criticism hasn't been widely noted. Yep, its run its life on blogs and op-eds (ie. its 5 minutes of fame), but there hasn't been any serious response to it. Basically i agree with WMC, it looks like a way to market their new book, which btw. even included a "challenge" to Al Gore.

When and if, other researchers begin to take it serious, that means: publish research that supports/reputes Armstrongs assertions - then we can begin to consider it. As of now its undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Harris / John McLean piece

William M. Connelly, I think if you're going to remove someone's addition you should do a better job of justifying that position. Why exactly is the Tom Harris / John McLean piece "not notable" enough for the Criticism section? It is decidedly criticism, and it was widely quoted. (Searching Google for // "tom harris" "john mclean" ipcc // returns over a thosand results in Google. What's more, their criticism has been scarcely addressed (only part of it, in the rebuttal article I cited). A widely-published accusation that the IPCC isn't actually the consensus-based org. that it's made out to be, referenced all over the net, and appearing in places like Salon and The News Letter (Belfast) , seems *exactly* what qualifies for the Criticism section of this article. MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is this Connelly of whom you speak? Still, I'll answer instead. The CFP is full of GW trash. Who do you find it quoted by? I find only 685 (http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enGB291&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q="The+UN+Climate+Change+Numbers+Hoax") and none by anyone notable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. I apologize for misspelling your name. As for CFP, I agree that Salon or The News Letter are more mainstream, better sources, and I should have referenced one of them the first time around. Would either of those sources satisfy your objection to the cite? If not, are you saying that Salon and The News Letter are not notable? As for finding only 685 articles, you can't search by the article title, because different newspapers write different headlines. Also, it's linked to with something like "There's a good article today in The News Letter by Tom Harris and John McLean about why the IPCC doesn't really reflect the views of 2,500 scientists." In fact, that search still misses hits in which the authors' names aren't mentioned. And if you search for "the un climate change numbers hoax" and specifically exclude the authors' names, that results in an additional 500 hits beyond the 1000+ I originally mentioned. The point is, this article got considerable attention among climate change critics and appeared in at least two mainstream publications, and the Criticism section is purportedly about documenting such criticism, regardless of whether it's "true" or not. In the spirit of good faith I'll agree not to restore the piece until we've discussed it further, but honestly I would like to see better justification for it not being in the article before I agree. MichaelBluejay (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many ways of counting. Either way, its not a large number. I don't find any salon links, and don't know what "the news letter" is (is it notable). Which did you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted that you don't consider 1500 results to be significant. Exactly what is your criteria? You can find the Salon page by simply searching Google for "salon" plus the authors' names. As for The News Letter, I linked to the article in my previous Talk entry. You can also find its article on Misplaced Pages by searching WP for "the news letter". That article identifies it as "one of Nothern Ireland's main daily newspapers". Getinng back to the issue at hand, I believe that a charge that arguably the most important chapter of IPCC AR4 was reviewed by only 62 people is exactly what constitutes criticism of the IPCC process, especially when the IPCC is otherwise presented as an example of meticulous consensus. Unless I see more compelling justification for why it should not be included, I'll be adding it back in. MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to gast your flabber. Generally, my criterion is that somethng not be trash. The CFP thing fails that. If you want to push the salon ref, you need to provide it, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in your discussion, as it's not especially thoughtful. I told you exactly how to find the Salon article. I presented The News Letter and linked to it, and you admitted to being unfamiliar with the publication, and never argued against it as a source. In the meantime, I found the source documents (IPCC AR4 drafts 1 and 2 and associated comments), and indeed there appear to be only 62 reviewers of the chapter with the most important conclusion if AR4, that human activity is the primary cause of global warming. So the charge by Harris & McLean is not only exceptionally relevant, and not only notable -- it's also factually accurate. On this basis I will add that criticism back to the article. MichaelBluejay (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A letter to Salon counts for very little; nor is the newsletter a noted forum for cl ch discussion. Your authors appear to have reading comprehension problems: they start off from ""The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws together the work of over 2,500 scientists, has concluded that..." and then slide into "So how many of the 2,500 scientists who reviewed parts of the complete IPCC report...". You see the problem immeadiately, of course: Woods isn't talking about reviewers; he is talking about the people who did the work. Secondly, thats the SOD. You and they have forgotten the FOD. Third, that doesn't include the people who (like me) read it, said "thats OK" and felt no need to comment. But thats irrelevant, because Woods isn't talking about reviews William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So would you say that the Union of Concerned Scientists has reading comprehension problems too? They say that "an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents." They said reviewers, they didn't say the people who did the work. Let's also throw into that camp David Suzuki, the most prominent environmentalist in Canada, who said, "2,500 scientists signed the IPCC Report". Harris & McLean simply used one example of people or entities promoting the idea that IPCC AR4 was reviewed or signed by 2,500 scientists. There are certainly many more, including prominent ones, as I just demonstrated. As for the FOD vs. the SOD, that point is incredibly off-base. First off, either you know the number of reviewers of the FOD or you don't. If you don't know, then you're in a poor position to argue this point when you don't know the background. If you do know the number of reviewers of the FOD then I'd have to say that you're being willfully deceptive, since that number is not appreciably higher than the number for the SOD. But more importantly, the FOD and SOD weren't the same documents, so it's irrelevant that there were (barely) more reviewers of the FOD. The statement in question in the FOD was rather weak, stating only that warming could not *solely* be attributed to human influence. In the SOD it's much more forceful, saying that human activity is the *dominant* cause. That's an abrupt, dramatic difference. And that was the main point of the Harris/McLean piece, pointing out how few scientists actually reviewed *that statement* (not some previous, completely different, considerably weaker statement). Again, you either knew that the statement in the FOD was completely different and much weaker, or you didn't. If you didn't know, then you're in a poor position to argue this point when you're not really unfamiliar with the issues. If you did know, then you're being willfully deceptive. I will grant that we don't know how many scientists saw the statement and didn't comment (and I'll make that clear in the article), but that in and of itself is a criticism if the IPCC doesn't publish information about how many reviewers were assigned to chapter 9. That is, for something hailed as the most peer-reviewed document in scientific history, I would rather expect to know how many reviewers were assigned to each chapter. In conclusion, Misplaced Pages has a duty to represent all points of view fairly. This is a point of view that was published in the mainstream press and was widely hailed in climate skeptic circles. (It also happens to be fairly accurate.) You might disagree with this criticism, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a point of view that deserves to be represented. Your charge that the Newsletter is not noted for climate change misses the point. Climate change skeptics would counter, with some validity, that the skeptics' view is not easy to get published because most outlets don't care to allow something into print that they disagree with. For example, you're certainly doing a pretty good job of trying to keep this viewpoint out of the article yourself, even though Misplaced Pages is supposed to be committed to representing all points of view fairly. For heaven's sake, the Criticism section should be able to list actual criticism! MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Process crit: rm: why

I took out:

Critics contend that the degree of review of AR4 and the consensus it represents have been exaggerated or misunderstood, though not necessarily by the IPCC itself. For example, AR4 is based on a review of the outside work of over 2,500 scientists, but AR4 is sometimes wrongly described as being reviewed or approvedby over 2,500 scientists. One such source was the Union of Concerned Scientists inaccurately said that "an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents." David Suzuki, perhaps the most prominent environmentalist in Canada made a similar, wrong statement when he said, "2,500 scientists signed the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) Report". Tom Harris and John McLean have pointed out that only 62 scientists actually reviewed the critical chapter 9 which includes the conclusion that human activity is the driving force of global warming, An examination of the IPCC's "Comments on the Second Order Draft". reveals that there were indeed comments by only 62 reviewers of the second order draft, though we cannot know how many scientists reviewed the chapter but accepted its conclusions by default by making no comments. While the IPCC has not made known the number of reviewers of chapter 9, it is more likely to be closer to 62 than to 2,500.

because its very badly broken. Whatever Suzuki may or may not have said about the number of reviewers of IPCC docs has nothing at all to do with IPCC proc crit. Similarly AR4 is sometimes wrongly described as being reviewed or approvedby over 2,500 scientists is wrong: the ref doesn't say that. Not is it true that only 62 people reviewed ch 9 - thats only counting reviewers of the SOD. And this para badly blurs the diff between 2,500 (whole report) and 62 (ch 9 SOD). Though I'm not sure where the 2,500 comes from either William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Arctic_September_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

It seems grossly inappropriate to show that graph at an offset perspective. I can't see how it could possibly be helpful and it certainly exaggerates the slope of the data.. this is exactly the kind of thing we don't need when defending global warming .froth. (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep - its a cr*p graph William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to apply a perspective correction to see how much difference it makes .froth. (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to read Tufte. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The graph needs to go, but rather than just remove it, let's discuss what to do.

Graph problems:

• Not current.
• Not even clear what date corresponds to the last data point.
• The graph at the link indicated in the Source isn't the same graph as here
• What are the copyright issues? The NSIDC is not a Federal government entity, while they say they provide data at no cost, that's not the same as freely copyable.

Other problem - sea ice extent glosses over the issue that ice volume is a more important issue - sea ice extent (area) is recovering but volume is not following the same recovery.--SPhilbrickT 15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sea level rise

I've read several newspaper articles, and spoken with several scientists, who say that sea level rise projections are underestimated in IPCC AR4. I can't find anything about it in the article. Could anyone more knowledgable than me update the article on this, if necessary? Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We should discuss it. The issue is, does more recent work on possible glacial melt indicate higher SLR than IPCC? But you can't say that IPCC SLR proj *are* underestimated - of course we don't know yet William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is there an image of sea ice extent in the section discussing sea level rise. Ignoring the problems with the image (discussed above) they have nothing to do with each other. I'll remove, unless someone explains to me that I'm missing something fundamental.--SPhilbrickT 16:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Amending my question, as the image obviously relates to the first paragraph, why is there a discussion of sea ice extent in a section about sea level rise? The discussion belongs in its own section, properly labeled. Unless someone explains why I am wrong, I'll take a stab at it, although it would be nice to find a better image.--SPhilbrickT 16:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, you're wrong. Read the paragraph. The reason the figures are disputed sheet melting - "The IPCC AR4 estimates explicitly exclude the influence of the melting of ice sheets... This may result in a major underestimate of the upper limit for sea level rise in the long term."Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand why ignoring the melting of ice sheets (Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers) may lead to underestimation of sea level rise, but that wasn't my question. My question is why is the opening paragraph about Arctic sea ice extent in this section. The entire Arctic could melt, and while it would have implications, it wouldn't affect sea level one millimeter. Do you disagree?--SPhilbrickT 21:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not checked the context of this discussion, but it is a fallacy to think that the sea-ice melt won't affect the sea level. Its a question of density, and fresh water vs. sea water. (ie. this is not the same as an ice-cube in a glass of water, do the experiment with an ice-cube in a glass of sea-water and verify). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)]

That experiment relates to what happens when freshwater ice melts in sea water. Not applicable here, as we are talking about Arctic sea ice. (The Antarctic is a different issue, because of non-trivial precipitation and other issues, but we aren't talking Antarctica, we are talking about the Arctic.)--SPhilbrickT 02:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The density effect on sea level due to melting ice having lower salinity than sea water is real, but negligible for almost all practical purposes. You can do the math. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Thus, the IPCC has erroneously used a date of 2035 instead of 2350."

Is there a reliable source for this, or is it OR? ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Also is this statement in the article OR: "The WWF report appears to be relying on "Variations of Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale""? ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your tag - it looks pointlessly provocative; there are enough people watching this talk page. As to the substance: no, I don't think there is any OR in there. That IPCC has used 2350 instead of 2035 is supported by numerous sources William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Look here http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/ipcc_slips_on_the_ice/ for an analysis of this topic; might have application improving this section. Mirboj (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted the tag. Compared to the media sources I've read (eg: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece) the inserted text is grossly POV (not to mention factually incorrect in places). Please provide references that establish the contested statements. I have reviewed the link above, nowhere AFAICT does it state that 2035 was substituted for 2050 it does clearly show substitution in one place, but NOT the place garnering most attention. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I remind WMC that this article is under probation. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think it is incorrect, or POV in places, please identify those places and quote them here. I am not aware of any inaccuracies; or indeed of any POV. Naturally, when you placed a tag mentioning OR, I assumed that was your problem; now you're importing a pile of new vague allegations. Please put up William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

may be of interest William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OR is my primary concern. Mentioning other, related, concerns, does not seem out-of-place. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the ref above. I will re-read it tomorrow, but I have two observations. (1) The article clearly demonstrates that the review process is capable of breaking down (basically authors ignoring reviewer calls for a cite - where' the science in that?) - Your paragraphs steer well clear of that perspective (this is th POV issue) (2) The claim that it was not a central finding and reported is untrue - I have no data for this (I haven't gone hunting), but I know that *I* picked up on it from MSM somewhere - and have subsequently used the 'fact' elsewhere. My POV is that I am aggrieved by the systematic failure of the IPCC checks and balances, and for the sake of credibility->earth that failure must not be downplayed! ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So the only piece of "incorrectness" you can find is "The claim that it was not a central finding and reported is untrue" - firstly, I dispute your (unsupported) assertion that it was a central finding. In response, I offer the contention that this finding does not appear in the Policymakers summary. Secondly, I don't see that text in the article. Please clarify William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, William. I'm rather unsure about using a blog by Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales, as a source, though the piece does give a useful outline of the problem. He links to posts by Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon whose expertise as Professor of Meteorology and Texas State Climatologist make that a suitable source, and I would suggest the article can be modified to reflect that source, with the addition of the IPPC statement linked below. Anyone willing to check that over and modify the article accordingly? . . dave souza, talk 17:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies - I could have been clearer. I don't think we'd get away with using that as a source - however, it is correct, and a useful source of info for us on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, agree that Lambert's blog is unsuitable as a cited source, but Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon should be acceptable in accordance with WP:SPS. We also now have the BBC report cited, and it covers the main points subject to some more detailed clarifications, which I think are covered by N-G and the IPCC statement. . . dave souza, talk 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

A new source: and yes I now he is considered non-conformist or whatever but the info seems correct. 91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The usual stuff from Christopher Booker. It does contain one nice quote however: issue an unprecedented admission - should we point out that this is, indeed, the first stubstantive error that anyone has ever found in the IPCC reports? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more of this: " In fact Dr Hasnain had first made his own controversial claim two months earlier, in a much longer interview with an Indian environmental magazine, Down to Earth, in April 1999. It was the wording of this interview which the IPCC was to quote almost exactly in its 2007 report. Clearly the IPCC was aware that to cite a little Indian magazine as the reference for such a startling prediction would hardly seem sound scientific practice. But it discovered that Dr Hasnain's slightly later interview with New Scientist had been quoted in a 2005 report by the environmental campaigning group WWF. So it was this, rather oddly, which the IPCC cited as its authority – even though the words it quoted were taken directly from the earlier interview. But even before the 2007 report was published, it now emerges, the offending claim was challenged, not least by a leading Austrian glaciologist, Dr Georg Kaser, a lead author on the 2007 report. He described Dr Hasnain's prediction of glaciers disappearing by 2035 as "so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing". " 91.153.115.15 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would request someone with the know-how redirect "Glaciergate" to this spot. Otherwise someone will undoubtedly create such an article with ensuing edit wars that lead nowhere. 91.153.115.15 (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This would not be appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

IPCC statement

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf William M. Connolley (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful. My suggestion is that the paragraph should start with this, making it clear that the Synthesis Report is robust but that they hve acknowledged the problem with one paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need this article?

Why do we need to have a separate article for criticism of AR4 when we don't have an analogous article praising it? Isn't it a violation of WP:NPOV? I'm planning to dismantle this article gradually and add this as a section to IPCC AR4 main article and link in IPCC article with summary. Please respond with your comments. Thanks. EngineerFromVega (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See "summary style" guidance, and note that the main AR4 article which is already pretty long has a "Criticism" section linked to this page. So yes, we need this to cover the criticisms in the sort of detail that would be inappropriate in the main article, and each article is required to comply with NPOV policy. Your plans are inappropriate. . dave souza, talk 17:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree with your viewpoint. However, as per WP:CRITICISM, writing a separate article for criticism without an analogous article for praise is like giving undue weight to criticism. I've checked that the AR4 article has only 5-6 lines of criticism with a link to this article. Why shouldn't we expand that section first before writing a completely separate article? EngineerFromVega (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Balance needn't be criticism vs. praise, in this case there's a balance between criticism saying manmade warming is understated, and criticism saying it's exaggerated. The section in the other article rightly gives a brief summary of this article, if you feel it needs improved please work on it and gain consensus on the talk page of the other article. However, this article still remains as a necessary expansion of the section there which should be brief to avoid overwhelming the other article. . . dave souza, talk 00:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced?

What is the problem here ? ICSI does indeed mention 2350 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The newsdaily.com/stories reference cited doesn't, and if anything the reference seems to be misplaced. Both it and the BBC article can make good references for aspects of the article which are currently cited to primary sources. At a pinch, the the ICSI source itself could be cited for the 2350 date, but I'd like to see a secondary source commenting that it "does not provide a good scientific justification for that date". Think of it as work in progress. . . dave souza, talk 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Have now reorganised the section a bit, drawing on recent sources. The BBC's stetements about Georg Kaser are also worth summarising, something yet to be done. . . dave souza, talk 08:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your change, because it broke things . I'll try to patch it back in. In particular, "The WWF campaigning report cited a 1999 New Scientist report of a telephone interview " is unambiguously wrong, because we know what the WWF cited, because they tell us, and indeed the text telling us is on the page, so I'm not sure how you came to make that error. I've restored your intro, but also some other useful stuff that you deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for easy reference, this was discussed by a few of us here, and a few references were bandied about at the time, that may or may not be useful now. --Nigelj (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Oreno's change to the header: this is all covered by Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#2035.2F2350.3F William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Lets put it all here shall we, since the editing is occurring here. The WWF report that the IPCC is quoting 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 of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”. ". That is a direct statement from the source itself that they got the date 2035 from ICSI.

So there is no possible doubt that WWF thought they were getting 2035 from ICSI; they say so specifically William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Misplaced Pages community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. Replies to this message will not be read - please address any follow-up comments to Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rats

I may have made a teensy error in some of this. Please talk amongst yourselves for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Breaking news on Monday

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55556/title/IPCCs_Himalayan_glacier_mistake_not_an_accident
"Until now, the organization that published the report – had argued the exaggerated figures in that report were an accident: due to insufficient fact checking of the source material. Uh no. It now appears the incident wasn’t quite that innocent. "
"A noble motive, perhaps, but totally inexcusable."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
"The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.203.141.87 (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages ain't news, and the Daily Mail's spin on events is particularly dubious, even when recycled by Science News. Professor Murari Lal may have shown the bad judgement to agree to an interview with the Mail, but more reliable assessment is needed. . . dave souza, talk 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, do you mean the direct quotes form the Dr. involved are faked? ie, the Dr. did not actually say the things attributed to him as quotes?
Or are you only talking about the editorial writing of that newspaper article?
It's not clear which you mean.
in short, do you think the direct quotes from the Dr. are factual? ie, he said those things?
Regarding the editorial position of one paper or the other (is this even relevant?) it's news in most papers worldwide.. ("recycled" if you prefer that term?)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5729946/the-intergovernmental-perjury-over-climate-catastrophe-ctd.thtml http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/5871336/__IPCC_wilde_politici_benvloeden__.html?p=18,2
(One can choose whatever editorial position one prefers, I guess.)
Again it's not clear if you're saying, you believe the Dr. did NOT SAY the various quotes from him, ie you feel it is likely the mail may have simply lied about what he said.
(Or, you take it that he DID say those things, BUT, you're just talking about that newspapers editorial position???)

We should not use the Daily Mail as a source for anything William M. Connolley (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm .. that's a bit difficult, you're not answering the question.
You're stating a broader, more general position, that avoids answering the question.
The question is, did the Dr. say the direct quotes, attributed to him?
Is your position:
(A) "Yes, he very likely did" or alternately
(B) "It's very likely he did not" .... ?
And what about Davesouza?
I have not seen any claims by other media that he was misquoted?
(There is every sort of spin ON the comments in different major newspapers - just choose the spin you prefer - but as far as I am seeing nobody is saying he was misquoted or that the quotes were made-up wholesale?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.203.141.87 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Do please sign your posts and save our poor bots some work. You've quoted the spin, not what the Mail claims he said, and don't take consideration of the probability that the quotes from him were taken out of context. The spin is clearly a stretch, and haste to insert that isn't needed. Do please find more reputable sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well I quoted the papers just as an intro. I figured anyone could click and see what Dr. Lal said, which is all over the place today, everyone with any interest in the subject knows exactly what he said.
If you like, simply delete the quotes I typed in up above. (I did not mean the article should include anything I typed here, it's just a discussion page.) Indeed, why not delete everything down to this point (would that be sensible?) (If I don't hear back from you I will do that.)

sorry, I did not hear back from you, so I deleted it. You then alerted me I shouldn't have deleted it, so I put it back. (I can see that[REDACTED] is more suitable for solicitors or those with a lot of time on their hands!  :) )

Now that that is completely out of the way,
Dr.Lal said: ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
Dr. Lal said "‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."
Assuming Dr. Lal DID say these things, it changes the breaking story tremendously and (eventually, if it plays out over a few months, and Lal does not (for example) claim that, as you think, he was misquoted) it would change this article tremendously.
To be clear, I think it is extremely unlikely the quotes were "out of context" or "made up from whole cloth", because at this time of day Lal would have been heard objecting loudly in many media -- let's see how it plays out over a few weeks.
To ask the question once again, do you think, at this time, there is a chance that this is misquoting???
You did not answer in your previous comment, you just said "You .. don't take consideration of the probability that the quotes from him were taken out of context." Yes, I did take consideration of that possibility, and indeed, I was/am asking your opinion on the possibility of it. In MY opinion - at this point, evening - it is NOT possible they are misquotes, nor is it possible DM just "made it up." So that's my opinion. What is your opinion? 83.203.141.87 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion of the facts is as irrelevant as my opinion of them, my considered view is that we need verification of the significance and interpretation of this from more than the instant news hits of campaigning newspapers. . . dave souza, talk 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sad to say, the Daily Mail is notorious for exaggerations. However, I've not seen it tell outright lies and there is a strong likelihood (bordering on certainty) that this quote is genuine.

But - although it's part of a breaking story (the kind Misplaced Pages often follows) there is no urgency to add it now. It took almost a month for WMC to add the 2035/2350 IPCC disaster to this article and that's as speedily as we have to move now. Readers will not hold it against us for being a month out of date, it's POV and censorship they don't like. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"However, I've not seen it tell outright lies", interesting... Since the same author in the Daily Mail on the same topic was misquoting and misrepresenting Mojib Latif (a thread in which you btw. were part). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, certainly, it could take months to solidify.

As I said just above "Assuming Dr. Lal DID say these things, it changes the breaking story tremendously and (eventually, if it plays out over a few months ... ) it would change this article tremendously."

Dave, you have avoided answering the question again, so I won't ask again The other fellow below votes MaybeLalNeverSaidIt, the other fellow above votes LalProbablySaidIt and I vote LalProbablySaidIt.

Thus, it appears to be an issue worth watching as it completely changes the "glacier issue" if indeed Lal Said It. (ie, if the quotes are not just an fabrication from the paper in question).

("Let us proceed at glacial speed" - pun) 83.203.141.87 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i do not "vote" either way. It is not a reliable source for this sort of thing - and that makes it irrelevant. I would note one thing though: The condemning part of the article, doesn't lie in what Lal said or not - but rather in the journalists interpretation of what it means, and that btw. is a wrong interpretation - since there is no restriction or even problem with using "gray literature" (almost all government expert reports for instance are "gray literature")... peer-review isn't a necessity for "verification", it is just one type of "verification". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf

This is an excellent ref to the area and issue in general, and this issue in particular. See Slide 40.

Point 5 from that page: This was a bad error. It was a really bad paragraph, and poses a legitimate question about how to improve IPCC’s review process. It was not a conspiracy. The error does not compromise the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which for the most part was well reviewed and is highly accurate.

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, very pithy and concise. The same ground is covered in their letter published by Science on 20 January, which clearly notes that "A bibliographic search suggests that the second WG-II sentence is copied inaccurately from (8), in which the predicted date for shrinkage of the world total from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 is 2350, not 2035." That's a further clarification of Cogley's statement at the start of December 2009. More refs in recent NS articles, a clearer picture is now emerging. . dave souza, talk 23:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, using that as a major source I've set out the sequence more clearly, including the inportant quote above from Cogley et al.'s paper. . . dave souza, talk 00:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

IPCC-bashing (and calling it X-gate) becoming a national pastime?

I see an IP editor has recently tried to shoe-horn brief one-sided coverage of what is already being called 'disastergate' into the lede. Before that happens, of course the facts and RSs need to be properly covered in the body of the article. There is a Times article that seemed to start it all off, then there are two articles giving a more balanced view of the whole situation in the Grauniad: and . (I'm amazed at what a political rag The Times has become under Murdoch, newspaper of record no more I'm afraid) --Nigelj (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is perhaps best semi-protected for a while, if this continues William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Huston we have a problem

In the current text it we attribute this to Lal:

"The IPCC authors did exactly what was expected from them. ... We relied rather heavily on grey literature, including the WWF report. The error, if any, lies with Dr Hasnain's assertion and not with the IPCC authors."

There are two problems with this:

1. Combination of two quotes that may or may not have been said in that order. The combination makes it seem as if the IPCC expected that Lal should use gray literature. Which is not what the source states.
2. There is a substantial reason to think that Lal didn't in fact say this / is misquoted. See this and this (it is a blog yes, so cannot be sourced - but it raises an interesting question-mark)

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Houston? As that nice rural link shows, I'm not an expert. The links you give question The Mail on Sunday's sensationalist piece of Sunday, 24 January 2010. (all their stuff is sensationalist, a Tory dream world of misinformation. Not to be confused with the older and more reputable Sunday Mail ) The quotes I included are from the New Scientist of 13 January, which has a fuller version I can't read without a subscription – if someone can check that out I'll be grateful. Now, the NS has been a bit sensationalist of late, especially with article or issue titles. In the interim I've commented out the quotes, and summarised them as "The question of whether it was acceptable to use material which had not been peer reviewed has been disputed." That can be expanded if appropriate, but I don't want to go into too much detail on it. Thanks, dave souza, talk 10:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Process based criticism non scientific?

Since science is a process, the application of the scientific method to questions, it is at best infelicitous and at worst POV pushing to call process based criticism non scientific, because all the scientific criticism could fall under the same label. I am not a regular editor here so could someone who is please change this.173.52.8.150 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

More breaking news on Sunday

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

Hmm - is it getting to the point where this article as it stands is now wildly out of date?

Let's think about this .. last week Dr Lal says (let's quote him) : ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in." and "‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

(see the extended legalistic discuss above in "Breaking news on Monday")

Of course,[REDACTED] has to wait a week or two (or five, or 10) to make sure Dr Lal doesn't retract this and that it isn't BS, etc etc.

But eventually there has to be some sort of "admission" (if you will!) by[REDACTED] that there is widespread comment, belief, and at the extreme least discussion about the (now obviosity) that the section in question were "politically motivated" - per Dr Lal's direct quotes.

But this week we have this .. "The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine."

Currently, the IPPC article section "Criticism of IPCC / rojected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers; use of 2035 in place of 2350", simply says this:

"A paragraph in the 2007 Working Group II report ("Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"), chapter 10 included a projection that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The IPCC has since acknowledged that the date is incorrect, while reaffirming that the conclusion in the final summary was robust. They expressed regret for "the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance". "

That is an astoundingly soft description of the fact that: (1) Dr Lal has openly and plainly admitted he included it for political reasons and (2) the claims were based on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

This article, and also the section "critcism" in the general IPPC article, is really in danger of becoming something of a laughing stock, you know?

Certainly, there's room for "let's wait a little while." And there's certainly room for "oh, the newspaper XYZ, Everyone Knows that is a trash newspaper." And certainly, there's room for trying to avoid sensationalism. But[REDACTED] has to LIVE IN REALITY.

Misplaced Pages is supposed to DESCRIBE REALITY. This article (for example) is supposed to (presumably?) describe the "critcism of AR4", since the title is "criticism of AR4"

There is just an overwhelming, vast, every-newspaper, widespread amount of Criticism of AR4 going on that is, weirdly, not being DESCRIBED in the article.

Even if you are an incredibly ardent fan of the IPCC, there has to come a point where you want the[REDACTED] article to NOT LOOK like it was written by the PR company of the IPCC, doing "damage control". You know?

Put it this way - this article is being conservative IN THE EXTREME about basically mentioning ANYTHING, ANY criticism (no matter how popular, widespread, or ridiculously central and sourced such as DIRECT QUOTES) ... the article is being astonishingly "patient with" the IPCC and is becoming increasingly divorced from DESCRIBING REALITY (such as any, say, "criticism of the IPCC" which is the article title).

Hope it helps! 83.203.208.242 (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do all these people type in capital letters, or is it the same one over and over? --Nigelj (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

NIgel, I like occasionally using capital letters for words or phrases (or bold words, or italic words), when trying to explain something clearly. In any event, your attitude is disturbing. "These people" .. you mean people who disagree with you? Blacks? Europeans? Or what do you mean exactly? Can you explain yourself?

It's quite frustrating when someone writes a long, considered comment, and the only response is a very ignorant "meta-comment" that completely avoids all substance. If you have anything, at all, of any consequence to say - anything - at all - any opinion, any fact, any vague thought that comes through your head - type that thought of yours in English using your keyboard.

"Meta-comments" achieve absolutely nothing (unless you're trying to build a folio for comedy writing or something). When you answer, try to include SOME, ANY substance, no need for any metacomments. And please explain precisely what you mean in English about "these people". 83.203.208.242 (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

DON'T SHOUT and don't believe the Torygraph. Your stuff about Lal is wrong: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/25/un-scientist-refutes-daily-mail-claim-himalayan-glacier-2035-ipcc-mistake-not-politically-motivated/ William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Curious: Joe Romm calls Dr. Lal and writes about it in his blog, and that "refutes" Roses' story? Romm clearly has an agenda (as anyone who reads his blog can tell), so I'm not sure that his claims are what we should be relying on to accurately portray the truth. Isn't there some relatively objective source that refutes the DM piece?Jurban48 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

William Connolley, you can't be serious here? "my" stuff about Lal is "wrong" because you read a blog?

You need to step back and have a cup of coffee, reality is receding in to the distance ...

No chance of an apology or anything else from user 'Nigelj' ? 83.203.138.48 (talk)

IP, please apologise to William Connolley and Nigelj, your lack of knowledge has led you to misunderstand the situation. Also, as for the credibility of the Torygraph as a source for breaking news, see below. . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave Souza, if you are trying to make humorous metacomments (perhaps to build a comedy writing folio, or something?), please stop wasting time. Address improving the article or just be quiet. 81.51.247.234 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone contact "Nigel J" and have him explain himself above? Were his comments racist? 81.51.247.234 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

More breaking news .. India rejects the IPCC

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html

Um, this article at hand is now so out of date it is nutty.

There is now so much criticism of the IPCC that India has formed it's own counter-IPCC body.

Misplaced Pages - certainly this article - is becoming marginalised and bizarre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.203.138.48 (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Silly stuff! A classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. That newspaper's story lasted how long – maybe 12 hours online, bet it never got into print. Click on the link now to check. The story that so excited you is mirrored here at present:
"India has threatened to pull out of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is to set up its own climate change body because it "cannot rely" on the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri.
The Indian government's announcement is a snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he fights to defend his reputation after the disclosure that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035."
What a difference a few hours makes.
"The Indian government is backing Pachauri to the hilt. Let there be no doubt on that. There is no wavering in the support of the Indian government. The Prime Minister and others in the government are supporting him as chairmen of IPCC. Let there be no two opinions on that," Mr Ramesh said." . . dave souza, talk 12:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Useful new analysis

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/ is excellent. It takes everyone to pieces. The analysis of the reviewers responses to people pointing out the errors is great William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it really worth mentioning a minor blog like this? It's an opinion piece. Who cares?

Also, it's not an analysis of "criticism of the IPCC" (it's not - say - a histiograph of how many newspapers are critcising the IPCC or a list of who and what is critcising the IPCC). It's not actually about "critcism of the IPCC". It's just a thought-piece blog article in support of the IPCC. Note that this article is about "criticism of the IPCC". It's not about "who's writing thought-pieces on blogs about the IPCC".

The page is about "criticism of the IPCC". So, observe and report on criticism of the IPCC. That's a very simple idea.

Since Dave and William prefer to own this page, and have the time to do so, I really suggest you DELETE the page. It is pointless. It is supposed to be about "critcism of the IPCC". As it stands it's really a growing embarrassment to wikipedia. It's a typical example of the sort of politicised page that is owned by a couple of editors who have the time to do so and which has drifted off in to dreamland.

I suggest you delete the page. It would be a more honest straightforward approach. 81.51.247.234 (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments that we shouldn't cover this issue properly are poor, you assertions about other editors are baseless and do nothing for your own anonymous credibility. . . dave souza, talk 11:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• An interesting and useful examination of the developments, however The Yale Forum on Climate Change and The Media doesn't seem to meet WP:SPS standards so care is needed. In broad terms it seems to support the other sources used for the article, there are some useful clarifications and details that are worth considering. In particular, it's notable that the origin of the wording and a table in the AR$ WGII report came from Mridula Chettri’s April 30, 1999, article for the reputable Indian environmental magazine Down to Earth. We've already cited the IEP which gives the April edition of Down to Earth as the source, so I've added that title in. Worthwhile as further explanation, but I'm cautious about citing it directly. . dave souza, talk 11:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC) oops, so many akronyms. . . dave souza, talk 14:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully "AR$" was a typo not an analogue of "micro$oft" :-). The point the Yale text brings out most clearly is that most (all?) of the mistakes were spotted in review. This is an underreported part of the story, and I think it casts those who revised the draft in a poor light: in essence, it looks to me as though they simply weren't interested in constructive criticism of their draft (erm, have you seen ? It is soooo true) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

criticism of the IPCC: Robert Watson (previous chairman of the IPCC)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

"A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility. Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming."

Let me guess .. William and Dave will reply to this explaining that Watson is an unimportant figure and the Times is a political rag.

Misplaced Pages is becoming a joke. More specifically it is being turned in to a joke by politicised editors - such as William and Dave - who owns pages like this.

This[REDACTED] page is supposed to be about criticism of the IPCC. But the page is beyond laughable .. it is sad. The IPCC is going through a bout of severe world-wide critcism by every major newspaper but it is all being gleefully ignored or worked around by William and Dave.

The fact that "anyone can own" a page on Misplaced Pages just by putting in a large number of hours and endlessly referencing minor politicised blogs that favour your position --- unfortunately for you also means that "anyone can embarrass" themselves, in public, in front of zillions of readers. This is all going down indelibly in history. It's very silly.

Of course, the editors that own this page will probably delete this comment! Fortunately it remains forever in the history files. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.247.234 (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me guess – you're trolling and IP hopping? Pity your rant gets in the way of a reasonable issue, that we should include coverage of various opinions about how to improve the IPCC. It's a bit of an emerging story with the usual problems that require WP:NOTNEWS, but it is interesting to note that Professor Bob Watson, who chaired the IPCC before Dr Pachauri, called for changes in the way the IPCC compiles future reports. “It is concerning that these mistakes have appeared in the IPCC report, but there is no doubt the earth’s climate is changing and the only way we can explain those changes is primarily human activity, “cannot be personally blamed for one or two incorrect sentences in the IPCC report”, but Watson stressed that the chairman must take responsibility for correcting errors.

Watson and Beddington are among those also covered in this story, and it's interesting to note allegations that Bush, at the behest of ExxonMobil, got Watson replaced by Pachauri. A better source is needed for that point.

Since we cover various views, we should also include the issue that Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent. So, some points to be added. . dave souza, talk 12:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Crop yields?

What is the criticism in the new "African crop yield projections" section. It says, Chapter 9 of the Working Group II report states that "In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)." Is this supposed to be wrong in some way? Which are these "other countries"? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As a point of information, the version of the statement in the synthesis here (p. 50 of the report, p. 28 of the pdf) is that "By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition." The pdf includes {WGII 9.4, SPM} at the end, not apparent in the html version. The Sunday Times says that Bob Watson said such claims should be based on hard evidence. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report”. Since he was replaced by Pachauri, allegedly at the request of Bush and ExxonMobil, the implication is that Watson is criticising the rules permitting use of non-peer reviewed papers, but that thought looks rather like original research. Haven't checked what the rules were under Watson. . . dave souza, talk 12:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I took the section out:

===African crop yield projections=== Chapter 9 of the Working Group II report states that "In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)." This claim was also included in the AR4 Synthesis Report, and has been mentioned in speeches by IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. The source cited in the report for this claim is a non-peer reviewed policy paper published by International Institute for Sustainable Development, a Canadian think tank. Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's climate impacts team, questioned the claim, telling the Sunday Times that "I was not an author on the Synthesis Report but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines"

It isn't really notable, and it doesn't have much to say. Come back in a rmmonth; if anyone still cares then it might have some durability and be worth considering William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Another good source

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/10/ipcc-reform William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Structural issues

The lede implies an article structure. The article starts to follow it but then falls apart. The led implied structure is first the distinction between scientific and process issues, then, within scientific, the possibility that the report understates or overstates dangers. (As an aside, the word "dangers" doesn't accurately reflect the content, but we can come back tot hat.

The distinction between scientific and process exists. But then, within scientific, there is a heading referring to understating, but no comparable heading referring to overstating. The "understated" section has one subsection, which itself is bad form, but that can be fixed. If you number your sections, then sections 1.2 and 1.3 conceptually belong to an "overstatement" section.

Additionally the Netherlands issue has been folded into the process section, but it is not preally a process issue.

There are also come content issues. There's a reference to the year 2035 being a type, which was a working hypothesis but never turned out to be true.

As noted the "understated" section shouldn't have one subsection, but this can be remedied. There are two unrelated issues in this section, the first being the discussion of the seas level extent dropping faster than predicted, and the second being glacial dynamics, which could use some copy editing. The seas level extent issue isn't a sea level issue (I don't believe, see discussion upthread). If that can be resolved we can work on the content.

I'll mock up a proposed structure, but I'd like some feedback - is it desirable to follow the implied structure of the lede, or should we create a different structure?--SPhilbrickT 03:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This thing has grown, from being a receiving ground for a couple of incidents. The entire structure should be re-thought William M. Connolley (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Process-based in opening sentence

I have tried to clarify what 'process-based' might mean in the opening sentence of this article. A Misplaced Pages search for the term shows that it is either ambiguous/confusing or non-notable and so can't be left in the headline without some explanation. Without this, does it refer to Process (computing), Process (science), or something to do with Process control or Process-based management? Clarity is needed in an opening statement, not the use of a term that is almost guaranteed to confuse the ordinary reader, that cannot be wikilinked. --Nigelj (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

More on Structure

This is the structure implied by lede:

A Scientific criticism
  1. AR4 understates danger
  2. AR4 overstates danger
B Process criticism

However this is the structure actually used:

A Scientific criticism
  1. AR4 understates danger
      a. Example of understatement
  2. Example of overstatement
  3. Another example of overstatement
B Process criticism
    Other examples of overstatement

The structure actually used is flawed because of lack of parallelism. One option is to simply follow the implied structure. At the same time, we should separate out the two conflated understatement items.

That might look as follows:

A Scientific criticism
  1. AR4 understates danger
     a. Arctic sea ice extent dropping faster than predicted
     b. Glacial dynamic issues
  2. AR4 overstates danger
     a. Himalayan glacier date issue
     b. African crop yields (if supportable)
     c. Rain forest issue
     d. Extreme event frequency (now under Process)
     e. Netherlands below sea level area
B Process criticism

While this might solve some structural problems, it has it own problems. Three of these problems:

• Treating issues as Scientific or Process implies these are opposites and Process is not Scientific (mentioned upthread). A better alternative is Content versus Process, although that may be too stilted for a general encyclopdia. Thoughts?
• Sorting issues into "overstate" or "understate" misses that some may just be errors. The Netherlands issue (assuming is is backed up reliably) neither overstates nor understates, it simply is an error. I concur with the goal of including all meaningful criticism, not just criticism that comes from skeptics, but I'm not convinced this is the best metric.
• The items in the scientific lists are clearly AR4 issues, while the Process criticism is more a criticism of the overall approach, rather than the specific deliverable. I don't feel strongly about removing the process criticism, but I'm not happy about the lack of parallelism.

One possible improvement (if one accepts that both overstatement and understatement criticism belongs, but sorting isn't needed:

A Content Criticism
  1. Arctic sea ice extent dropping faster than predicted
  2. Glacial dynamic issues
  3. Himalayan glacier date issue
  4. African crop yields (if supportable)
  5. Rain forest issue
  6. Extreme event frequency (now under Process)
  7. Netherlands below sea level area
B Process criticism
  1. Dismissal of concerns (Landsea)
  2. Uncertainty
  3. Recommended procedural change

--SPhilbrickT 15:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That organization sounds reasonable to me. Do it. Oren0 (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at a new organization, following the outline proposed here. The draft is here

Important note - this only addresses organizational issues. Some items still to address:

• The sea ice extent graphic has been criticized. At a minimum, it is dated. I've also written to the creator about copyright and other issues, and have not yet received a response. If copyright isn't a problem, we need a more recent version, although some have criticized the appearance, so we may need a different graphic for other reasons.
• The glacier dynamics discussion is confusing, as I think it misleads the reader into thinking that melting of glacial ice is in question, when it is really (I think) concerns about increased ice flow. While the increased flow ends up in seas and melts, to simply call it melting is misleading. Another editor promised to send me some relevant research, but I haven't received it yet.
• I think the gray literature section is problematic. I've seen the criticism, but I don't think either example in this section is an example of gray literature. After further review, the term is broader than I realized. In addition there are no references, so work needs to be done.

  Well spotted. I've tagged the section for now as a reminder to all. --Nigelj (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is consensus the structure is an improvement, I can make it, then we can work on improving the content.--SPhilbrickT 19:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nigel, a source was added, the not very reliable Sunday Telegraph. I've noted the source and added the info that grey literature is allowed. In related news, today's Observer featured sea levels claims and a spat about Peiser misquoting a scientist involved in setting up the IPCC, who's demanded an apology. In tomorrow's Grauniad, Martin Parry defends the IPCC against these accusations. Will add a mention of that. dave souza, talk 20:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. It's always amazing how much clearer things become once they are sourced, and are balanced by including all relevant POVs. Well done, Dave. I've just tweaked the wording at the start of the 2nd sentence to make the context and tense clearer, now that we have a context for these remarks. --Nigelj (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Total re-write

This thing needs a total re-write and a new title. It needs to become "opinions on the IPCC AR4" or somesuch (at least, I think "Crit of..." articles are uncommon and intrinsically POV; I can't see any reason why this one should be so one sided William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ROFL! Why don't you and the other article owners simply delete it? It would be more honest and straightforward. After all, there's no criticism of the IPCC at the moment right? Classic[REDACTED] moment. 81.51.78.218 (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact WP:NPOV suggests, as an example, 'renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"', to 'encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing'. --Nigelj (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. While "criticism" is used by some in a neutral way, it is often pejorative, so I'd support an alternative title. I stills see value in my proposal for organization, possibly just changing "criticism" to "issues" for section heads, although that doesn't work for the title.--SPhilbrickT 16:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to diss your proposal by ignoring it :-). But I do think the article needs to be expanded to include the numerous people who have said nice things about it; its substantial influence on misc goverment thinking; its implicit agenda-setting (for example, most skeptics set themselves up in opposition to it) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not convinced that a total rewrite is appropriate, but agree with ideas of restructuring and retitling. Would "Views on the IPCC AR4" work better than "opinions"? . . dave souza, talk 17:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

To WMC -I didn't interpret your comment as dissing, thanks for being concerned. I simply agreed that the word "criticism" was problematic, then realized my proposed structure uses it.

To Dave, I like that. --SPhilbrickT 18:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Views is the right direction, but I'd like a name that allows me to sneak in its substantial influence on misc goverment thinking; its implicit agenda-setting William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to IPCC AR4? --Nigelj (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We do have Reactions to the September 11 attacks--SPhilbrickT 20:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe expand one of the acronyms: Reactions to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report --Nigelj (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

At least one. I'd say expand both. Guettarda (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So, shall we go ahead and move the article to Reactions to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or Reactions to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, or one of the other suggestions above? I think it would be good to get the move in asap, so that it will flag to us all the expanded, more NPOV, scope that the new title suggests. Votes? Comments? Consensus? --Nigelj (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I like Reactions to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Why?

• The initialism IPCC is sufficiently well-know to leave it abbreviated.
• The initialism FAR4 is not.
• Parallel format to related article IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

I suggest (unless we hear objecting views) that you move the article, then I'll change to the new structure, then we can all work on improving content.--SPhilbrickT 20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's been over 24 hours since I proposed a restructure, and some have affirmatively supported, with no one opposed. I thought it might make sense to do the move first, but perhpas we should wait for more feedback; I was thinking it made sense to do the move then the restructure, but I'll do it the other way around. I'll add an "in use" template and remove it when done.SPhilbrickT 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. I checked edits made between the time I copied the article and now to make sure intermediate edits (mainly to grey literature) were included. I think I got them. SPhilbrickT 22:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer responses to the IPCC AR4. This report has been a game-changer, and focussing solely on critiques, many by fringe elements, is missing its overal significance. To discuss the report correctly, a more even-handed article discussing all responses to the report, placing the few controversies and criticisms into perspective, would be more in keeping with the Neutral point of view policy in my opinion. --TS 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm catching your point. Are you arguing for "responses" over "reactions" or "responses over "criticisms"? If the latter, I agree, but the current proposal is "reactions". I have a slight preference for "reactions over "responses" as "responses" sort of implies that someone was formally asked for a response, that isn't the case, but anyone can have a reaction. I like reaction over criticism as it is less pejorative. SPhilbrickT 00:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is that we've somehow talked ourselves into a hole where we're only discussing a few negative reactions to AR4, which has overall been one of the most influential and well received review documents in the history of climate science. The article, I would argue, is destined to be unbalanced because it is based on the premise that only negative reactions are eligible for inclusion. --TS 00:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I specifically rewrote the lede to address the point you made. The use of "nevertheless" is intended to connote that these are exceptions. However, each of the exceptions is notable, and deserve a place somewhere. If you have ideas on how to strengthen the lede, or add sections, please do. However, I do not yet follow how "responses" as opposed to "reactions" relates to your points. I'm relatively agnostic on the point, if the consensus favors "responses" it works for me, but I thought Nigelj's suggestion had a lot of merit. SPhilbrickT 02:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is probably best encapsulated by the phrase "the word reaction also has negative connotations in this context." I can live with it, though. --TS 02:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How about Reception of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? I don't see strong objections to "Responses" or "Reactions" either, though. In any case, there are severe problems with the current "Criticism of ..." title; as is well known, such articles run the risk of becoming POV forks as described in Misplaced Pages:Content forking. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To do section

I added a to do section. I'm doing something wrong - I added two items which appear, then a third which doesn't, although I see it if I edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sea ice extent graphic

Regarding the first two points, the graphic is copied from the NSIDC. I left a comment at the creator's talk page, but haven't yet heard back. My question is whether the graphic is in the public domain; it may be, but I don't see the clear evidence. Even if it can be used, it is dated, and some have noted the perspective makes it difficult to read. I don't think it will be hard to find a current graph of sea ice extent, but it isn't so easy to find one with model error bars. If someone has a source of a good free graphic, let's discuss a replacement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Himalayan glaciers

Regarding the Himalayan glaciers, we go on and on and on when a couple succinct paragraphs would do. In particular, we talk about the possible typo, confusing 2035 with 2350. I think this has turned out to be a red herring, so it doesn't belong here. I'll work on an alternative wording, and run it by this group for consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC) (timings approx.)

Objection: it's well sourced and describes a complex situation reasonably concisely. It includes a source showing that there was indeed a typo confusing 2035 with 2350, which the IPCC adopted uncritically. . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Presuming you mean the BBC article by Bagla, it is simply wrong. There was some early speculation, including by me, that the 2035 date might have been a typo. But upon inspection, that makes no sense. That article was written back in December, when that was considered the possible source, but we now know the source and it wasn't the Kotlyakov paper. The situation is muddied because we know the authors did see the Kotlyakov paper, and indeed, lifted some wording without attribution. Note that Cogley doesn't say the 2035 was a typo, he says "he believes" they "misread 2350 as 2035". But, the article goes on to note, the authors deny this, and we now know the authors were right.

If you read the Kotlyakov paper, (which I suspect most reporters have not) you'll quickly see that it doesn't make sense to be the source. While it does talk about Himalayan glaciers, and it does talk about projected loss of glaciers, the 2350 date explicitly relates to glaciers other than the Himalayas.

I have read an infuriating large number of articles making the same error. We shouldn't perpetuate the error simply because an early report got it wrong, and others have parroted it.SPhilbrickT 23:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that the other cite attached to the 2350 claim also quotes Cogley. The December Bagla article quoted him as speculating that the 2035 might have been a misread, but Cogley's January article does not repeat the claim. He references the 2350, but he now realizes the point I was making it, is a date associated with non-Himalayan loss. (To be picky, it is associated with world loss, but IIRC, Kotlyakov explictly expected the loss to be primarily non-Himalyan.)SPhilbrickT 23:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is clarified in this article which we've not cited as it's questionable as a source: discussed here. In the erroneous paragraph, "two numerical quirks - the 2350-to-2035 switch and the division error - and various other features of the language and presentation are lifted directly from" “Glaciers Beating Retreat,” Mridula Chettri’s April 30, 1999, article for the reputable Indian environmental magazine Down to Earth. The same typo was noted by John Nielsen-Gammon, cited in our article and an expert on climatology, and we quote the relevant Down to Earth paragraphs as reproduced on the Indian Environmental Portal. It was Chettri’s typo, which was adopted by WGII without checking the original source. Bad mistake. . . dave souza, talk 08:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read that before, and it helps put some of the puzzle pieces together. For example, I had assumed that the IPCC authors looked at Kotlyakov's paper, because they used a phrase from the paper, but that phrase appear's in Chettri's article (with the wrong year) so maybe they never looked at Kotlyakov's paper. I still have trouble believing that Hasnain, who is purported to know something about glaciers, could miss the blunder. Surely he knows that the Himalayan glaciers aren't disappearing by 2035. Unfortunately, my time window for working on this closed, so I'll have to wait until later to propose an alternative, but I still think the article spends too much space on this issue.--SPhilbrickT 15:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it may be possible to make it more concise, or alternately we could spin it off into a sub-article with a concise summary here. However, it's significant as the only proven error in AR4. As for Hasnain, he seems to have been promoting the "within 40 years" idea quite widely, and New Scientist state that he gave the 2035 date in an email interview. This gives a concise statement, emphasising that AR4 WGI chapters 4 and 10 gave a sound scientific analysis and projection of future glacier decline, but the references I've found to the Himalayas seem rather technical for me. Thanks for your time on this, dave souza, talk 18:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Guardian article - How to reform the IPCC

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

Disasters

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

Science, math, and probabilities.....

Scientific integrity has been hugely compromised.

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

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

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

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

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

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there have been an incredibly small number of objections to the conclusions, and some go in both directions. The Himalayan glacier incident clearly goes in one direction, but the sea ice extent goes in the other direction, as does the glacial dynamics issue. The Netherlands error was an error, but I'm not aware that it was used in any meaningful way to propose policy, so it isn't obvious that this could be characterized as making things worse or better. It was just an error. SPhilbrickT 23:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of clarification – the Netherlands issue wasn't an error, it was a discrepancy as to whether you work from mean sea level or from high tide during storms. The latter is the problem that causes flooding, being above mean sea level does not help when the tide is in. . . dave souza, talk 09:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those errors that went the other way. Maybe they were all honest mistakes. But then why try to cover them up? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Human nature, and the fact that the IPCC is a small organization, and doesn't have its own media arm. (See the second page of this article, which is where I got it.)SPhilbrickT 23:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please respect the notice on top of this talk page: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject (or even wider subjects, such as the "global scientific community" in general). See WP:NOT#FORUM. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. OK. I just thought we could mention it in the article. But I'm done in this section. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

why hasn't there been widespread criticism from the majority of the global scientific community over this? - good point. Perhaps we should indeed mention in this article that there *has* been wide support from the IPCC William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

IPCC errors: facts and spin

Is this RealClimate piece (published by The Guardian) of any use?: IPCC errors: facts and spin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikispan (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a good and useful analysis. Since it's not self-published, presumably we can use it as a source. It's described as "From RealClimate, part of the Guardian Environment Network." . . dave souza, talk 09:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Rv: why

I reverted HiP . This article doesn't just contain crit; that would be unbalanced. See the refocussing discussion above William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You can see my edit summaries for appropriate justification. However I may as well note here that your revert featured a misattribution of an article to the wrong author and a POV fork (also described here WP:NPOV), hence my reversal of it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

By "pov fork" you presumably mean that it included discussion of content issues rather than purely process issues. For some reason you forgot to remove the content issue allegations, so I've taken them out and rephrased things to meke it clearer what Parry said about the process issue. Thanks for the correction about the article author, my mistake.

That removes the useful information that the IPCC has investigated the issues and Parry has stated that "What began with a single unfortunate error over Himalayan glaciers has become a clamour without substance". The IPCC had investigated the other alleged mistakes, which were "generally unfounded and also marginal to the assessment". That could work as part of the content section intro. The IPCC report on the Amazon rainforest was described by Daniel Nepstad, an expert on deforestation in Brazil, as correct and supported by his peer-reviewed publications which had been used as a basis for the World Wildlife Fund report.Daniel Nepstad (February 2010). "Senior Scientist Daniel Nepstad addresses IPCC statement on forests". Woods Hole Research Center. Retrieved 2010-02-15.. It could be worthwhile adding this Amazon rainforests issue as another alleged content issue. . . dave souza, talk 09:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

By POV fork I meant mention of the correctness of the report on Amazon rainforests in a section on the use of gray literature. This should be left out as per WP:POVFORK. I also don't see Parry's Himalaya quote as meeting standards for inclusion. No mention was made of the Himalayan glaciers "incident" anywhere else in the section and its relation isn't justified by Parry. It's a non sequitur.

I'm not sure what you mean by "content issue allegations" but I'll look over your diffs.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you meant the clause, "regarding amazon rainforest predictions" ? I suppose I didn't notice it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As requested, I've added back in the Telegraph claim about "student dissertations". Seem to recall that what could be acceptable would be graduate theses, or "student dissertations" to the snobbish, but don't have a source to hand. WP:POVFORK refers to new articles, the issue is WP:NPOV which requires giving the main views on the topic, showing majority expert views when fringe views like the Telegraph's claims on rainforests etc. are mentioned. . . dave souza, talk 10:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd been thinking of this in particular - Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Point_of_view_.28POV.29_and_content_forks - but you've made me think I've misinterpreted.

In the US only grad students write dissertations, whereas undergrads write theses. Is it the same in the UK? As to the rainforest thing, at least when I got to this article, the correctness of that data wasn't mentioned by detractors, so a display of the 'majority view' was irrelevant even on your criteria (which I don't particularly believe we should adopt ). However, even had it been mentioned by detractors I would have removed it from this section all the same. The section isn't about data. A student dissertation can get everything right, that doesn't change the fact that it's gray literature, which scientists in all fields are uncomfortable with. Hope I'm being clear.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I may well be wrong about the theses / dissertations issue, it seemed dismissive to me but the distinction didn't apply in my subject. The "gray literature" issue is a bit complex, covered in some more detail here. While most citations in AR4 are to peer-reviewed publications, "Especially for Working Groups 2 and 3 (but in some cases also for 1) it is indispensable to use gray sources, since many valuable data are published in them: reports by government statistics offices, the International Energy Agency, World Bank, UNEP and so on. This is particularly true when it comes to regional impacts in the least developed countries, where knowledgeable local experts exist who have little chance, or impetus, to publish in international science journals." It goes on to stress the importance of getting leading researchers to check and assess such literature. In simplistic terms it would be nice and simple to require everything to be peer-reviewed, and I originally felt that would be a good move, but can now see the problems that could introduce. However, there was a clear failure on the glaciers and procedures will have to be much improved. . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I didn't mean to suggest that grey literature wasn't handy, but simply that it is something scientists generally view with discomfort. N=1 data set to back this up: even as a student, writing student articles, I recently came to a professor asking whether I could use a dissertation published on google.scholar, approved by the corresponding university's department, that had some key data that would have helped justify the hypotheses I was making in my study, and the answer was no for the simple reason that it hadn't been formally peer reviewed. As I understand it, the criticism isn't about whether or not grey literature is correct or expedient, but whether it is appropriately scientific. Your explanation seems fair to me, I just want to point out that most scientists will consider the use of grey literature a problem that needs to be justified, and not simply "something that was done." Not that it can't be justified, but that it should be, and that this justification must go beyond "the results were correct" (which could have happened accidentally).

You suggest here that there's a connection between the glacier thing and the use of grey literature? Did they get that faulty information from, e.g., a government source?--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I removed another clause, which you can check out. It seemed a non sequitur and sounded odd, so I looked it up and turns out it was referring to something entirely unrelated. I left the section where he actually addresses concerns about the use of grey literature. Let me know what you think.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Its your second controversial revert of the day. Don't do this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have a constructive criticism you'd like to raise go ahead. You're the first to express this opinion so far, and not for lack of discussion of my edits (see this thread), so you'll have to excuse me for thinking my actions weren't controversial.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what comes of trying to strip content away from process issues, in the interim I've clarified what Parry was talking about. The above source could allow useful improvement on this point, but not today for me. . dave souza, talk 20:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No. By content one means "the results or aims of research," by process one means the research methods. The process is what's relevant to the section, not the content. What you call "Clarifying what Parry was talking about" is an insertion of material irrelevant to the section at hand. There can be no good reason for this. Self-revert?--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Redundant "Climate expert and"

There is no need for the above phrase, as the following sentence makes it utterly redundant. ChairingVice-chairing the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC kind of illustrates (without having to tell) that he's a climate expert. A hallmark of good writing is showing, not telling. A hallmark of bad writing is including redundant phrases. Scottaka UnitAnode 12:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. He is not the Chair but the Vice Chair, for starters. And take the example of his boss, an industrial engineer, not a climate expert. If it were obvious I'd agree, but there mere title "Vice Chair of the IPCC" absolutely does not convey any professional expertise in climatology. --TS 12:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. And if being the vice-chairman of the IPCC doesn't automatically qualify you as a climate expert (I think in the minds of most laymen, it would), isn't that a problem with the IPCC? It reads as wholly redundant to my eyes to say "Climate expert and" before listing his position at the IPCC. Scottaka UnitAnode 12:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't think any climatologist would mistake Rajendra Pachauri for a climatologist (nor would Pachauri). There is a distinction, and whatever misconceptions the layperson might harbor is not our concern. We're not a remedial class. --TS 12:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Our articles should be written for the layperson, not for the experts. If the IPCC regularly appoints non-climate experts to positions of authority, that should be made clear. Your condescension to the regular readership of these articles is not acceptable. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that articles should be written for laypeople, and given the amount of publicity given to Pachauri being an industrial engineer, not a climate expert, it's reasonable to note that Parry's field is climate change. "He has published about 150 scientific papers, mainly in the field of climate change and agriculture, including 5 books. From 1983 -2005 he was editor of the journal Global Environmental Change." Also note he's no longer the Vice Chair, but was for the 2007 report. I'll amend it accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavia-gate?

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you may want to consider that the IPCC graph is for the region NEU (Northern Europe) which is the grid 10EW-40E,48N-75N - which is quite a lot more than Scandinavia, it includes all of Britain, Germany, Northern France,.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps with Norse-Gaels, Vikings and Normans etc. we're all Scandinavians? . . dave souza, talk 14:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point Kim.--SPhilbrickT 16:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Article rename

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

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

Is "don't rename the article" an option? "Criticism of..." articles are commonplace. The reason I'm inclined to oppose this rename is because I believe it is step 1 in a criticism removal. Step 1: rename the article to "reactions". Step 2: Add a bunch of science academies, etc, that have cited or commented positively on the report. Step 3: Remove or greatly reduce the current notable criticisms per WP:WEIGHT. The existing criticisms may be less notable than other reactions in the context of the whole AR4, which is why they are only briefly mentioned in the AR4 article. However, these criticisms have each been covered widely by sources and should be adequately covered by WP. I'm concerned that this rename will result in an AfD-by-proxy of anything negative regarding the IPCC. Oren0 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you probably guess correctly, within the limits of article size. This is a kind of POV-fork representing only one side of the reality. It is fundamental to WP:NPOV that, "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." This article currently is a one-sided discussion of the available facts re this document. --Nigelj (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why it's a subarticle. The main article here is AR4. You put a {{main}} tag on the top of the page and then it's clear that it's a split per WP:SUMMARY. Sufficient precedent exists for criticism subarticles, see for example Criticism of Islam, Criticism of capitalism, Criticism of the War on Terrorism, etc. If you want to delete this article, that's what AfD is for. Oren0 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you follow the link above? This was all discussed a few days ago under #Total re-write. --Nigelj (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the section. The discussion above seems to take as a given that a "criticism of..." article is a POV fork, when in reality they can be a perfectly legitimate application of WP:SUMMARY. WP:NPOV is achieved by including notable responses to criticism. It is not achived by shutting out notable criticism by retitling an article to be about something else entirely. Oren0 (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "reception of..." William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Oppose. This kind of article is common and warranted, and the alternative is just random. Imagine moving Critiques of Slavoj Žižek to Responses to Slavoj Žižek. I'm sure we could find some glowing reviews of his work to tack on, but that wouldn't be especially encyclopedic and definitely wouldn't be worthy of a serious reader's attention, even if positive reviews were the majority. Incidentally, Nigelj, your WP:NPOV quote isn't germaine. The article is not one-sided simply because it only contains critique. Quite the opposite, the article is about critique.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse critique (which in that academic context roughly means scholarly reception) and criticism (in the sense of disapproval, as in this article's current title). (And this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument also rests on the assumption that that article is a shining example of NPOV, which has been severely challenged on the talk page there.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• Prefer Reactions If the choice is between “reactions” and “responses”, I could live with either, but prefer “reactions”. When the AR4 was in draft, I read it and offered commentary on some aspects. I viewed my commentary as a “response” and viewed it as a “conversation” between myself and the IPCC. The audience was the IPCC. In contrast, when other parties are writing aboutAR4, I view their commentary as a reaction to the content, with an audience of the general world, not the IPCC. As the content we are discussing has an audience of the general world, and not the IPCC itself, I slightly prefer “reactions” over “responses”. (At this time “reception” is not growing on me.)
• However, I am troubled by the exchange between Oren0 and Nigelj. If renaming means we have to devote the bulk of the article to the bulk of the reactions which are largely positive, we will miss the point of this article’s existence. I accept that WP must treat each subject in a neutral way, reflecting appropriate weight to various views, but I think that can be done within the penumbra of a set of articles, not necessarily in each individual article. Surely no one reading Criticism of Islam comes away thinking, “Gee, that’s odd, I thought there were some who supported Islam. I guess they must be fringe.” It was my presumption that we had a decently long article on AR4 itself, implicitly or explicitly noting it was well-received in general, but noting there were some dissenting views, some feeling it portrayed a view too conservative, others not conservative enough, and the length of the AR4 article was such that the points could not be properly fleshed out in the article, so were to be summarized in the article, with in a separate article covering the specific points in more detail. I think if this is identified as a subarticle, it is acceptable to discuss only the views departing from the middle view. I reread NPOV, and I don’t see this as a problem.SPhilbrickT 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Think I agree with your point, a concise statement of the wide agreement that it reasonably summarises the science etc. would be enough to set the context for the various detailed disputes or updates. There is a problem of a widespread misperception that the whole report is somehow overturned by the agreed error and any other disputed aspects, will try to warch out for the best sources dealing with that. "Reactions" would be a third preference for me, but will review that. . dave souza, talk 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lacking a {main} link at the top, it doesn't look like a sub-article at the moment. On the other hand, renaming without significantly altering the content would be a mistake, as it would leave the reader with the impression that the majority of reactions (responses, whichever) have been negative. It is precisely that POV that I was trying to balance here. If you asked the average US media-consumer this month (or UK Telegraph/Mail reader, etc), and if they had heard of it, my guess is that the majority would say that IPCC AR4 has been largely discredited and found full of glaring errors. I wanted to avoid the present situation where, as it stands, you can say this now and provide a Misplaced Pages link that pretty much confirms it - i.e. to this article. This should not become a poster child of CC denial. --Nigelj (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• If one really wants to go into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, as Oren0 has done: Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, Criticism of Barack Obama, Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Mother Teresa and Criticism of The War on Poverty are all redirects. There is a reason for that - Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Article titles is unambiguous about this kind of thing:
  

  Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.'

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

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sea level rise

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk refers to a relatively conservative study, which apparently went against the trend of projections indicating much higher sea level rises than indicated in AR4. Until the study is corrected and republished we won't know for sure, but without it criticisms that there was an underestimate in AR4 are strengthened. This article doesn't seem that specific, may be useful elsewhere. . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If a corrected version is published showing a larger estimate (which would be in keeping with other recent studies) then it may be worth including all the studies, with appropriate secondary source commentary, on the apparent under-estimation (IPCC's own report did, I think, acknowledge that the estimates employed very incomplete data). --TS 08:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, good plan.SPhilbrickT 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

References up to here

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

1. http://conservationvalue.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-ipcc-report-2500-scientists-say.html Conservation Value Notes, accessed September 29, 2008
2. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?, accessed September 29, 2008
3. http://www.canadianvalues.ca/issues.aspx?aid=267 Institute for Canadian Values, "Global Warming Charlatan", accessed September 29, 2008
4. http://www.newsletter.co.uk/3425/OPINION-True-nature-of-climate.4488683.jp The News Letter, "True Nature of Climate Change Highly Uncertain", Sept. 13, 2008
5. http://letters.salon.com/25eabdb0b33361da6439ca9a109ed3e9/author/ Salon, "UN scientists really don't believe what we are told they believe". August 18, 2007
6. http://hcl.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc/ Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report, Review Comments and Responses
7. "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Working Group II Chapter 9" (PDF). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 2010-02-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
8. "IPCC AR4 synthesis report" (PDF). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 2010-02-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
9. ^ "Top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility". Sunday Times. Retrieved 2010-02-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
10. "Panel on Climate Faces Challenges". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2010-02-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
11. "Pachauri's IPCC report faces fresh questions". Times of India. Retrieved 2010-02-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Proportion of Netherlands below sea level is never 60% under any definition

Criticism of the IPCC AR4#Proportion of Netherlands below sea level misrepresents the seriousness of the error in the IPCC report. Statistics Netherlands states in this report (p. 65): "Only one fifth of the Netherlands lies below sea level" and "19% of national income is generated in that area". Martin Parry may say "A figure of 60%, for land that lies below high water level during storms, is used by the Dutch Ministry of Transport" but that's simply not true. I'll translate a small part from the original article in Vrij Nederland, the magazine that found out about the error:

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

Joepnl (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That sentence was not provided by a Dutch government agency but calculated by the IPCC by taking the sum of 26 and 29. - how do you know? Have you read the sentence provided by the Dutch govt? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency says so? Joepnl (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't. You forgot to translate the first part of the PBL correction, which says that the IPCC sentence was provided by the PBL. (then it goes on describing what should have been provided). "het Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving geleverde formulering over het overstromingsrisico van Nederland.". You may also want to read this.. where they've changed the critique, to not being a direct error by the IPCC, but instead to a review error, by not catching the wrong wording by the PBL ("Scientists missed the incorrect wording of the claim that they received from the PBL") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That contradicts "Het IPCC heeft twee getallen opgeteld: het oppervlak dat onder de zeespiegel ligt én het gebied dat vatbaar voor overstromingen is." (IPCC added two numbers) here, a statement by PBL. My interpretation is that the original data sent to IPCC was too vague, leading to an incorrect sentence made by IPCC, so that's why PBL is to blame anyway. Joepnl (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So, this is becoming unclear. To clarify: neither you nor anyone you know has seen the text that was sent to the IPCC? Do we even know what langauge it was sent in? English, I would presume William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No I don't, but the explanation in Vrij Nederland is quite clear to me. PBL sent something along "26 such, 29 so", wording it vague enough for IPCC to combine the numbers, ("Sometimes it's better to be more precise about what you mean." and then didn't catch the error later. The literal sentence in the report is in no way vague. Joepnl (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That is your (personal) interpretation - the nrc article states that it was the PBL who shortened the sentence, and that can be read into the rest of the references - so that is what we have to go by. The mistake is rather simple really - PBL should have sent "at risk of being flooded" but sent "below sea level" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And, don't forget, mean sea level is commonly quite some way below high tide at certain times of year and in certain storm conditions. The Dutch ministry is using a datum which I understand approximates to mean sea level, a source giving precise clarification of that would be useful for the relevant article. . . dave souza, talk 15:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

They don't use mean sea level, but NAP which is high tide. See the picture here where they show the area below NAP (beneden NAP, 26%) and above NAP (29%) (alongside the rivers). (mean sea level differs about 20 cm from NAP Joepnl (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find out what NAP may stand for in Dutch, but your comment seems to imply a tidal range of only +/- 20 = 40 cm in the North Sea. This is incorrect, as the tide tables on http://www.dutchportguide.com/page/55 show. For Hoek van Holland I'm seeing 197 cm range on 3 Jan. Have you seen MHWS - tides only tend to cause flooding at high tide on spring tides, usually with an added storm surge. But all this is none of our business really. I thought there was a clear statement somewhere that the PBL originated the wrong description of the 55% figure, and IPCC just trusted it. Is this not so? --Nigelj (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Yup, Normaal Amsterdams Peil which I added to the article but didn't have to hand. It says the "zero level of NAP was the average summer flood water level ... in the centre of Amsterdam, then still connected with the open sea, in 1684.... Currently NAP is close to mean sea level at the Dutch coast." Is the 20cm difference from mean sea level up or down, and is that a suitable source for the NAP article? Note that on 2010-02-28 the tide at Rotterdam goes from 0.16 to 2.09 metres, and I don't think we're at the highest tides. So, at least a metre above mean sea level is to be expected at times, but I'm no expert. . . . dave souza, talk 16:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just found North Sea flood of 1953. "A combination of a high spring tide and ... a tidal surge ... the water level locally exceeded 5.6 metres above mean sea level". Quite a lot of the Netherlands were 'below sea level' that night, I think. 'Sea level' is, in itself a complex subject. 'Mean sea level' is one simplification, as are NAP and MHWS. So all this is still WP:OR - we need reliable refs as to what was said to IPCC. --Nigelj (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Luckily we have Delta Works now, and even without them only a small part of the Netherlands was flooded. All I can find is PBL saying "you can't blame IPCC for quoting such high percentages because they can be found in brochures by the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. So for outsiders it's not a strange number." If this isn't proof enough that Parry's claim is wrong (or at least denied by a subsidiary of Dutch Government that admitted the claim in the first place), may be we can just put this remark in the article? The remark having been made is not OR, is it? Joepnl (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As I commented somewhere before, there was a newspaper article making it clear that the Netherlands has protection measures which can fully accommodate any conceivable sea level rise in the foreseeable future. The whole quote looks good and seems to specifically refer to the IPCC AR4 issue, so it doesn't look like OR to me, and could follow Parry's statement. It seems to me to confirm his statement, while showing that such figures are technically wrong and explaining the emphasis on river flooding in the IPCC statement. So, I'd support you adding that statement. If they've released an English language version that would be useful, but I think translations are ok. . . dave souza, talk 19:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The author of this article is the Science Chief of De Volkskrant, known for being "strongly anti-denialist". Do the other people agree as well I can put this in? And if so, how to transform this into a proper English quote instead of 2 paragraphs? :) Joepnl (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That would depend rather strongly on what you are going to put in - i think the strongest take-away message from the De Volkskrant article is this: "‘De blaam treft ons, daarover geen misverstand’, zegt beleidsmedewerker Joop Oude Lohuis van PBL erover." - which is a rather strong message and rather difficult to misunderstand (paraphrased translation): The PBL says it is their mistake, no doubt about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that is also strongly implied in the last two paragraphs. I want it to be clear that Parry mistakenly (I'm assuming good faith even IRL :)) says that 60% is just a matter of definition, where it really is wrong according to PBL. Joepnl (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"strongly implied" is not very good, when the PBL says it this clearly:

"The blame hits us, there can be no misunderstanding about that" says policy advisor Joop Oude Lohuis from the PBL about it.

That is a rather strong statement, it leaves very little to the imagination. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In other words: we've gone from "the IPCC made an error" to "the IPCC copied an error, but should have caught it" to (finally) "the PBL made a mistake, and the IPCC had no real chance of capturing it, since we have confused the terms in our own documents". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right, but that's only part of the conclusions one can draw from the article. "According to PBL: 1) PBL made error sending messy data, 2) IPCC cannot be blamed, it's PBL's error. 3) Parry's rebuttal is wrong 4) again, IPCC cannot be blamed, PBL and Transport Ministry are too sloppy." Just "The blame hits us" after Parry's remark leaves out the nice-to-know 3 and 4. Funny detail: the (then-) Minister of Environment has asked PBL to look into the IPCC. Joepnl (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It's like the DDOS attacks that some CRU guys were complaining of. It only takes five minutes for some bloke somewhere to think up another daft claim (like "the IPCC made an error": Hollandgate!), but it takes 3 Wikipedians half a day to find the references, translate and evaluate the sources, and compose and agree the full factual rebuttal. Meanwhile, the 'forces of darkness' are thinking up three more X-gate claims that we and everyone else will have to rebut tomorrow. --Nigelj (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Help ma boab! Have you been following Leakegate? :-/ . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Funny, I do think Hollandgate is a proper "gate", namely the total failure of the procedures IPCC brags about for even the simplest facts, and I think it's pretty stupid for Parry and RC not to consult PBL first before telling the world that "60%" is just a matter of definition. The "forces of darkness" have been saying for ages that there are errors in the reports, and now many more (after the Stick) come to light. But I think it's a good thing just to present the neutral facts, and leave it to the reader to decide if this is plain clumsiness or that there is a reason all small mistakes happen to be on the alarmist side. Joepnl (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Himalayas error was bad, the Netherlands is an awkward misunderstanding but if you read it in the context of the report it didn't really seem very important either way. It's a good point about consulting PBL before making the statement, but Parry spoke after a long period (in newsroom terms) of investigation which presumably included consultation, and was already being criticised for not having instant answers to the critics. It's noticeable that investigative journalists didn't manage to notice the contradiction for about three years. Either way, checking of working group 2 on impacts was sloppy, the procedure isn't that firmly stated, and they're going to have to do much better. Crucially, the working group 1 science seems solid, no errors. Of course the science keeps getting updated, and more frequent reports have been suggested. It will be interesting to see how it goes. . . dave souza, talk 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How about the following. --Nigelj (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

That looks perfect to me, thanks for cleaning up my Denglish. Tiny detail: the original does have "he says" instead of "he said", but that may look strange in English and doesn't really change the meaning. "Transport Ministry" is a made up abbreviation, in the original it's also abbreviated V & W which is not the official name; "Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management" would be a bit too much.. May be a link to Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management would suffice. Joepnl (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the past tense ('said') is better now, as it's no longer today's news. It looks normal in English. I've added a few wikilinks. Now, where does this go in the article? Also, Kim, "The blame hits us, there can be no misunderstanding about that" says policy advisor Joop Oude Lohuis from the PBL about it. Do you want that in this addition? It is a clear statement. Is it sourced from the same article (pls excuse my total ignorance of the Dutch language!) --Nigelj (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is in the same article :). The article already mentions "When the Dutch government raised questions, the PBL acknowledged in a statement that it had supplied the incorrect wording to the IPCC" so I think it's not necessary to supply a PBL quote confirming a PBL statement. I'd say we can boldly add it at the end of the paragraph. Joepnl (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean: you can, I don't know how to do the references correctly :) Joepnl (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's in. I just had to copy everything between the <div> tags, it was already formatted ready to go. --Nigelj (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus within 24 hours on a GW page, we're fantastic. Now all we have to do is to keep pressing F5 on our talk page to see them flooded with barnstars! Joepnl (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ICSU statement

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

Politics in India

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

Criticism re. sea levels

How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet by Rob Young and Orrin Pilkey: Yale Environment 360. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What a curious admixture. Some very interesting comments, but some others that make one wonder if the authors have a clue. Starting with a couple negatives (admittedly minor, but it makes you wonder):

• in many parts of Asia the rice crop will be decimated by rising sea level — a three-foot sea level rise will eliminate half of the rice production in Vietnam Decimated? In the word of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think it means what you think it means”
• Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in sea level this century One could be churlish and question whether they understand the meaning of the word “certain”, but let’s be generous and quip, “Certainly, one can say this isn’t a science article”.
• “(a potential of a 16-foot rise if the entire sheet melts)”. In the context of a discussion of next century, this is misleading, unless someone seriously thinks it is a possibility.

On a more positive note, I agree that AR4 gives short shift to glacial dynamics. Frustratingly, they tantalize us, but don’t point to any research. Another WP editor promised to send me a paper on the subject, but seems to have forgotten , so I haven’t had a chance to read some of the more recent work in this area. This article hints at it, but doesn’t mention a single source.SPhilbrickT 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

More criticism from the FT . . dave souza, talk 17:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

• As you say, the real meat will be in peer reviewed papers. However, a new summary by Stefan Rahmstorf at RealClimate: Sealevelgate makes some interesting points in specific relation to the AR4 projections. . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that Ramsdorf's summary has been republished by The Guardian as IPCC under fire in blogosphere for 'sealevelgate' | Environment | guardian.co.uk which can be seen as a more reliable publisher of his notable views. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article re the Amazon stuff http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/leakegate-a-retraction/ William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The section of "African crop yield projections" is largely based on Leake's article of Sunday Times which is now likely to be an unreliable source. I hope some of you check what Ban, Pachauri, Field and Watson actually said about this claim, or completely rewrite the section. (Excuse me, this is out of context of the issue of sea level. We should move to a new section of this talk page.) --Masudako (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Open letter

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

New NAS study relevant here?

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

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

See also to John Nielsen-Gammon

I've removed JNG as classic see-also abuse. If you want him in, there is a section he could readily fit in. Though that section says someone else started it (for me, who found the error is of little interest, so I haven't bothered trying to resolve this difference) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

'twasn't JNG who found the error - he was the first to analyse it indepth though. (that is also what the refs' say). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor WMC reverted a new "See also" to John Nielsen-Gammon, who was the first to widely-publicize the now-notorious AR4 "Glaciers will melt by 2035" error, commenting "classic see-also abuse." I came here to correct the misstatement, & found WMC's revert. Please explain how this is "abuse". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillman (talk • contribs)

How do you know he was the first? How do you determine that JNG "widely-publicize"d it? (its a blog). What purpose exactly does a "See Also" to JNG's bio provide for this article? There is rather little of interest (in the context of this article) in JNG's bio. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

First man in space to eat a chocolate bar; first man in space to read the New York Times; first man in space to eat a chocolate bar whilst reading the NYT; etc. Simply not warranted. Wikispan (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@T: as I've already said: there is a perfectly good section this could go in. Coatracking things off the see-also list is bad. KDP's objections are also cogent William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We already cite earlier international publicity about the error including Cogley's in-depth analysis, and cite JNG's excellent analysis of the source of the error which added new details. I've tweaked it a little, and also clarified the explanation in the John Nielsen-Gammon article. . . dave souza, talk 23:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. That should take care of it. This started out as an effort to get rid of JNG's Orphan tag, so thanks for the help. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists