Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Crit section removed

I just rewrote the crit section as:

Dr. Chris Landsea withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report long before it was finalised, citing concerns that the IPCC had become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns. He has stated that he feels the Fourth Assessment Report to be "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and "scientifically unsound".; however Roger Pielke who originally published Landseas letter says that the actual report "maintain[s] consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts" [1]

but then thought that was so weak it was better removed, which I've done. Surely there must be better crit available that a years-old walk out based on something that turned out to be wrong? William M. Connolley 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the right decision. Just in case someone is interested, I made corrections to reflect more some of the actual quotes from Landsea, before the section was removed: Dr. Chris Landsea withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report citing concerns that the IPCC had become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns. The conflict centers around Dr. Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to "recent hurricane activity", which Landsea described as a "misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC". He has stated that he feels the Fourth Assessment Report to be "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and "scientifically unsound". Landsea writes that "the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author"Touisiau

I'm going to put the criticism section back. There's no reason to remove it. I'm sure no attempt to censor criticism of the report was intended. But someone of a more cynical nature might interpret deletions of criticism as such, particularly when the criticism comes from an eminent scientist like Dr. Landsea. I'll use T's version since WMC's version omits some key points. Also, to address a point raised by WMC, it doesn't matter when Dr. L chose to distance himself from the report. The fact is that he did and despite what others may claim about the state of the science, Dr. L has not retracted his statement. --Lee Vonce 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think this deserves deleting, for the reasons I've given. Landseas crit is not of the report itself, but of something more obscure. He hasn't seen fit (AFAIK) to crit the actual report; and Pielke, who is an expert in this area and colleague of L, approves of it. Your snide remarks about censorship don't help, especially as you seem to have indulged in some yourself William M. Connolley 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why you feel that Landsea's statements that the process of creating the report was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and "scientifically unsound" don't amount to criticism of "the actual report"? I'll do you the courtesy of ignoring your incivil remarks but, in the interests of clarification, can you point me to the examples of censorship in which you think I have engaged? --Lee Vonce 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Chris landsea quote must remain in for NPOV reasons until better criticism is available (ie its going to be here a while).Hypnosadist 15:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You (LV) took out the piece I added about RP liking the report. You seem remarkably sensitive to criticism, given your own use of language. Landsea hadn't seen the actual report when he made those comments, of course, so they aren't a crit of the report. Since then he has had a chance to crit the report if he wants to, and hasn't. I find the idea that we need this, because we have nothing better, rather weak William M. Connolley 15:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, ignoring your incivility, the report is an inseparable part of the process - it is the final result of the process. L's criticism was of the process and this includes the conclusions in the report. You're apparently proceeding on the assumption that the information in the report didn't exist until the report was actually written. Also, my problem isn't with criticism but with your inserting your own views and opinions into the article. --Lee Vonce 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Landsea section is appropriate per undue weight and it really being a notable enough criticism on the report proper, but I'll let the rest of you fight that out. However, the Pielke section that is there is kind of useless; half conjecture (Landseas departure was in 2005, well before the publication of the report, and threfore was not based on the actual contents of the report. The actual content of the report does not seem to have caused any problems.) and half an expressed opinion that is tied in a tangential way to the original expressed opinion without having any explicit to tie to Landsea or in any other way purporting to speak for the man. I don't think it should be there. --Codemonkey 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is useless conjecture. I removed it before. Has it found its way back in? (quick check of the article)... (sigh) It is back. --Lee Vonce 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well... if you can think of a better way of expressing the fact that L hadn't seen the report before leaving, and hasn't expressed any crit of the report itself, please feel free to reword it. But without balance the section is not tolerable, since just the first para insinuates that L *is* criticising the report, which if course he isn't William M. Connolley 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to reword it. It conveys no factual information, merely the opinions of the person who wrote the words, which is to say... you. Landsea was criticizing the process of which the report is an inseparable part. To argue that he wasn't criticizing the report because it wasn't published until after he left is madness. He was criticizing the process that created the contents of the report. For the purposes of this discussion, the process and the report are one and the same. --Lee Vonce 22:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the process and report are very different. The report is a concrete object that we can all read. The process most of us know little about. Landsea knows little about it since he walked out at a very early stage, probably before the first draft was done. Landsea, I'm sure, has been phoned up by numerous reporters since the SPM came out, precisely because of his walk out. So where are his comments? Ah... here they are Landsea told Cybercast News Service his primary concern was with how lead authors representing the IPCC were interacting with the public and the media. [2] - which is to say, not with the actual report text at all William M. Connolley 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well , astounding. Now you actually try to tell the point I have been trying to make for several days and you, even as recently as your previous post and constant reversions of the text, prefer to give the impression that Landsea's concern was about numbers. Finally we agree on that point at least. Thank you for coming around to my way of thinking.

You do great disservice to someone who has likely made far greater contribution to science than you and has made a principaled stand. You are now dissing him saying he "walked out" in a pathetic attempt to justify your own illogical blinkered view.

Are you now suggesting that "content" is somehow miraculously independent of the process that created it?

Your arguments get more twisted and ingenuous each time you post. Maybe you should consider the damage you are doing to your own scientific credibility.

Anon, calm down, and take a good look at WP:CIVIL. There is no need to get personal, attack WMC's professional credibility or worth as a climate scientists, or imply this is some sort of Connolley versus the principled Landsea issue. --Codemonkey 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you are quite right. What I meant to say was: "Maybe you should consider the damage you may be doing to your own scientific credibility". It was meant to be a invitation to reflection , not a personal attack.

Thanks also for the civility link.

Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others.

I will endevour to not let violations of the first principal tempt me to break the second.

Thanks for the reminder. 90.144.113.77 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Separating science from guesswork

On page 7 of the 21 page "Summary for Policymakers", the report states that their conclusions as to the likelihood over certain trends - specifically, the "Warm spells/heat waves, increased rainfall, intense tropical cyclone activity increases and the increased incidence of extreme high sea levels - are not based on any formal science but rather on the guesswork of experts. I used more neutral language in the body of the article, but I think it is vitally important to distinguish between conclusions that are the result of actual research and those claims being supported by the "because we say so, that's why" argument. --Lee Vonce 14:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, my attempt to report the fact that parts of the FAR are based on guesswork rather than research are being deleted without any explanation. I'm still waiting for one. In future, please write the explanation BEFORE you revert. I'll remove the questionable stats in the meantime. --Lee Vonce 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, because it was worded poorly, and misrepresented and misunderstood what the SPM is saying. To address the paragraph I deleted (sorry I took so long to write this up, and sorry if any of it is a bit rambling; kinda tired atm):

However, the report notes that the "[m]agnitude of anthropogenic contributions" to these trends were "not assessed"

"These trends" that are mentioned in the WG1 SPM article section now are the future projections, based most directly on the "Projections of Future Changes in Climate" section and derived from SRES scenarios. See sentences like "It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent." and "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs." This is accurately reflected in the article's summary at this point. (Though some of the SRES projections are summarized in the SPM-1 table, third column.)

The page 7 sentence you're referring to is "(f) Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies." Which is about magnitude of an anthropogenic factor in an observed trend in the past, and the way you worded it, it would only be accurate if what came before it was referring to the observed trend in the past (which it isn't, it's referring to future projections). And even if the "trends" mentioned right before it were past trends, your write up of point f would still be inaccurate. (1) It is only referring to the events marked with f, and the distinction isn't made properly, (2) it fails to properly make clear the distinction of magnitude of human contribution assessment and likelihood of human contribution assessment (which should be clear with the full table and full footnote, but not in your paraphrasing), and (3) it would still confuse the likelihood of the occurrence of the trend in the past, and the likelihood of human contributions (which are two distinct things that, again, should be clear from the full table, but not in your write up).

and that conclusions as to the likelihood of many of these events (e.g. increasing heat waves, heavy precipitation, storm activity and sea level) were not drawn from formal attribution studies but rather based on informal conclusions drawn by some of the researchers.

This is completely wrong. conclusions on likelihood of future trends were drawn from SRES scenarios primarily. It is "likelihood of a human contribution to observed trend" that you're thinking of, and even there saying "informal conclusions drawn by some of the researchers" is misrepresenting the report which states it was "based on expert judgement". --Codemonkey 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I agree with what you're saying about the difference between past trend and future trends. I would still like to point out that they're placing too much faith in guesswork - but that's just my personal opinion. I'm sorry, but "expert judgement" is just a euphemism for "guesswork" - it is an appeal to authority dressed up in academic robes. It doesn't impress me. Thanks for being civil though. Perhaps WMC will learn from your example. Is he always like this? --Lee Vonce 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope Lee it is Authority! You would be guessing, they are using their years of experience.Hypnosadist 19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A guess is still a guess. Einstein himself could be making the guesses and they would still be guesses. --Lee Vonce 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

on user "Lee Vonce" modifying actual quotes from the report: vandalism ?

Please stop modifying actual quotes from the report, notably those on carbon dioxyde and methane. This can be called vandalizing. Touisiau 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If they'd been identified as actual quotes, I wouldn't have changed them. I though it was just bad writing. I've fixed the format though, and it meets with your approval. As an aside, you shouldn't be so quick to suspect or assume vandalism. What happened to "good faith"? --Lee Vonce 16:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

changing "exceeds by far" to "exceeds" is not a problem of "bad writing". It's a problem of modifying the report to reflect your own opinion. Touisiau 17:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is a question of bad writing. The phrase "by far" is an expression of opinion. In the original version of the article, it wasn't clear that the phrase was a quote from the report and if it had been written by a wiki editor, it would be a perfect example of unacceptable editorial comment. However, since it is an expression of the opinion of the authors of the report on which the article is based, then it is perfectly acceptable to report as such. See the difference? --Lee Vonce 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

you write "since it is an expression of the opinion of the authors of the report on which the article is based" .No. This is taken from the exact text of the report. And every word in this report has been carefuly reviewed and aproved by more than 600 experts. See the difference ? Touisiau

The EXACT words are very important and should not be changed in any quote on wikipedia. To do so is vandalism once you know, you now know Lee.Hypnosadist 19:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. Originally, the statements weren't identified as quotes. Once they were, I was happy to leave them be. But, to address T's point, it is still bad writing. An opinion is an opinion. It doesn't matter how many people approve it. --Lee Vonce 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement wording nitpicks

The article's description of the report's conclusions states:

1. The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%
2. The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%

I'll address the 2nd one (90%) first. Here is the statement from the IPCC SPM (bottom of page 10):

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

The "most of" part of this statement was lost in the Wiki article. The "since the mid-20th century" may not be necessary, since we're attributing cause to the unequivocal fact that global warming is occurring. Occurring is in the present tense, so this is fine. If the statement were that global warming has occurred, I think the temporal context - "since the mid-20th century" would be important.

The 1st statement (the 5% one) is less clear.

Here are the actual IPCC SPM statements, again from page 10.

...it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.

extremely unlikely means <5% very unlikely means <10%

It is unclear to me what the difference between "external forcing" and "not natural causes" is. Even if we assume that 5% is the correct number for the statement being made, I think that it is important to qualify the statement with the use of the word "alone":

"The probability that this is caused by natural climactic processes alone is less than 5%"

In short, the statements together should say that it is >90% than human caused GHGs are mostly responsible for global warming, and that it is <X% that natural causes alone could have done so.

I won't make the edits myself because I'm new to Wikipedia.

Mishlai 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

1) The article statement: "Based on a model that excludes ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature,[6] it is estimated that sea level rise will be:"

implies that these conclusions were based on "a model", singular. Sea level rise estimates were based on an analysis of multiple models running the six different scenarios.

2) Additionally, I'm concerned that no reference is made to the (as I understand it) widely accepted opinion that these missing and not understood ice flows will likely make sea level rises worse than the report projects.

This quote:

"Hays: Right. What happened with this report is that the model projections we know don’t fully take into account the melting of the ice that we are seeing. And I think that the report dealt with this issue in a very a satisfactory way in that it reported the projections that the models have put out—and I should note that those models now have less certainty than they did in the previous report—but it deals with the fact that this ice is melting at a faster rate than we expected and is not accounted for in the models, by simply stating that. And it states it in the report very clearly and makes it clear that the projections are a baseline, so to speak, that we expect the melting to be greater. "

Is from this interview:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/bbc-ipcc-interview/

Sharon Hays was leader of the U.S. delegate to the talks that generated this IPCC SPM. Is this a strong enough reference to alter the wording or is more required?

Mishlai 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia Mishlai, those are two very good proposed edits and i think you should change the article to that effect. Hypnosadist 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I made most of the changes. Looking for further sources on the higher expected sea levels, and trying to sort out how to word that to convey the meaning without overstatement. Mishlai 03:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

This is a mess, and is suffering from a flurry of edits. I'd like to start the discussion by addressing Lee's recent changes. I'm not picking on you specifically Lee, the quality of this section needs to be improved generally. But I disagree with your recent edits for the most part, and rather than revert I'm starting a discussion.

1) It's appropriate to refer to Romm as an opinion more qualified than that of an "individual". Call him an expert, call him a scientist, whatever. The guy has a PhD in physics, is involved in climate studies, etc.

As an aside, not a criticism of Lee's edit, the whole thing is a piecemeal statement, as there are more people than Romm with that viewpoint. Criticism should perhaps be broken into "the report overstates" and "the report understates" sections.

2) RealClimate is a perfectly appropriate source. It is not merely "a blog", but a blog by climatologists who work in the field in question. The entire point of the RealClimate site is to have a discussion on climate change by people who are actually qualified to discuss it. They make points for and against both sides of the issue, depending on what science demands. It is not a personal blog, and is at least as reliable as a CNN interview of a single climatologist, which would have no problem being cited here. The contributing authors list on the site has more climate scientists that the list of authors on most scientific papers on the subject. In addition, I know that at least one member of RealClimate participated in the IPCC process for AR4, so their website is every bit as credible as Landsea.

3) The statement you deleted didn't say that the full report doesn't contradict Landsea. It said the SPM didn't contradict Landsea, which is absolutely true, and the statement should stand. The SPM also agrees with the joint WMO statement on hurricanes issued last year. All important points since Landsea left the process based on concerns about statements on hurricanes. When we have the full report, the full report can be addressed.

We all need to consider how to coherently represent the reactions and criticisms in an organized and readable fashion. Some people said it went too far, some of people said not far enough. As a unanimously approved consensus statement, most scientists agree with the statements made. Let's just get all that in there and let the facts speak. Mishlai 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is to be an entry using Pielke , it should not misrepresent his position by giving the impression he no longer supports Landsea's concerns and that he has no critism of the report , he does, you just chose to chop it out.

His point is that by careful wording and avoiding using any numbers they have made it less contentious.

He says the tropical storm comments are hypothesis because it is. There is no data showing a link , neither does the report claim that there is.

Also his final concluding comment in the article quoted refers to political influence. This is HIGHLY relevant since it is clearly part of the IPCC defined review process.

As the constant battles in maintaining content here demonstrates there are a lot of less than objective players in the whole process.

This critism section is supposed to add some balance to the entry by indicating SPM, AR4 adn IPCC not unaminous, uncontested scientific TRUTH. It is not supposed to be blow by blow discussion thread of arguements and counter arguements.

Also worth noting Landsea did not refuse to be associated with the latest cycle because he did not agree with some statements on hurricanes in the report. It was because of very misleading statments made to media by a Lead Author presented as representing the IPCC and above all the reaction of IPCC directors to that action.

"political influence" is this academic internal arguements or is this the influence of national governments such as the Saudi's and americans who have tried to hamper this process as much as possible. Hypnosadist 15:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

there is political influence in all sorts of directions. That is the important point to realise. The IPCC is an INTERGOVERNMENTAL panel with a review process that includes requests for change from any participating (and funding) government. It is not purely scientific.

Our non-signing anon makes some curious edits. [3] adds "expressed his opinion that by some skillful rewording the actual report...". I don't find this text in the article; "skillful rewording" is misleading. Its perfectly clear that Pielke thinks the report is an accurate reflection of the science: Kudos to the scientists involved. Despite the pressures, on tropical cyclones they figured out a way to maintain consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts...; And it is a fair representation of the issue.on the other hand score one for scientific leadership, as the IPCC narrowly avoided a major controversy. So perhaps the process worked after all.. The key point here is, does the SPM agree with expert opinion, or at least, does Pielke perceive that it does? And the clear answer is, yes indeed it does and he does. Adding He adds this is a "hypothesis" and not a "conclusion." to the article appears to be a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters, especially by omitting the next sentence: And it is a fair representation of the issue.. William M. Connolley 17:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at what you've delete in one hit here.

1. The header refers to AR4 which is not out yet but you have incorrectly reinstated comments that relate to SPM under this heading which are in any case stated below.

2. I added a link to the actual SMP text (as would be std Wikipedia practice) , you removed the links. You seem to prefer readers accept your interpretation rather than let them have a link to the document.

3. I tried to clarify the difference between AR4 and the summary report. You have reverted this to incorrect information without any explaination.

4. If you prefer the whole paragraph:

So there might be a human contribution (and presumably this is just to the observed upwards trends observed in some basins, and not to downward trends observed in others, but this is unclear) but the human contribution itself has not been quantitatively assessed, yet the experts, using their judgment, expect it to be there. In plain English this is what is called a "hypothesis" and not a "conclusion." And it is a fair representation of the issue.

So , yes, this is very subjective as he points out with quotes from the report and he concludes "hypothesis" and not a "conclusion" is a fair representation of the issue.

He is clearly critical but you chose to read that some other way and misrepresent his position to fit your own beliefs. You want to pull out one sentence to give the impression he sees nothing wrong with SMP and by implication withdraws his earlier support for Landsea's position. This is false.

5. This is the critism section. A lot of his article is critical and highlights contradictions in the report. You also chose to delete direct quotes from the report that highlight these ambiguities.

At this point it would be best if you rename this subsection "How SMP is beyond question, no critismism is valid".

Your blanket removal of all modifications made to all sections of this entry because you do not agree with the Pielke mods is further proof of your lack of objectivity and impartiality. It is just this kind of non-scientific behaviour from those claiming to be scientists that Landsea and Pielke are crying out against. No wonder you are so keen to play down their words.

You are typical of the bigots pretending to be scientific that are undermining the credibility of science itself and with it the enormous volume of thorough , valid research that has been done on the climate recently.

Will you please stop evangelising your own personal beliefs and start acting like the scientist you claim to be.

I will now resubmit some of these changes , one by one , and with due notice of your comments above.

Please provide specific justification for any changes you feel necessary.

Slow down, take some deep breaths. The SPM should definitely be linked. It is appropriate to indicate that Landsea was critical of the process and withdrew. It is also relevant to that the a major reason for his withdrawal was a concern about overstatement of the connection between hurricanes and human activities. It is also, also relevant that the report did not, in the end, overstate this connection. All of that belongs in there. Also also also relevant is that the IPCC statements on hurricanes broadly agree with the joint statement by the WMO.

Criticism of the politcal aspects of the process is also totally appropriate, and this criticism is coming from both sides as hypnosadist alluded.

As for the rest, assume good faith. Everyone is working to make this article as good as it can be. Oh, and sign your posts, por favor. Mishlai 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

totally appropriate, says who ?! Next you will tell me that the UN is not a political body and the national goverments who are funding the IPCC are non political organisations and the review process involving inspection and change requests by goverment officials is purely scientific in nature. I'm sorry but this is nonsense.

I never made any comment on what direction any politics was playing , it is obviously complex. It is a very relevant critisism that there is political pressure and not to pretend the IPCC is some playground for free thinking scientists. It is not.

It's an INTERGOVERNMENTAL beaurocracy. This must have a detremental affect on the science. It's relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.113.77 (talk • contribs)

Almost forgot. The SPM is part of AR4. If the SPM says something, it's appropriate to say that AR4 said it. There is no "AR4" separate from the WGI, WGII, WGIII and SYR reports, and the SPMs are not expected to contradict these main reports. Mishlai 23:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The SPM is the article's 1st reference. There's no need for it to be in external links too. Mishlai 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The SPM at this time is the sole subject matter here. It should be linked directly upon it's first appearance. The reader should not have to scroll down and scan the refs. This wiki, not a scientific paper.

since it is linked you could drop the ref if you like.

Congratulations on all the hard work and a neutral approach, just be careful not to reproduce the whole report ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.113.77 (talk • contribs)

It's an INTERGOVERNMENTAL beaurocracy. This must have a detremental affect on the science. Ah thank you. Well if thats the most important point, why not insert it right up front so all your biases become clear? In the meantime, I'm reverting 90's changes: the ones to the lead just make it disjointed; the ones to the landsea section are deceptive, amking it appear as though Pielke thinks its wrong, whereas in fact he clearly thinks its compatible with the WMO William M. Connolley 09:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not insert that because it's not "the most important point". I said it was relevant , no more. Seems like you are prepared to quote Pielke to make it appear he has withdrawn his support for Landsea's whole critisism but not when it does not fit _your_ biases.

I point out again that I made no comment in the entry on what political influences may be in play but it seems important to note thier existence. It is cloud cukoo land to suggest this is pure, objective scientific truth.

Quoting an expert in the politics of science seems a reasonable justification.

Are you seriously trying to suggest there is no politics at play in an INTERGOVERNMENTAL panel setup and run by the U.N. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.113.77 (talk • contribs)

So far, those trying to poke holes in the AR4 have failed badly. What do we have, for criticisms of the *science* in it? Just about nothing. Landsea crits the process; but even those in his favour admit that the report accurately respects the science. Romm thinks it *underestimates* the effects, but then he has a book to push. Errm... and thats it so far. If you can find any reputable crit of the actual science, do please add it William M. Connolley 19:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Much of that is due to your constant removal of opinions you dont like, not the underlying arguements. However, I do not intend to get distracted into a blow by blow discussion here. I would rather focus my efforts on the importance of methane in all this. Since you have no comment to offer on the political critisism I will reinstate the quote from an expert in that area.

Once again here you deliberately avoid answering a direct question. If you wish focus on certain areas of science fine. That is where you claim some expertise. Expertise in one area of science does not appoint you as guardian of the truth for the whole of AR4 , IPPC, global warming and the politics of science. Please stop trying to veto modifications by others that do not fit your own _biases_.

So let's repeat the question:

Are you seriously trying to suggest there is no politics at play in an INTERGOVERNMENTAL panel setup and run by the U.N. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.113.77 (talk • contribs)

I am saying that no-one has made any credible assertions as to how politics have affected the results expressed in the SPM. Neither you; nor Landsea or Pielke. The hurricanes sections fits with current understanding; if anything else is wrong with it, please say. Instead of the vague allegations, you should present some facts. So far you are in the embarrassing situation of having a criticism section that is empty, apart from insinuation, from the skeptic side; and whose only real content is to say that the report should have been more alarming William M. Connolley 11:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Again you try to narrow the issue. Now it's " results expressed in the SPM" . If you feel the section is "empty" this is largely your own work in persistantly deleting other content or carefully wording entries to play their significance or focusing on side issues.

Landsea's issue was not about numbers, it was about the action of the lead author and IPCC process. This IS important. He took a principaled stand , not because he's a bigot or payed by Exxonmobil, but because he was concerned about what was happening.

I dont see anyone trying to blow holes in AR4 here, but the whole point of having a critisism section is to make the whole Wiki entry more balanced and objective, not to pretend to do so by misrepresenting some critics and appending counter agruments.

I am largely in favour of AR4 and TAR but putting the reports and IPCC itself up on some pedastel where it is beyond critisim is as dangerous for the future as ignoring it.

You are clearly one of those of both sides of the arguments who regard this is some sort of battle of faith and act in an impassioned an evangelical fashion to further what you believe to be the truth.

I suggest, once again, that you start to act in a more objective and scientific manner if science is your main position. If you have other motives maybe you should declare them.

You keep misrepresenting the issue; the issue remains the science: there has been no change. Landsea has no objections to the science in the AR4 SPM. If he has any objections to the science in the draft chapters, he hasn't said so. This isn't a battle of faith, its about... the science. To which no-one has been able to make any credible complaints at all. All this vague nonsense about interference is meaningless if it doesn't show up in the final report. The criticism section, as it stands, is unbalanced because it fails to make this clear William M. Connolley 12:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again your self-appoint role of deciding what is "relevant".

Scientists do not determine future world energy policy (though some seem to think they have the right), polatitians do. That is why polatitians created the IPCC and why it is a political INTERGOVERNMENTAL body.

To maintain otherwise is not only naive it is simply, factually incorrect.

I would not wish to load this entry the enormous debate any specific critisism would entail. But I think it important to note that (sadly) this is not simply science.

On the criticism section, balance, and IPCC procedures.

I don't think any of us is really happy with the criticism section at this point. Instead of entering myself into the debates above, I would like to offer a couple of points as a guideline.

1. NPOV is not about providing "balance", and a criticism section is not intended to "balance out" the rest of the article
   • I saw this point brought up as an argument for having an inclusionist criticism section in the discussions above, but this is based on a misunderstanding of the NPOV policies, if one properly reads WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It's not about providing balance, but about presenting any notable contrary opinions, not necessarily in a balanced way. The distinction may seem pedantic, but it is an important one.
2. Criticisms on any of the published materials in the AR4 reports belong in this article
   • Care should be taken to establish notability of the source. The wikipedia article should make sure to clearly state what the actual AR4 report section that is being criticised states. Criticism on unpublished claims not present in the published version (Landsea) could be mentioned, but don't deserve as much weight, and should make clear that it is not a criticism on a published claim and should make clear what the published claims on the subject were.
3. Criticism on IPCC procedures not specific to published AR4 claims do not belong in the AR4 article
   • These would probably more properly belong in the IPCC article. The problem is that the AR4 article doesn't, and probably shouldn't, make clear the exact procedures of how the IPCC makes their assesment reports. Thus, any criticism on their procedures and related politics in this article without an explanation of those procedures and the consensus or majority opinion on them is going to give a lopsided, inaccurate image. This kind of reaches back to my first point, since this lopsidedness might be ok if your goal is balance, but it isn't.

I think these would be decent guidelines for assessing if points of criticism belong in this article's criticism section. Thoughts? --Codemonkey 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a bit. The criticism section, as it is now, attacks the report in ways that are not addressed in the main article. To simply add a criticism section that states some political bias without addressing the mainstream viewpoint would be unbalanced.

I would propose, that we instead break these points out into their own categories. Specifically "Politics and the IPCC Assessment Report Process" or something similar. This would allow a description of the process of generating the report, how some scientists feel that the science is well represented, others feel that the IPCC has overstated their case, and others feel that the report is not alarming enough. I think this would be fair as "Politics and AR4" is in fact a whole new topic from what the rest of the article discusses. Undoubtedly there are political players with stakes trying to move the report in a direction that favors their own motives. The basic process, as I understand it, involves not only a unanimous approval by all of the political players, which would tend to filter out unsupportable statements (a bit like wikipedia eh?), but also a final review by the scientists who have the ability to veto & send the thing back for a rewrite if the science doesn't support the final version. Broad opinion seems to be that this produced a set of statements that expert consensus in the relevant field of study would agree with. Some people don't agree with that assessment of the report's truthiness, and we should just lay all that out.

Also worth adding would be a section on the sea-level contentions - how this report stacks up vs. TAR. There's been a fair bit of back and forth and it could stand to be addressed. Some have said that the upper boundary for sea-level rise has come down since TAR. RealClimate has asserted that this is not true, that it's an accounting difference with ice sheets. Pielke from Prometheus challenged that, and RealClimate responded (paraphrase) "sorry, did I say ice sheets? I mean mass balance." I can't follow it well enough to tell who's right to be honest. Also worth noting is that the minimum sea-level rise predictions went up since TAR, so it's not like it all got better. The range narrows from both ends, tightening around a middle projection. Also also, the report acknowledges that some factors are not considered, and sea-level rises are widely predicted to be higher than the report states. Even the U.S. delegation leader asserts this.

Hurricanes could also use their own section I think. The contents of this have already been discussed extensively.

How does this sound? Any other media-storm points on AR4 that need to be addressed? Mishlai 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ouch , we've got some work to make this one compliant, the whole entry that is. This clearly needs discussing before another bout of edit warring. Thanks for your initiative.

Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

so let's start with the leader. The leader should describe what the document is, not start with edited highlights. I made this point and correction already but it got promptly restored. this info already exists in its proper place lower down. So , undue prominence.

I have at least made some headway on adopting some more neutral language, there's some more to be done here if there's time.

I have already trimmed the 1%,2% stuff out of Landsea since this was not related to current SMP and was not his point anyway. Due to the volume of this piece now, it does not seem to have undue space.

While I would agree that a section of procedure would be good in the IPCC article , I'm not sure I would agree it has no place here as long as the procedure directly concerns AR4. The title is AR4 not "the science of AR4" or "content of AR4". The title is global the content should be also.

I deliberately avoided even the slightest comment on what political influence may bear on any of this since it would almost certainly mushroom to be larger that the article itself, although it may be appropriate to add to the entry the points I've made here. AR4 was commissioned by a political body to help "decision makers" determine future political direction on climate. It is inherently political.

In fact this probably should be a subsection on its own not a criticism. I did include an external link to WP politics and science but it seems to have displeased those who do both.

Your point about crit not being there for balance is probably valid since the _whole_ entry should be balanced and NPOV. That is closer to being the case now. However, balance aside, I think it is important to expose the fact that this is contentious, that there are criticisms without giving arguments and counter-arguments here.

I feel that Landsea, plus Rhomm saying it does not go far enough in some areas shows a neutral approach.

I am a bit concerned that WP AR4 is now about the same length as the report itself while at the same time being selective. I think the best NPOV solution would be to cut the whole thing down to: IPCC AR4 was commissioned by UN , it comprise WGI, WGII, WGIII you can read it here [http....] . No paraphrased, edited highlights , just a link.

I only got involved in all this because Google led me here when I wanted to find SMP and I was disgusted about how partial the entry was at that stage. It's better now but IMHO the above would be best.

Thought? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.184.175 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for engaging in the discussion.

I would disagree with cutting it down to the extent you're talking about - that would essentially make the article a stub, and all of that information could be contained in the main IPCC article. The point of an AR4 article is to discuss AR4. People should be able to get an idea of what the report says in the wiki article without having to go read all 18 pages of it. Otherwise wikipedia would just be one big link page to orginal sources. Also, AR4 is a document that will be heavily referenced in other articles in the series, and the SPM is one of the most significant climate change documents at this time. For those reasons people will want to know about it. I'm expecting readers to come to the article with the expectation that they will learn something about what the report says.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that we should just state that AR4 is a UN document with 4 parts, say nothing about its contents, link the SPM, and then roll into the section where we discuss Landsea, Romm, and Pielke. That doesn't serve the reader.

I wouldn't agree with removing main statements from the summary either. That's the "headline content" of the SPM, and it deserves a prominent place in the article. Mishlai 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mishlai, first of all , I'm in no way criticising your contributions. I dont claim to have read it all but you seem to be making a genuine effort to present this NPOV. Thanks.

To clarify I was suggesting cutting all, including crit.

The point of an AR4 article is to discuss AR4.

I dont think that is the job of an encyclopedia.

all of that information could be contained in the main IPCC article

an article on AR4 should put SMP into context. Many ppl due to media presentation think SMP is THE report.

That's the "headline content" of the SPM, and it deserves a prominent place in the article.

It is media headlines for sure. However, I just double checked SMP and in no place does it single out these "conclusions" . Neither as an abstract, introduction or conclusion. We are continually refered to the large number of scientists and gov. representatives and how long they have painfully gone over every word. Then we gleeful undo all their careful work , take one or two sentences out of context and present it as being the "conclusion" of the report. It is not.

This , however well meaning. is a misrepresentation.

If the IPCC chose not to single out these points , I dont think it's justified here. This is not journalism.

Your efforts at least put it in some context but if we dont go for the very short entry I suggested, I feel strongly that this false representation of the non-existant conclusion should be cut.

thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.184.175 (talk • contribs)

I was actually thinking that it might be time for the IPCC article to spin-off the individual reports. IPCC is already long-ish, partly because of report content. On the one hand, I like it because it shows the reader an evolution of the IPCC's conclusions, which is a nice coherant historical context. On the other hand, it might be better to summarize and give more thorough treatment in per-report articles, as this is reaching a point where information would need to be cut, and perhaps an article on the IPCC should have room to focus on all aspects of the IPCC. Particularly as the rest of AR4 comes out, it will be restricting to fit it all in. (also true of this article, but I'm willing to cross that bridge when we get to it).

One of the reasons for the structure change I implemented was to address the context of the SPM. You're right about people thinking the SPM is the report, and I think having the other sections with "not out yet" and the clear wording about GPI SPM vs full report really helps make that clear.

As far as the summary, I see what you're saying. The introduction to the SPM focuses on the science and level of understanding being better than before, without addressing specific points. It's of course a matter of judgement that a particular point is prominant, but I think that we all understand that "are humans causing global warming?" is one of the central questions that people are looking for statements on. However, the "very likely" statement on AGHG is featured not only in the summary, but at the very beginning of the article. This is probably not necessary, and looking at it closer perhaps the summary could reflect what AR4 is, leaving the "very likely" statement at the top of the actual article. I do think it deserves a prominant place in the article. Part of NPOV is providing information in proportion, and the "very likely" statement is clearly more significant than some other statement on, say, NO2 levels and attribution. We can, as authors and editors, intuit that the reader wants to know what the IPCC report says about whether global warming is happening and what the main cause is, and then make that answer accessible. I would argue that burying a main point like that in the article could be a form of POV. Judgement is always present when determining content and organization (in any article), and this does not imply a violation of NPOV as long as the article fairly represents the subject matter. I believe that it does.

I still wouldn't support stubbing the article. It isn't POV to lay out the contents of a report in a wiki on that report, it would be a form of POV censorship to not give the reader the information, and the IPCC article is, IMHO, increasingly not the place for main content on the assessment reports.

Thanks for the level-headed discussion. You can sign your posts in the discussion page by adding 4 ~'s in a row at the end. The tildes will be converted to your username & IP + a date/time stamp. Mishlai 16:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for input from the other article editors. Mishlai 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that a lot of ppl would like a one-liner response to 30 yrs of intense research on 10,000 years history of an incredibly complex climatic system. Clearly this is not possible even though they've already had that , usually grossly distorted, from the world's sensationalising media.

As I have said , this is not journalism. We dont have the same goals, pressures or motives.

This is an encyclopedia and I think we should assume ppl come here not for headlines but for some sort of reference material.

My major concern is that IPCC have clearly avoided making any such statement more prominent than the scientific context it comes from. I can only assume this was very deliberate in view of the effort that went into the document.

I think the current entry is grossly emphasising two sentences that the report does not single out.

83.179.184.175 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any response from others, I've made edits that I think are acceptable and that I hope will address your concerns. Let me know what you think.

Also, Pielke has published a new article that will have bearing on the "hurricane controversy" section of the article. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001105final_chapter_hurri.html Mishlai 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes that look at lot cleaner. thanks. Ive added a direct link to the document itself at it's first mention. Also think it's better not to break title of IPCC by making half of it a link , climate link at end of sentence is clearer.

The link is interesting. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.184.175 (talk • contribs)

I think the IPCC link looks fine, and is important to have. The title isn't really broken, just the parenthetical acronym is linked. Mishlai 13:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you were saying about the IPCC link. Your way is an improvement, good work. Mishlai 16:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)