Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 3

Things in Dispute

• Wikipedia endorsing the IPCC as respected violates NPOV. A sourced reference to a person or organization describing their respect for the IPCC would be acceptable, but without a source, Wikipedia is endorsing the level of respect of the IPCC, and that violates NPOV. -- Cortonin

(William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Oh goody, because there are links to the statments by a pile of national academies showing their respect for the IPCC, so you can withdraw this one.

Then you can list which ones have specifically said they repect the IPCC, rather than ambiguously calling it respected. That's what sourcing means. — Cortonin | Talk 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Your modus operandi is becoming too transparent: call for refs, and when they are provided quibble.

--D. Franklin 04:14, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) To Cortonin: This is symptomatic of a common Wikipedia problem: logorreah. There is absolutely no need to clutter an article with a list of names of supporters simply regarding the claim that a UN scientific council is respected. In fact, for a UN body, "respect" is irrelevent. Either way, Cortonin: your comments are totally unecessary.

Sourcing means more than just providing a reference, it means attributing things TO a reference. You can't just say, "this is an objective fact." [reference]. You have to say, "This referenced group says this." That's not some policy of mine, that's explicitely what Wikipedia's NPOV policy states. Please follow it. — Cortonin | Talk 04:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• A Wikipedia article calling the expertise of Stott "dubious" specifically endorses a perspective against him. This is by definition not NPOV, as it endorses a single perspective. -- Cortonin

(William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) You have a problem with facts. Stott makes incorrect statements regarding the T history, which the article correctly notes. This along makes him dubious, as does the very following sentence which is sourced.

You have a problem with contradicting perspectives. I haven't seen you say anything respectful about a single prominent individual who disagrees with your perspectives. Instead, you've systematically called them all dubious. So no, I don't take that as "fact". And yes, the line that he "does not appear to have had a single paper published in a scientific journal in the fields in which he most frequently applies this 'expertise', e.g. climate change or tropical ecology" is definitely sourced (to an environmental advocacy watchdog site), but it's still inappropriate content. In just 2003 and 2004, Stott published NINETEEN papers on climate change or tropical ecology, most of which are frequently cited. And it's not like this is some new trend for him, as if you check the literature, he's been publishing on climate change since the 90's. The only thing dubious here is that you're using a lie to call him "dubious", when an encyclopedia should never be calling a researcher dubious in the first place. — Cortonin | Talk 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I rather doubt Stott has published papers on Cl Ch: do provide some refs to repsectable journals.

I guess all these are part of that body of research you like to pretend doesn't exist. — Cortonin | Talk 04:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Wu PL, Wood R, Stott P, "Human influence on increasing Arctic river discharges", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 32 (2): Art. No. L02703 JAN 21 2005
• Stott PA, Stone DA, Allen MR, "Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003", NATURE 432 (7017): 610-614 DEC 2 2004
• Hegerl GC, Zwiers FW, Stott PA, et al., "Detectability of anthropogenic changes in annual temperature and precipitation extremes", JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 17 (19): 3683-3700 OCT 2004
• Gregory JM, Banks HT, Stott PA, et al., "Simulated and observed decadal variability in ocean heat content", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (15): Art. No. L15312 AUG 14 2004
• Marshall GJ, Stott PA, Turner J, et al., "Causes of exceptional atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (14): Art. No. L14205 JUL 30 2004
• Braganza K, Karoly DJ, Hirst AC, Stott P, Stouffer RJ, Tett SFB, "Simple indices of global climate variability and change - Part II: attribution of climate change during the twentieth century", CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 823-838 JUL 2004
• Lambert FH, Stott PA, Allen MR, et al., "Detection and attribution of changes in 20th century land precipitation", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (10): Art. No. L10203 MAY 20 2004
• Gregory JM, Ingram WJ, Palmer MA, Jones GS, Stott PA, Thorpe RB, Lowe JA, Johns TC, Williams KD, "A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (3): Art. No. L03205 FEB 11 2004
• Wu PL, Wood R, Stott P, "Does the recent freshening trend in the North Atlantic indicate a weakening thermohaline circulation?", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (2): Art. No. L02301 JAN 20 2004
• Thorne PW, Jones PD, Tett SFB, Allen MR, Parker DE, Stott PA, Jones GS, Osborn TJ, Davies TD, "Probable causes of late twentieth century tropospheric temperature trends", CLIMATE DYNAMICS 21 (7-8): 573-591 DEC 2003
• Stott PA, Jones GS, Mitchell JFB, "Do models underestimate the solar contribution to recent climate change?", JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 16 (24): 4079-4093 DEC 2003
• Karoly DJ, Braganza K, Stott PA, et al., "Detection of a human influence on North American climate", SCIENCE 302 (5648): 1200-1203 NOV 14 2003
• Allen MR, Stott PA, "Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting, part I: theory", CLIMATE DYNAMICS 21 (5-6): 477-491 NOV 2003
• Stott PA, Allen MR, Jones GS, "Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting. Part II: application to general circulation models", CLIMATE DYNAMICS 21 (5-6): 493-500 NOV 2003
• Stott P, "You can't control the climate", NEW SCIENTIST 179 (2413): 25-25 SEP 20 2003
• Stott PA, "Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 30 (14): Art. No. 1728 JUL 16 2003
• Braganza K, Karoly DJ, Hirst AC, Mann ME, Stott P, Stouffer RJ, Tett SFB, "Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part I - variability and correlation structure", CLIMATE DYNAMICS 20 (5): 491-502 MAR 2003
• Jones GS, Tett SFB, Stott PA, "Causes of atmospheric temperature change 1960-2000: A combined attribution analysis", GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 30 (5): Art. No. 1228 MAR 11 2003
• Gillett NP, Zwiers FW, Weaver AJ, Stott PA, "Detection of human influence on sea-level pressure", NATURE 422 (6929): 292-294 MAR 20 2003

This man's credibility as a scientist should absolutely not be called "dubious", and flat out fabricated lies about him never publishing should be immediately removed. You can't just close your eyes and wish away all the research and scientists which contradict you. — Cortonin | Talk 04:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Oh dear oh dear oh dear All your refs (with the possible exception of New Scientist, which is of course not a journal) are to *Peter* Stott - not Philip Stott: this appears to be a perfect example of it being useful to be familiar with the literature. For example: [1] or [2].

We're talking about a Philip?

(William M. Connolley 20:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Yes, thats why that piece of the article specifically says, for all to read, Philip Stott.

I was only familiar with the Peter Stott from the literature. Who would have thought that there would be two prominent P.A. Stott's in climate change.

(William M. Connolley 20:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Someone who knew what they were talking about, perhaps?

You can kindly store your condescending misplaced arrogance where the sun doesn't shine. — Cortonin | Talk 03:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peter Stott HAS published critiques of the climate models used by the IPCC reports, stating that they underestimate the solar contribution.

(William M. Connolley 20:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) At the time he wrote those, he was a climate modeller working for the Hadley Centre. He didn't publish critiques of the IPCC models, but he did publish comments on them.

Philip Stott has published in scientific journals, but it appears most of the climate change articles are editorials, such as "Biogeography and ecology in crisis", Journal of Biogeography, 1998. (Which is an interesting read, since it discusses the effects of rhetoric on cognition in ecology, and how that affects climate change research.) — Cortonin | Talk 20:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Indeed: just like the article says: he doesn't publish science on what he sounds out about.

That said, the quote from the lobby site can then stay, but it needs to be properly attributed to the people saying it in the text, as "LobbyWatch states", and the phrase "expertise is dubious" needs to be removed since it is still endorsing an evaluation of an individual, rather than simply reporting it. And the temperature dispute is still incorrect. It attempts to dispute a statement about Europe by saying the pattern did not apply to the world. How does this make sense?? — Cortonin | Talk 20:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) The T records don't show that. Why not try to find one that does?

Read here [3]. But one does not need to be found in order to remove an incorrect criticism. The criticism needs to be documented to be there, and it can't be phrased as a criticism (but simply a dispute) if there are other sources which support those numbers, which I have already provided. And only a dispute if there are prominent temperature measurements of Europe from that time period which dispute the MWP. — Cortonin | Talk 03:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Shortening Lindzen's quote to "picking holes in the IPCC is crucial" is so laughably out of context that it makes him look like someone who disagrees with the IPCC out of obsession, which is clearly not his motivation when you look at the larger context. -- Cortonin

(William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) But that *is* exactly L's view.

That's your narrow perspective of him, but that's not what Lindzen says his view is, so it's an NPOV violation to twist his quote from his perspective into yours by cutting it off in the middle. — Cortonin | Talk 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Calling John Maddox (or anyone, for that matter) "highly-respect" violates NPOV because it endorses him as correct. If you'll note, Maddox is criticizing the IPCC, and I STILL think it's improper to call him highly-respected. -- Cortonin

(William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Your view of NPOV is just wrong.

Gee, that's funny. Then I guess Wikipedia's view of NPOV is wrong too. From NPOV: — Cortonin | Talk 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What we mean isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood. There are many other valid interpretations of "unbiased," and "neutral". The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

As you can see, we are not supposed to assert views, and we are not supposed to say the popular view is correct, and we are not supposed to say anyone won a debate after describing the components of it. I think, my dear WMC, it is your view of NPOV which fails to match up to the Wikipedia one. — Cortonin | Talk 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I assume the above edits are Cortonin - if so , please sign them.

(William M. Connolley 21:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Cortonin has just reverted a whole pile of text, *plus* adding the NPOV header. I'm baffled: given all the stuff you've added, what is left to NPOV complain about?

So why did you make changes if everything was NPOV? (SEWilco 03:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC))

SEW's addition: Inhofe, Christy: now Gray etc etc

(William M. Connolley 08:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) SEWs recent additions are, IMHO, quite inappropriate. I would remove them, but can't at the moment. I've moved Inhofe down into "non-science" since thats what he is. Why is the Inhofe stuff inappropriate? Because its tired old nonsense. It could all be summarised by the one sentence "Inhofe doesn't like the IPCC". Just one example:

The first IPCC Assessment Report in 1990 found that the climate record of the past century was "broadly consistent" with the changes in Earth's surface temperature, as calculated by climate models that incorporated the observed increase in greenhouse gases. This conclusion, however, appears suspect considering the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975, just as industrial activity grew rapidly after World War II. It has been difficult to reconcile this cooling with the observed increase in greenhouse gases.

This is nonsense. There is no problem at all addressing the small cooling phase: its sulphates, mostly: see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm. Inhofe has deliberately avoided using the TAR. His comments are either ignorant or deliberately misleading. Now, there is nothing wrong with reporting that he doesn't like the IPCC, but there is no point repeating verbatim incorrect arguments.

I've removed:

• The IPCC report was replete with caveats and qualifications, providing little evidence to support anthropogenic theories of global warming. The preceding paragraph in which the "balance of evidence" quote appears makes exactly that point.

  It reads: "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long-term variability and the time evolving pattern of forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and land surface changes."

  Moreover, the IPCC report was quite explicit about the uncertainties surrounding a link between human actions and global warming. "Although these global mean results suggest that there is some anthropogenic component in the observed temperature record, they cannot be considered compelling evidence of a clear cause-and-effect link between anthropogenic forcing and changes in the Earth's surface temperature."

  Remember, the IPCC provides the scientific basis for the alarmists' conclusions about global warming. But even the IPCC is saying that their own science cannot be considered compelling evidence.

Because it was inserted into a criticism of IPCC section. I can't any of that as critical of the IPCC.

• Why can't you remove now? (SEWilco 20:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• The 1990 IPCC report did lose its historical context. Restored paragraph preceding it in source. (SEWilco 20:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• The above points supporting Inhofe's description better describe his statement than does WMC's summary. (SEWilco 20:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 19:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) SEWs recent additions to the page are absurdly unbalanced. I assume they are a fit of pique over Hansen, but they are rather unlikely to survive, or to help his cause.

• WMC is editing again based on telepathy. Needs more practice. Or needs more practice on the concepts of correlation and causation. (SEWilco 20:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Read

Read the changes you are making each time you revert, or don't edit. In order to make Wikipedia work, you need to in good faith consider all edits on their merits. You're not contributing in a positive way if you don't read the edits. A good indicator that you aren't reading and fairly considering edits is when you find yourself repeatedly reverting highlighted spelling errors back into an article. How many times are we going to criticize the IPCC for not having ass cement before someone bothers to read what they're editing? Yes, that means you WMC and Marco Krohn. Together you've reverted at least five times in two days [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] without reading what you were reverting. — Cortonin | Talk 01:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another unread edit, courtesy of Vsmith [9]. Please pay attention to the talk page... — Cortonin | Talk 02:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK - will put those 4 s's back in next time, missed 'em in all that voluminous badmouthing :-). Vsmith 03:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SEW's version: IPCC is "BAD"

It seems the version being pushed by SEW is almost all criticism of IPCC, maybe it should be moved to The IPCC is evil and keep this as an article defining the IPCC, the work the scientists are doing, and the published results. It is inteesting and quite funny that each time he reverts to "his" version he adds the NPOV tag. And I agree, "his" version is definetly NPOV. Vsmith 01:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting coming from someone who keeps insisting on editorializing about the respect you believe the IPCC has. If the IPCC was so respected, wouldn't it go without saying? Why does this have to be turned into a PR puff-piece for the organization? Can't we stick to talking about what it is and what it does without having to explain how great it is? Or do you think readers have to be told that it is respected because you don't trust them to make up their own mind? --JonGwynne 02:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute tag was on both major versions. Some people can't admit there is a dispute. (SEWilco 03:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Aren't we already defining the IPCC, their work, and their results? (SEWilco 03:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Seems the work and results are getting buried amidst all the bad-mouthing. Criticism is valid, but don't think we need volumes of quotes from "cherry picked" articles and non-scientists - seems a bit much isn't it. If we quote everything said bad and good this article will never end. Vsmith 03:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We could, as a random idea, try obeying policy and not attempt to make a conclusion about whether the IPCC is good or bad, important or not important, central or not central, etc, etc. To do that, we need to make some significant changes. We need to stop calling people or groups "respected" in order to establish or enforce their authority, we need to stop calling people "experts", we need to stop calling people "dubious", we need to stop evaluating where the "baseline" is, and we need to stop self-referential statements (against policy) like "no-one can find ... to add here". In the process of this, we could also digest the views of Singer, the SEPP, Schneider, Hansen, Gray, Christy, Lindzen, Inhofe, and such into summary sections describing the views of each, rather than as list form. — Cortonin | Talk 03:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You mean simply report facts as facts and views as views instead of trying to muddle the two and editorializing all over the place? What a concept!--JonGwynne 04:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Writing an article is more than reporting facts. Please read the policies, in particular NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial, which clearly states that "different views don't all deserve equal space". Thus allowing 50% of the article to be criticism of the IPCC is not an option. -- mkrohn 13:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if someone were writing a PR puff-piece on the IPCC then maybe that would be true. The reality is that the IPCC is a controversial organization and has been widely criticized. If there is criticism that is redundant or factually inaccurate, then removing that criticism should be discussed. But the purpose of wikipedia isn't to present only the views of IPCC supporters but the whole picture and that includes IPCC critics.--JonGwynne 19:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Vsmith. This is the article about IPCC and not termed "critics of IPCC". Don't get me wrong: the article should and must contain criticism about the IPCC, but 50% of the article full of quotes of non-scientists is surely much too much. -- mkrohn 13:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was just reading about bad examples of using percentages for measuring things. There's another good bad example. (SEWilco 15:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Sure, it is a first order approximation, but condemning a metric because of being first order and not offering anything better is not too helpful. Please do not hesitate to bring up a better measure.

But this is not the important point in this discussion. The real problem is that the text of criticisms is too long, according to the NPOV policy I cited above. So let us not lose our time on a side-show (discussing text metrics), but focus on shortening these statements (and by that stop this endless revert war). -- mkrohn 16:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So shortening what you don't like is your only option? The article otherwise is complete and you have nothing more to contribute here? (SEWilco 04:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC))

This is not what I wrote. The arguments need to be balanced. This is a requirement of NPOV policy which we have to follow. 50% of the text being criticism is not balanced. -- mkrohn 08:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you have nothing more to add then perhaps you should stop interfering with progress. There are gardeners at work while you're measuring timber on growing trees, and cutting off branches because they're not part of a telephone pole. And is 50% of the text not being criticism also balanced, or must there be a perfect balance? (SEWilco 15:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC))

The problem comes when people try to interpret the "proportional representation" clause of NPOV policy. A lot of people seem to come at it from the perspective that representation in an article should be proportional to their own beliefs, but this is of course completely not the point. While I will reemphasize that NPOV policy states that regardless of the space given to a view, no view should ever be presented as objectively true, the proportional representation clause states the allocation of space as, If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. Now, lets keep in mind that on a page called IPCC, it doesn't make much sense to use "experts on the subject", since the subject is an organization, and experts about an organization would just be people who have looked at the details of that organization or written about it. So what that means, is that representation should be proportional to concerned parties. In that case, it seems that it is somewhere on the order of 50/50, since it seems that around half of the people concerned with the IPCC are critical of it. — Cortonin | Talk 18:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good joke Cortonin :-) Seriously: I will reconsider my position if you show me one (non-stub) WP article which deals with a person or an organization which has an equally high reputation and where the criticism is as long as the one you proposed. -- mkrohn 19:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's easy. SEPP. — Cortonin | Talk 19:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again you are joking, Cortonin :-) I wrote of "equal reputation" and surely you don't seriously want to compare SEPP to IPCC. I would be willing to accept something on the level of NASA (~1/8 is criticism), UN (~1/6). I am quite sure that such an article in Wikipedia exists, I'm just interested how long you need to find one :-) -- mkrohn 19:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Now, lets keep in mind that on a page called IPCC, it doesn't make much sense to use "experts on the subject". I disagree. It is about every expert in the field, and there is no mention of taking a biased sample. Thus we should have something like 90:10.

Hahahah. Are you joking yourself? I wouldn't put the IPCC in the same ballpark as NASA. The IPCC reminds me more of the people who loudly proclaimed that the moon mission would fail because it would sink into the dust. That's why we call that "point of view", because everyone has a different one. Notice how your question begins with the presumption of respect, or good reputation, which is a perspective. You say "of equal reputation", which realistically means, an organization that you think as highly about. What you fail to understand is that this is not relevant to the question. What IS important is that of concerned parties, a large and significant portion what is said about the IPCC is criticism, and the page DOES need to reflect that, regardless of what repute you personally give the organization. The SEPP is the perfect parallel to the IPCC in this case of describing the controversy, it just happens to be on the opposite side of the controversy. Please try to look at the higher level of abstraction of describing the controversy in as much depth as possible, as opposed to the lower level of abstraction of choosing a side and presenting it. — Cortonin | Talk 00:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And it's not appropriate to only describe the IPCC in terms of what IPCC members think. Organizations don't get to be described exclusively by their members or associated individuals. We're not going to describe the KKK exclusively by the opinions of expert KKK members, or by the accumulated opinions of former slave owners. Only scientific information and mechanisms get to be described in proportion to the reports of experts in those fields and the evidence accumulated by those experts (which leaves the problem of assessing who the experts are, which is often a controversy unto itself). Organizations and political controversies, even scientific organizations and scientific political controversies, are described in proportion to the concerned parties. Take human cloning for example. When describing the science of human cloning, such as how mammal cloning is done, the description needs to match proportionally to how the experts think it is done. When discussing the controversy around human cloning, it is NOT NPOV to describe the views proportionally to experts in cloning. Most of the experts in human cloning are going to be much more in favor of continuing research in this topic than other concerned parties. It's a larger controversy, and it needs to be described in proportion to concerned parties. — Cortonin | Talk 00:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cortonin, by writing: "And it's not appropriate to only describe the IPCC in terms of what IPCC members think." you allege that this is my position, which is neither what I said nor what I implied. I never wrote that I want to ban all criticism from the IPCC article (even if I could I would not do it). However, the NPOV policy says clearly that the different opinions should be represented in proportion to the opinions of the experts (all experts not a biased sample!) in the field.

The KKK example is difficult in the sense that it is not so easy to define what "experts" on the field means while this is much clearer in the case of "IPCC". The cloning example is better and I agree with you that it is not sufficient to take into account the experts in cloning (as biochemistrical technique) only. This would be fine if the article would only deal with the technique and not with ethical values and the impact on the society. If the article takes into account more than just the technique (health, ethical values and so on) we of course have to extend the definition of "expert in the field". In these cases it is for instance appropriate to include the views of experts on ethics etc., too.

As I pointed out all experts in a field form the sample and not only a part. Thus is not acceptable to argue with a biased sample and to conclude from that that 50% of the article should be criticism. I know we completely disagree thus thanks for reading so far :-)

-- mkrohn 08:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding cloning, it is not just sufficient to include "experts on ethics", since NPOV policy also instructs us to give proportional weighting to all concerned parties. And this definitely extends to descriptions of a United Nations organization, where there are far more concerned parties than just climatologists. — Cortonin | Talk 23:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The concerned parties are more than adequately represented on the various climate pages, don't need a total rehash here on an article about a specific organization. It should focus on the scientists involved, their work, and the publications of the organization. Then a brief discussion of criticism w/ references to the specific topics. The IPCC and the various issues of climate change are not the same thing. The purported KKK analogy is absurd and the cloning analogy also misses (is there an IPCloning org?). Also IPCC is far more akin to NASA than to SEPP (that was another absurd response.) Vsmith 00:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The IPCC was an organization formed by a political body out of approved researchers who supported the desired view, with a mission to form a conclusion that would be directed by government oversight, review, and correction of the summaries. So how is this at all similar to NASA? — Cortonin | Talk 01:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NASA selected experts who supported the desired view of improving aerospace understanding and technology, with a mission to reach the Moon, directed by government oversight, review, and correction of the problems? (SEWilco 03:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC))

If we're going to have a standard of criticism dominating for the SEPP, then we're not going to censor out most of the criticism here, just because you happen to like the IPCC more. We're going to have a neutral standard, or we're going to fight about it until the end of time. Until it's neutral, people will keep coming along again and again to fight about it. And neutral does NOT mean the article says what you think is true. — Cortonin | Talk 01:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The relative number of expert that criticise the SEPP is much higher than the relative number of experts that criticise the IPCC. By looking at the number of citations in established peer-reviewed journals it is obvious that the reputation of the IPCC is much higher than the one of the SEPP. Thus it is clear why the relative length of criticism of the two organizations differs, but I tend to agree that the criticism part in the SEPP article could be a bit shorter. -- mkrohn 21:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're certainly free to draw this inference and I'm not saying you're wrong, but what *is* wrong is reporting opinion (e.g. how "respected" an organization is) as fact in an encyclopedia.--JonGwynne 23:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marco, why do you ignore the part which says, "concerned parties"? — Cortonin | Talk 01:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)