Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

These articles related to global change are a mess

The section title says it all. When one reads articles related to global change on Wikipedia he finds a redundant mess of opinions which leaves the reader confused, and witha slight sensation that the issue is not a scientific, but a political one. Which is exactly what DETRACTORS of the issue want: to degrade it from a risk worth to be studied and tackled till there's time to avoid disaster to a Communist mental jerkoff, forgive the profanity.

Instead of reporting any single word from anyone connected, those who carry the burden of editing these articles should carefully concentrate on solid facts. I'm not a stupd and know even too well that often science becomes matter of opinion or dogma (see the Big Bang and black holes mantra in cosmology, which is actually influenced by a Western monotheistic religious view), but this issue has to do with human basic survival. Global warming is only a piece of a more genral debate about a simple concept: we have only one Earth and cannot waste it. Resources are not infinite, and they'll soon finish if we go along this way still for some DECADES. And that's all. That's not ideology. That's mathematics.

User:Basil II 12:59, 12 October 2007 (CET)

I have to agree. Work needs to be done on these articles.141.155.133.231 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Basil have you considered the simplest solution? Maybe this mess is exactly what looks like? Have you considered the possibility that this article is entirely accurate when describing a redundant, non-scientific political mess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.232.174 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. And I concluded as above, that SOMEONE wants the matter to appear in that (dim) light. I'm not THAT stupid, and do not believe anything that is said easily, even in regards to global warming.

User:Basil II 12:59, 12 October 2007 (CET)

"this issue has to do with human basic survival..." This is not a place for world crusades whereupon you manipulate these articles to influence people with your opinions. This is an encyclopedia that ideally should state facts from a neutral standpoint. The one place where a reader can trust the source to have a neutral viewpoint (non-argumentative or opinionated bias). You clearly have a viewpoint, and your intent for editing these article is not for improvement content/quality of the article itself but rather for what you perceive to be "human basic survival". Please do not edit this article with such intentions in mind. --99.253.227.126 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts over "scientific" body

Please see the above section. Reliable sources like the Royal Society and the BBC call it a "scientific body". We could overreference this to death, but there really is no need beyond the one reference given. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC journalists are not matter experts and thus don't count. I don't see a link to the specific Royal Society endorsement of IPCC's scientific claims. --Unconcerned (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is a WP:RS and very much counts. See [1] for the Royal Society: "authoritative scientific organisations, such as the IPCC". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest you include the RS document as your external ref for the "scientific" claim in the first paragraph instead of IPCC's self description. The BBC news feature still doesn't count, sorry, I doubt Mr Roger Harrabin employs elements of the scientific method on a daily basis. And by the way threatening with a block or simply "being bored" with me will never count as solid arguments. --Unconcerned (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you doubt that the BBC is a RS, I suggest you take it up with WP:RSN. Of course a reporter is not a subject matter expert, but he is (supposed to be) an expert in getting the facts right. The IPCC itself is a reliable source, also for it's own description - after all, it has an international and public mandate, and a transparent process. That's why we deem that source sufficient. And I did not "threaten" you with a block, I gave you what I consider a polite form of a standard WP:3RR warning, as you seem to be unaware of that rule. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What Stephan said. Unconcerned's edits are meritless, disruptive, and contribute nothing to this article. Raul654 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care about the entire battery of acronyms nor the fact that some or all of the reverters are admins. I have exposed my rationale from the first edit and have the expectation to be met with the same courtesy. Disagreement is natural and unless you have the patience to provide sensible arguments, a simple revert is an act of vandalism. --Unconcerned (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If your point is that since the IPCC doesn't do research per se, it isn't scientific, it's clearly an obscurantist one. Not all scientific documents highlight new findings. There are many scientific journals which deal solely in reviews of the literature (i.e. no new science), and the IPCC's reports can be viewed as representing a (much) more tailored or specialised version of these. On top of that, the IPCC is drawn from the scientists that are doing the underlying work. Essentially, the IPCC is jobbing scientists summarising "proper" (in your sense) science (plus, of course, creating more simplified forms for political/general consumption). To remove "scientific" from descriptions of the IPCC will serve only to muddy the waters. Or is that what you're after? --PLUMBAGO 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientific reviews will necessarily cover the entire range of research, not just "papers that agree with me and my buddies". I don't see that range in IPCC's work. Nowhere else in Science do scientists form a political body to "interpret" the "proper" science in a "simpler" form for "political/general consumption". While they laudably admit to not doing own research, they wander in your muddy waters with other claims. Telling the story of one's research inquiry is not science per se. Long story short, I am only crossing t's and dotting i's in an attempt to clear your muddy water. Honesty will always weigh more than any unsubstantiated claim. Cheers--Unconcerned (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And you sure have a long list of peer-reviewed papers relevant to the topic but ignored by the IPCC? Do you know that all comments to the IPCC drafts are out in the open, with replies on how and why they were incorporated or discarded? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the red herring. Of course I don't have the complete, long list of ignored papers. This however does not make IPCC's work any more scientific. Have a good day. --Unconcerned (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(Decrease indent) Hmmmm, "papers that agree with me and my buddies"? Consult any issue of any major science journal and you'll see paper after paper that supports the IPCC and their buddies (directly or indirectly). In fact, you'll even find papers that say that the IPCC are dangerously conservative in their acceptance of evidence (as there have been over its predictions for sea-level rise). Were there any evidence against the broad case presented by the IPCC then scientists would be crushed in the rush to claim the fame and kudos from publishing such evidence. There are few things more tempting to a scientist than an apple-cart waiting to be upset. To suggest otherwise, to imply that the case made by the IPCC is a conspiracy of vested interests, is simply absurd, and overlooks both the accumulated scientific evidence and the plain self-interest of individual scientists. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several, very prominent climate scientists who are frequently publishing results that are not in line with the "consensus", yet --as someone put it-- their work gets discarded by this political body. I assume you have studied both sides of the "consensus" and already know who I'm talking about. A honest scientific intepretation of climate data will show what some well trained researchers call error bars, or confidence intervals. For some reason any attempt at putting IPCC's decrees in the perspective of actual uncertainty in data acquisition, data reconstruction and model extrapolation is discarded and never even mentioned in the final documents. The hockey stick controversy would never have become a controversy if actual science were used in composing that diagram. By not following simple science protocol, the messages our reputable climate scientists are trying to convey becomes simple political slogans. --Unconcerned (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources, anecdotal evidence, and common-sense arguments have all been put forward supporting the use of the adjective "scientific", with little more than a single editor's personal feelings against it. There is no need for this thread to continue. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 01:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no original research, nor personal feeling, in observing that not doing science is not science. I do however accept the Royal Society as a reliable source even if I personally disagree with their "scientific" qualifier. However, if you followed closely the editing dispute, that reference was missing.--Unconcerned (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Problem solved, ref fixed, case closed.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

The ongoing edit war here has been mentioned on this thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and at this thread on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Could I suggest a bit more decorum and, at the very least, discussion on this subject, and less edit warring? --TS 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussions as far as i'm aware have been ongoing over the whole period - it started at the 4AR article (see above). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I could care less where it started, and I didn't even know it "started" at that article, but the fact of the matter is that your friend is using the EXACT same excuses to keep it out of that article too. The evidence demonstrates that you and your friends don't want this information in any articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

These assumptions of bad faith ("you and your friends," et al) are unacceptable. Please comment on the content, not the editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It a verifiable fact that they are friends from looking at their facebook pages - linked from their own profiles. It is also a verifiable fact that they've been citing every wiki-policy they can think of, for 6+ years, to "maintain the integrity of wikipedia." Of course, you automatically assume that I'm assuming bad faith - are these facts so damning that their revelation can only be "assuming bad faith?"

I'm glad you think so. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen has been repeatedly deleting the contribution from TheGoodLocust, citing WP:UNDUE. An article about the IPCC ought to cover the major aspects and characteristics of the IPCC. One of the most significant aspects of the IPCC is its accuracy. When that accuracy is called into question with good evidence to demonstrate a lack of accuracy, then that evidence is significant to the character of the IPCC, and WP:UNDUE does not apply - indeed the very opposite applies - this is signficant information about the character of the IPCC that needs greater weight than mere appendage to the section "Criticism of IPCC". Cadae (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this edit war still ongoing when there is a discussion here? The sources are well founded and the additions are pertinant to the article. I fail to see why there is a problem with this inclusion. mark nutley (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The point seems to be to make edits so difficult that they can only be accomplished with much hassle and outside mediation - I think it drives a lot of people away from wikipedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of Non-Peer Reviewed Sources and the Himalayan Glaciers

Here is the section that I wrote up to be included in the criticisms of the IPCC:

--- Use of Non-Peer-reviewed Literature and the Himalayan Glaciers

The IPCC's 4th report has been criticized by Professor J Graham Cogley for using three reports, by the World Wildlife Fund, UNESCO, and the magazine New Scientist, none of which were peer-reviewed, to make the case that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035. When the original source was tracked down he found that they had misstated both the year and the effect - the original source, by a M. Kuhn, states that the year was actually 2350, and that the Himalayan glaciers would be intact at that time. IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt, but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate. ^[1]

The IPCC's assessment of melting Himalayan glaciers has also been criticized as being "horribly wrong," according to John Shroder a Himalayan glacier specialist at the University of Nebraska. According to Shroder, the IPCC jumped to conclusions based on insufficient data. Additionally, Donald Alford, a hydrologist, asserts that his water study for the World Bank demonstrates that the Ganges River only gets 3-4% of its water from glacial sources - casting doubt on the claim that the river would dry up since its primary source of water comes from rainfall. ^[2] Finally, Michael Zemp, from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, has stated that the IPCC has caused "major confusion" on the subject, that, under IPCC rules they shouldn't have published their statements, and that he knows of no scientific references that would've confirmed their claims.^[3] ---

I encourage anyone who reads this to appropriately add the section if you think more people would benefit from knowledge than from ignorance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is still WP:UNDUE, you are still focusing on one bad information from a report that contains several thousands of such. There is no doubt that it is wrong - but it is a factoid projected far beyond its prominence. It could be mentioned in the article on Retreat of glaciers since 1850 where it would be on-topic and due. But certainly not in its current form which is extremely one-sided. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim is correct: both that the substance (2035/2350) is correct and that this is UNDUE. Also, the bit about the Ganges is not very relevant here. And you've been rather partial with your quotation from Zemp. Incidentally, the bit about not using PR papers is funny, given the spetic desire to re-instate fig 7.1c from the '90 report William M. Connolley (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry kim and will, this is not one sided, it is fact. Encyclopaedias deal in facts. There is a section in the article which praises this report, so were is the undue weight in a section which has found flaws in said report? It is called balance. Also undue weight is about viewpoints, not facts. This addition is well sourced and pertinant to the article. Once again you are letting your personal points of view get in the way. mark nutley (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia deals in pertinent facts, this is not such - it is not an indiscriminate collection random factoids. This is a cherry-pick blown out of proportion. And that is exactly what our policy on neutral point of view (the undue part) is about. Now there (as i said) may be articles where this is within due weight, but a general article on the IPCC (or the AR4) is not the place. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The pertinent fact at issue is the reliability of the IPCC and its reports. The incorrect dates indicate that the IPCC reports cannot be given the weight attributed to them. They must be viewed with some suspicion as the IPCC have not adhered to their own stated policy. This is pertinent to the characterisation of the IPCC, and WP:UNDUE doesn't apply. Defending the IPCC in the face of this error is not WP:NPOV. Cadae (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but an error in one paragraph is an extremely large report (several thousand pages) does not merit weight to this, nor does it merit that we "view [them with] some suspicion", especially not since we have most of the worlds scientific bodies backing up the reports (with none saying otherwise) What seems more the case here is that some are willing to "make a feather into 5 hens" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC have failed to adhere to their own policy, leading to an error of fact. This has significance beyond a simple factual error - it indicates poor management and a lack of process control - thus affecting the veracity of their reports. The very existence of this process break-down and factual error may well cause the "worlds scientific bodies" to reconsider their support of the IPCC reports. Your appeal to the authority of the "worlds scientific bodies" backing the reports is a self-serving argument - you've assumed your own conclusion that they won't give this error any weight Cadae (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, review failed for one paragraph of a several thousand pages document, that happens, so what? And i do get that you apparently have very strong feelings on the subject - but that doesn't make it more important. If the worlds scientific bodies reconsider their support - then we most certainly will report it (even if one scientific academy does), since that would be a pertinent fact - as opposed to this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The consequences of that review failure extend beyond 'one paragraph of several thousand'. The assumption is that the IPCC reports are highly accurate. This event calls into question that accuracy. Your claim of WP:UNDUE is like claiming we can ignore a murderer's single act of murder, simply because he has murdered only on one day of the thousands he has been alive. That one act of murder (or in the IPCC's case - failure to adhere to policy) characterises the murderer. We rightly highlight that one failure of character of the murderer in the courts, the press and wikipedia - similarly we need to highlight that failure of character of the IPCC in Wikipedia.Cadae (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A mountain out of a molehill. Sorry but the murder analogy is rather bad. It is a single mistake taken out of a context of tens of thousands points of data/facts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your 'mountain out of a molehill' doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The 'molehill' is far from a 'molehill'- it is nothing less than a question of the character of the IPCC as an unblemished reliable source, upon whose reports the world's economies will be spending trillions of dollars. There were several failures of policy and procedure involved. If this were a pharmaceutical report, the authors would be arrested and tried for fraud. Cadae (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly made your personal POV clear, and also why you want to include something that is rather clearly WP:UNDUE. Try with reliable sources instead of original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to my reasons for showing why WP:UNDUE doesn't apply, you ignore my reasoning and blandly repeat your WP:UNDUE claim without responding to my points. Your POV is also clear, but is backed only by the claim that it is only "one paragraph among thousands". I have repeatedly addressed this, but you continue to fail to engage with the points raised. It gives the distinct impression that the deletion of the section about the IPCC error is motivated by bias. Cadae (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So can Retreat of glaciers since 1850 be changed to reflect this new information? Is the WWF Report a RS since it was not peer reviewed? If it is not an RS, much of the Asia section under Retreat of glaciers since 1850 needs to be rewritten. Schonchin (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[indent] I don`t see how the wwf could ever be counted as a reliable source for anything. So yes the Retreat of glaciers since 1850 should most certainly be reviewed. mark nutley (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Himalaya Glaciers

Discussion on this can be found here: Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report#The veracity of this report has been called into question.... The current insertion seems to be a spillover. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the reliability of the entire IPCC report is in question, evidence that the report was written in a biased or sloppy way is extremely relevant to this page. Vegasprof (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that the "reliability of the entire IPCC report is in question" is your personal opinion (which you are free to have as long as you do not project it into Wikipedia). But here we are talking about an error in one paragraph in chapter 10 (of 20) section 6 subsection 2 in the WGII report which is 1 of 3 main reports in the AR4 (which is the 4th report) from the IPCC - and that is grossly WP:UNDUE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the IPCC's scaremongering about Himalayan glaciers has permeated the collective unconscious of society then I find this to be very relevant. When I first added it you people didn't like the sources, so I changed them, and now you are inventing a new reason to limit the spread of information - the only way to destroy the urban legend that they invented. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Which again seems to be your personal opinion ("scaremongering", "permeated","urban legend"...). And again you are free to have that opinion - as long as you do not project it into Wikipedia articles. And i'm not "inventing" anything - please read and understand WP:UNDUE (which is a part of our WP:NPOV policy). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to pretend with me Kim. I know your record and that of your friends. Sorry, but my sources show that it is a plain fact that the IPCC was drastically wrong about the melting glaciers - the fact that such a myth has spread so far and wide is evidence of how significant their propaganda has been. If I actually saw you apply policy in a way that didn't massage the AGW perspective then I might be more inclined to respect your opinion. I couldn't live with myself if I behaved in the same way. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and [WP:UNDUE]] doesn't apply. We aren't talking about "viewpoints" here - we are talking about verifiable fact. And the fact of the matter is that the IPCC broke their own publishing rules by not using peer-reviewed literature which resulted in them making a glaring error about melting glaciers. Again, those are facts, not viewpoints - come up with a new excuse. Third times a charm right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE relates to all content - not just viewpoints. Simplified: Proportion of content must be in relative proportion to prominence in literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, so the question becomes whether this mistake (if it is indeed a mistake) is sourced as being of significant importance to the panel, its mission, its public perception, etc. Becoming a hot item among climate change skeptics and anti-environmental operatives is not in itself worthy of note, but if their agitation reaches the point where it is part of the story of the organization, perhaps. Also, if there is a child article relating to the report or to some scandal (or to the glacier in question, perhaps), the information is probably better centralized there. Also, to reiterate Scjessey's point below, please don't use article talk pages to criticize other editors, or any page to make simple personal attacks like the above. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I suggest you actually read the policies you love to cite as excuses to keep out information. It plainly states that WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints. I'm inserting facts and attempting to do so without bias. Facts are not "viewpoints." Here is an idea for you Kim, and I know it is radical, but consider this, encycopedias are like people - they are improved by knowledge - not ignorance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

More sources that confirm my edits and show how their importantance - [2][3][4] [5][6][7] - plus the sources I've already quoted. Is it your contention that these facts are unimportant? Is this not enough? Tell me this - what, in your mind, and be specific, would be enough, or the right kind, of evidence for you to concede that this information is important and should be in this article? TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The date error (2035 vs 2350) from a trusted source - the IPCC - has caused a fairly significant myth to be created. For instance, a Google search on the keywords "Himalayan glaciers melt 2035" gives 48,200 hits, whereas the number of hits for the correct date - "Himalayan glaciers melt 2350" gives 6,460 hits. Reliance on the veracity of the IPCC has been responsible for propagating seriously incorrect information. Here's an example of what can happen when one disputes the IPCC: http://www.france24.com/en/node/4921700. This is an important aspect of the IPCC and merits coverage on the wikipedia entry about the IPCC. Cadae (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that the entire section is just deleted, the entire reasoning given for this change in the edit summary being "per Kim"; as if said user somehow is the final authority on this subject, and that if he says so then that's the end of that and no further discussion is needed. The second edit summary has even less details, merely stating "no". I don't see how undue weight is an argument here, there's no denying that the melting of glaciers is a key example used to demonstrate the reality / severity of climate change, and grossly inaccurate reporting on it by an authoritative agency I think is certainly worth mentioning, especially considering (as demonstrated above) the fact this error hasn't gone unnoticed in the media and has even resulted in criticism from India's environment minister (see BBC ref. in deleted content). It's not like it's just a minor typo without real consequence. But I guess mentioning it would make the statement written just a little lower - "We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes" - seem rather silly. Infact that entire section seems rather silly, I don't see UNICEF getting a praise section for their work. I could obviously restore the section, but there's no doubt in my mind it'd be deleted again. BabyNuke (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As has alrady been pointed out, this stuff refers to one section of one report. Hence "The IPCC's 4th report has been criticized by..." is clearly too broad-brush. At the very least you need to re-phrase it to make it clear (assuming you know, of course) which report, and which bit. Even then the question of due weight still applies. I don't see how undue weight is an argument here - this may be a flaw in your understanding, rather than in the reasoning. Is melting of Himalayan glaciers presented as key evidence by the IPCC? I rather doubt it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A hierarchical approach probably makes sense

The recent edit war was over whether to report on an error found in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in this article. A similar discussion is taking place on the AR4 talk page to see if the error should be reported in that article.

It seems to me that, if we can't agree to include a mention of the error in the AR4 article, we're unlikely to reach agreement on whether to mention it in this more general article. I would suggest therefore that it makes sense for us to all concentrate, at Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, on whether to discuss the matter as part of that article. If we decide not to go ahead with that, it seems to me, then it seems very unlikely that we would want to include it here. On the other hand, if we decide to include it in the AR4 article, the case to include it here will be a little stronger. So I advise a hierarchical approach. Discuss it at the AR4 article and take it from there. --TS 17:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The AR4 article focuses on the contents of AR4 and does not speak to the nature and characteristics of the IPCC. The error introduced in the AR4 report has significance beyond IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). As an indicator of a failure of IPCC policy and procedure it has significance independent of the error itself, as it speaks to the reliablity of the IPCC. It is thus less important as an item in the AR4 article than as an item about the IPCC itself. Creating a dependency between its presence in IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) to its presence here is a mistake. It can and should be considered differently in each context. Cadae (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point of view (though I don't agree with it). But I don't think you can make an argument that will convince people who are already dubious about the notion of discussing the matter at all even in the AR4 article. --TS 11:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this article not mention that the IPCC is not allowed to assess the "for and against" of global warming since it is signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which states that global warming is real and dangerous

Therefore they will only ever find global warming or they will al be out of work? mark nutley (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't because it is incorrect. You seem not to have read the report(s)? Take a peek, they are quite interesting and contain quite a lot that various people assert that they do not. (for instance about solar or natural variations, discussions of Svensmarks cosmic ray hypothesis, discussions of benefits of warming etc etc etc) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to TS - I'm not sure which POV you understand - the POV that the AR4 article and IPCC article shouldn't be dependent on each other, or the POV that the error is more significant in the IPCC article than the AR4 article ? If you comprehend my point, you will see that you have the dependency around the wrong way - the date error is less significant in the AR4 article than in the IPCC article. Even if it is not in AR4, it has more significance to the IPCC article, and exclusion of it in AR4 is no justification for excluding it from IPCC. Cadae (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble here is that I cannot begin to address your argument because I cannot make any sense of it. The error is in the AR4, so under what circumstances could it possibly be appropriate to mention it in this article but not in the article on AR4? --TS 15:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll restate the argument and try to make it clearer. AR4 is all about the AR4 report - it is not about the IPCC. Information about the IPCC itself is in the IPCC article i.e. information about the IPCC's characteristics, history, successes and failures. The date error (2035 vs 2350) is a significant failure of the IPCC to adhere to its policy and processes - this is of greatest import to the article about the IPCC itself, not the article about AR4. The significance of the failure is dependent on its context - it's even more significant in the IPCC article than in the AR4 article. Cadae (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries on consensus

Please could everyone stop claiming "consensus at talk" in edit summaries when it is clear that no consensus exists. Adding up opinions above (and counting me as "don't care"; I haven't read and don't think I edited this page unless on a vandal revert) I make it 6-6 on opinions expressed. Anyone who reverts without adding value (e.g. by proposing a compromise text) is in danger of an Edit Warring sanction. This page is also in danger of having to be protected. So no reverts, just improvements please. --BozMo talk 08:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I answered above - plus you counted wrong. There is a consensus for inclusion. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you quantify this consensus? I did a rough head count and it seemed to me that there was a slight majority for inclusion, but substantial objections, and reasons for holding off on declaring consensus (consensus on whether the item merits discussion at the AR4 article has not materialized). We don't normally treat this kind of situation as consensus--consensus usually means something like "very few objectors and no significant policy objections". --TS 20:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Membership

This has nothing to do with the controversial issue. But the introduction is missing information about what kind of people (scientists?) are part of the committee and how they are selected. Labongo (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Having read the entire article I still don't understand how the IPCC members are selected/elected. The "Operations" section should be clarified with regards to provide information about who actually where selected rather than: "Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged". I also suggest moving the "Operations" section to above the reports. Labongo (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think all that is mandated is The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged. (I'm guessing that is from the charter). What actually *happens* is that governments get to appoint who they will to the *panel*. The panel (I think) will then appoint various working groups (which is why there are the WGI, II and III reports; of which WGI is by far the best). The way this goes is that the scientists get to write the science chapters (and as far as I know, in practice this actually happens) and then comes the process of approving the report (and traditionally the chapters of the report are left alone, in the full knowledge that only the very interested will read them; only the exec summaries and stuff get fought over). This is where it gets political. Traditionally the EU have been pro-science; the US (presumably no more) and Saudi (how odd) have been foot-draggers. The problem is that I rather doubt any of that is written down anywhere reliable, or even at all William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Probabtion applied, prot removed, warnings given

Now we have the glorious new article probabtion, what about unlocking the article to see if Peace has broken out? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well before we do that how do you currently feel about the recent addition? [[8]]

I think we should trash out the current arguments over content before we unlock this article --mark nutley (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what I thought above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Can everyone agree on whether the Himalayan glacier section should stay in or be removed while the current RfC runs? If so, I (or someone else) will ask Jayron32 whether they think it would be a good idea to change the article status to unprotected with a very low tolerance for edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well naturally i think it should stay in regardless of the rfc run :) but i`m not fussed about it being unlocked, however i suspect ip only contributors or socks will revert like mad if it is unlocked and the disputed text removed --mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a view on it but Mark would you be broadly happy if it was in AR4 instead? --BozMo talk 21:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to worry about IP's if the article is semi'd; socks can be dealt with. I want the text out; I have the same objections (none of which have been addressed) before it goes anywhere else. The text is *wrong*; but dumped into the crit-of-ar4 article we could at least try to fix the wording William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it should stay in on this article for the reasons I stated above. --GoRight (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, however i would like to point out that when we tried to add it there the same people who will not have it here refused it there. I do believe that there should be a criticism section here to provide balance to this article, the IPCC make a lot of alarmist statements and i honestly this those should be brought into perspective. I can`t speak for the others who want this included here either so you`d have to ask them.Looking at WMC`s gives me pause for thought though. He says the test is wrong, but has yet to offer any compromise on it, he says he wants to fix the wording, sorry but for that i read "spin it to look better", perhaps i`m wrong on that only time will tell mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for the notion that the IPCC is widely regarded as "alarmist" then we can consider how to present that. I've seen the term "alarmism" a lot, but only from a relatively small group of committed global warming skeptics. I'm not sure this would merit a lot of space, but perhaps a mention might be merited. --TS 22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, lots of the "criticism" isn't really criticism in the IPCC section and some would be considered "UNDUE" based on the arguments about keeping out the section of the IPCC's use of non-peer-reviewed lit. The peer-review/glacier section contains some real criticism with some bite - and blows holes in the oft-heard argument that the IPCC should be trusted because they only use peer-reviewed science. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am generally sympathetic to the current criticism section being poor but I don't suppose you would like the kind of one which I might write either. What is in my view entirely missing is mention of broad brush dismissive critics as opposed to micro critics. If any of the full-body criticisms have notability (and I suspect some do) we should work out which are the most notable and include something about them. As above, I think the most notable will de facto have enough weight for some mention provided they meet notability. Meanwhile on glaciers I am on the fence, but if WMC suggests dumping into AR4 and fixing it there, which others have suggested above then I think the option is open to do it and I would support it there. --BozMo talk 22:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

When I initially wrote the "glacier" section it was titleed "Use of Non-Peer-reviewed Literature" - this is quite important since supporters of the IPCC always talk about how they use peer-reviewed papers. The glacier segment of it is also important, certainly more than other sections considering how often people talk about how the glaicers are melting because of global warming and other such nonsense, but it was added merely as a way to demonstrate the inaccuracies of using non-peer-reviewed sources, which we can all agree the IPCC did indeed do. As for being in AR4, there isn't really a good place for it there, and this criticism so strongly contradicts what supporters say of the IPCC that it makes it notable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Count me as a supporter of such a rewritten criticism section. I agree with your view, that the section in general is poor and focused on micro-criticism. What is needed is process and methodology criticism. My thoughts in that direction would be some of the recent criticism, stating that the IPCC has outlived its usefullness - i believe Tol, Pielke Jr. and others have levelled such recently.

As for the Glacier thing, i believe i have made my opinion on the extreme undue weight clear. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Something like this[9] would be a starter here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Here`s an idea, WMC says he is against the use of non peer reviewed literature section being in although he say`s if it goes into the AR4 article it would need to be rewritten.

So why does`nt WMC write it up in a way he deems it to be appropriate and then we can discuss that, currently all we have is "It`s got mistakes" or "It`s poorly written" but no actual alternatives being given. So any thoughts on this? @Kim i believe i refuted your wp:weight argument above, please respond there --mark nutley (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. Give us a good faith alternative that addresses the issue which you would find acceptable. We can't find a compromise if you don't want to help find some middle ground. --GoRight (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

See Criticism of IPCC AR4 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection level

Assuming that there is an intent to apply these new probationary sanctions even handedly, I hereby object to any change in the current protection level of this article unless and until a warning comparable to this has been issued here. --GoRight (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair to me --mark nutley (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rest assured, anybody who edit wars on this article is looking for a block. --TS 22:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll rest more assured after they issue the warning. I have noted a strange phenomenon regarding when the page protections just happen to be applied to various articles. It does not appear to be random. This page is currently an anomaly in that respect, and I note the lack of a substantive warning regarding the removal of contested material here. --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm....yes, I very much hope that page protection is not applied randomly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As an admin who has no involvement in this article, I can confirm that edit warring will result in a block. If a consensus forms to unprotect the page I will consider doing so and keep an eye on it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Might you also consider specifically warning people regarding the addition or removal of contested material, per my example above? It would put my mind at ease. --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Make it a 1rr - it makes it more difficult for people to skirt the rules with tag teaming reverts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To forestall further WP:edit warring, any editor who adds or removes contested material from this article without first attaining consensus here may be blocked from editing. To be clear: any edit which another editor has reverted in whole or in part is contested. --TS 23:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Tony, but I would prefer to have an administrator actually stand up and say this. --GoRight (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The probation notice is at the top of this page. --TS 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Article must Report that IPCC is Widely Criticized

Seems to have petered out

In order to be correctly encyclopedic, this article must report the fact that the IPCC has been widely criticized, including by many scientists. (I have personally read many such articles.) A number of those criticisms are mentioned in the article already, and should stay there, along with appropriate refutations of those criticisms, if any. No one reading this article should get the impression that the IPCC is not controversial, because it is. Vegasprof (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you support your "widely criticized" with reliable sources? How do you define "widely"? And when you say controversial, then what is your basis for it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I answer that, Kim, let me ask a question: Do you claim that IPCC is not controversial? Vegasprof (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i would claim that the IPCC isn't controversial. Limited sections of the political spectrum, (primarily) within a limited number of countries, do consider it controversial though, but these are (to my best knowledge) not representative of any major political, scientific or NGO standpoint. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have seen only one poll that addresses the IPCC directly. A Rasmussen poll published last month that found only 22 percent of Americans consider the UN to be a reliable source of information on global warming. That less than a fourth of the public in the world's second-largest democracy (and the country that provides the largest share of the UN's funding) trust the UN on matters of global warming seems to argue strongly that it's controversial, regardless of whether ones believes the controversy is justified.

That said, it may be hard to demonstrate how many of those 150 million or so people have spoken out to "criticize" the IPCC. Do you have reliable sources to support the idea you are trying to capture? --DGaw (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a full source or a link for that poll? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but we are not here to discuss whether or not my personal opinion (which i gave in good faith) is correct or not. Can we get back on track? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Kim, I may have been unclear. My last, "Do you have reliable sources to support the idea you are trying to capture?" was directed toward Vegasprof. In the absence of an RS that says the IPCC is "widely criticized", I don't think that formulation can be added to the article. If he/she believes the contention contention that the IPCC is controversial is relevant here,he/she will need an RS that supports the idea--and will need to frame it in a way that is supported by the source.

As for the rest, it was meant to be on track. You said you were not aware of any major political standpoint holding the IPCC to be unreliable, and asked Vegasprof to provide support for the contention that the IPCC is controversial. I responded by providing evidence. Am I to understand you do not find that evidence persuasive? --DGaw (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i do not find the "evidence" persuasive. Public opinion polls tell us absolutely nothing about how controversial the IPCC is regarding the science or amongst policy makers. And the US is (i'm sorry to say) rather an outlier with regards to this issue, both in the sense of the public opinion or the way that this issue is politicized. It may be worth mentioning the publics opinion - but we'd need a summary over time (since the first report to now) as well as in space (rest of the world), otherwise it is too specific. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of discussion above and elsewhere on improving the criticism section. Do please provide some more sources about criticisms, it would be timely to help us rework it. --BozMo talk 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Vegasprof (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Sources for Criticism Section

Let's start gathering some possible sources. Feel free to add yours here too. Please just include the sources and a brief excerpt in this section. Discussion of the proposed use of these sources can be addressed elsewhere. --GoRight (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) Interview with Roger Pielke, Sr.

EcoWorld: What is your criticism of the IPCC?

Pielke: Mainly the fact that the same individuals who are doing primary research into humans’ impact on the climate system are being permitted to lead the assessment of that research. Suppose a group of scientists introduced a drug they claimed could save many lives: There were side effects, of course, but the scientists claimed the drug’s benefits far outweighed its risks. If the government then asked these same scientists to form an assessment committee to evaluate their claim (and the committee consisted of colleagues of the scientists who made the original claim as well as the drug’s developers), an uproar would occur, and there would be protests. It would represent a clear conflict of interest. Yet this is what has happened with the IPCC process. To date, either few people recognize this conflict, or those that do choose to ignore it because the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed, and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.

(2) Censorship Threatens Truth on Climate NOTE: We should try to find a more direct reference for this quote from Michaels.

As a UN body, the IPCC must not allow itself to be captured by one scientific faction or another. It needs to give fair representation to all views. Indeed, the IPCC is supposed to take into account all peer-reviewed literature, including dissenting views.

Is this actually happening? No, says Michaels. "The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable. These include articles from the journals Arctic, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions, Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Quaternary Research."

(3) ROYAL SOCIETY REBUTTAL - Probably not usable directly but may provide additional pointers to other sources.

(4) [10]"With the apparent solar :cooling cycle upon us we have a ready explanation for global warming and cooling. If the present :cooling trend continues, the IPCC reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of :science." - Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus - Geology, Western Washington University Nothughthomas (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section: broad (methodology/process/legitimacy) or narrow?

I think this is the wrong approach, This is once more micro-criticism and focusing on (the usual) individuals with minority opinion on climate change. There is a whole slew of social science/political science literature out there, that examines the IPCC processes and methodologies. That is where we should start looking. Pielke Jr (not Sr) would be the one to look at. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, KDP, I don't take a stand on that either way. You may well be correct. But this is my attempt to embrace the new era of probationary sanctions and to try and foster an actual consensus based on the sources available. You allude to the existence of sources that you feel are superior to those that we are finding. Rather than leaving us hunting for your needle buried in a hay stack perhaps you too could embrace the spirit of collaboration and provide them? --GoRight (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, please give a definition of "micro"-criticism. And why do you say "minority opinion"? Scientific truth has nothing to do with majority/minority anything. Vegasprof (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Micro-criticism is criticism of small parts of a large picture. When looking at the whole it has very little substance or meaning.

How do you determine scientific "truth"? Is Pielke Sr. stating the scientific "truth", or is it his peers, who are significantly in the majority? For Wikipedia we determine this not by seeking "truth" but by presenting the prevalent scientific opinion, and mentioning significant minority viewpoints. When Pielke Sr. is arguing that everyone else is wrong, then it may possibly be that he is entirely correct - but it is not our judgement to make... What we see is a single individual who is arguing a position which the majority of his peers do not seem to share. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Pielke's criticism is "micro" at all. It is a blast leveled at the entire IPCC report. And what really counts is whether Pielke (or whoever) has the professional "weight" required for his opinion to be taken seriously, which he clearly does, and which Al Gore (for example) clearly doesn't. And, despite what you say, he is by no means the only "weighty" person who disparages the IPCC report. Vegasprof (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the right approach, GoRight. I have stuff to contribute, which I hope to post today. Vegasprof (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Per the terms of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, I'm placing this under a 1 revert rule restriction indefinitely at this time (although this can obviously be changed in due course if needs be). All editors should refrain from reverting more than once in any 24 hour period. Clearly, there are other forms of disruption that could occur and these would also be met with a warning/block under the terms of the probation. I'll unprotect the article for now, but I'll also leave a note for the protecting administrator and he can have final say. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IPCC only using P-R stuff?

Discussion

One of the assertions made above is that the IPCC should not have useed the WWF report, because that report wasn't peer reviewed. Who says this is an IPCC rule, and where is the appropriate rulebook? This article says The IPCC reports are a compendium of peer reviewed and published science and links to [11] which is broken (argh, I hate this stupid orgs that can't even maintain a website). However, it now seems to be at []. This includes Contributions should be supported as far as possible with references from the peer-reviewed and internationally available literature, and with copies of any unpublished material cited. Clear indications of how to access the latter should be included in the contributions. I would read that as clear evidence that while P-R lit is preferred, non-P-R lit, provided it is internationally available, is permitted. In this particular instance (Himalayan glaciers) the WWF report *is* widely available, so using it (I argue) falls within the IPCC rules. That makes the text "IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt, but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate" that misc people have been reverting back in wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What? "That makes the text "IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt," of course there was a mistake they were 300 years out on it.

Also from the IPCC principals journal Non-peer-reviewed sources will be listed in the reference sections of IPCC Reports. These will be integrated with references for the peer-reviewed sources. These will be integrated with references to the peer reviewed sources stating how the material can be accessed, but will be followed by a statement that they are not published. They did`nt do that either did they? --mark nutley (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can i ask you to turn down the bold-facing? If you want emphasis on something, please use italics or underline it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What WMC was referring to, and which is rather obvious is the last part of the sentence: "...but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate" which is clearly incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a requirement - see Annex 2 [ http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf] here (page 14 of 15). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The BBC source used in the section says:

"Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.

We have a reliable source that says they are mandated. You appear to be doing OR in order to say it isn't mandated, and it seems to me that anyone can show a section where it doesn't say it is mandated - what matters is the section that requires the mandate or a source that talks about that mandate - and we have the latter. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the BBC rather clearly made a mistake, they sometimes do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to report an error purely because a RS makes that error. I'm going to take the erroneous text out, unless someone can provide a good justification for keeping it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are telling me that your original research has determined that a reliable source is in error? This is not good enough and is obviously against wikipolicy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - what exactly is it that makes the IPCC principles document a non-WP:RS? And where do you figure it is written that we must propagate an error when we know that it is one? (it would be rather bad editing if we did - wouldn't it?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Hey look, I can do original research and find statements from their website that say they use peer-reviewed literature!

"The IPCC assessment process is designed to ensure consideration of all relevant scientific information from established journals with robust peer review processes, or from other sources which have undergone robust and independent peer review."

Again, here at wikipedia, and I'm surprised you don't know this yet, we try not to use primary sources or original research - otherwise you have editors determine what is "right" and what is "wrong" - wikipedia procedures state that information must be verifiable with reliable sources - not "right." TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious the quote about what "the IPCC is mandated to be doing" is not equivalent in meaning to "breaking an IPCC mandate" since there is a clear difference in meaning of the word "mandate" in the two cases. The current text is not supported by the BBC wording. If this isn't obvious to anyone "what the IPCC is mandated to be doing" in a political context (per Singer and BBC) amounts to anything anyone say they expect of them. "An IPCC mandate" though is legalistic wording and implies something to do with their legal obligations or statues. This is meanings (1) and (3) in my OED but someone can find an online version I am sure. --BozMo talk 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) That isn't their rule book. Direct quotation from their rule book shows that use of non-P-R lit is permissable. Accordingly, I've removed (some of) the incorrect text from that section. Also, it should be noted that the BBC report says Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing. Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers. But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed - or 'unpublished' - documents when assessing the status of the glaciers which your version paraphrases as "IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt, but admits they didn't use peer-reviewed papers - breaking an IPCC mandate". Your version looks like it is ML saying they broke the mandate. The Beeb text is rather different - the mandate claim is completely unsourced (nor is the claim that none of these are PR obviously true) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Their "rule book" as you call it also makes it clear that they should be using non-peer-reviewed stuff carefully and certainly not in the way that they did - that exception to their rule, was meant to apply to things like industrial research that wouldn't be peer-reviewed, but which was necessary to help determine the application of policy - they clearly were not doing this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad you've agreed that they *are* indeed allowed to use non-PR stuff - the only debate now is over exactly *what* non-PR stuff. I don't agree with your interpretation of only things like Ind R - but that really doesn't matter, because that question is non-urgent and non-exciting William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

{e/c}May i point out that your link is for WGI not WGII? It is entirely possible that this is the case for the WGI. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh-er, that is indeed a very good point William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I find WMC's observation and argument here quite interesting. So he is arguing that the IPCC reports are NOT based only on peer-reviewed literature? Well, given that the standard here on Wikipedia for discussions of scientific fact IS the use of only peer-reviewed literature does this not mean that the articles on the IPCC reports, which purport to represent scientific facts, should be deleted per WP:UNDUE? --GoRight (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Faulty argument. The IPCC reports are peer-reviewed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I must agree with Connolley in this case - the IPCC is not scientific and therefore not a reliable source in the matter of global warming. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) A nice piece of light relief, but easy to bat away. First off, I'm not aware of the use of non-P-R lit in the WGI report (you *did* know all this stuff is only about WGII, didn't you?). Secondly, there is no requirement at all for P-R literature itself to be based only on P-R lit. The IPCC reports themselves are P-R'd (and before you ask, no, that doesn't make them immune to all error; nothing is) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"IPCC reports themselves are P-R'd" - Really? By whom? The reports are WP:SPS with respect to the IPCC, are they not. Their internal processes cannot peer-review themselves. What independent peer-reviewed source or journal published these reports after subjecting them to their peer-review processes? Maybe I am wrong, I don't claim to be an expert on the IPCC reports, so help a poor fellow out and explain this to me. Who actually publishes the IPCC reports? --GoRight (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why has WMC altered disputed text without consensus in clear breach of this pages probation? mark nutley (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question, I haven't looked at the policy enough to know - perhaps he made a mistake and we should give him a chance to self-revert. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked him on his talk page to provide a reference to the consensus. --GoRight (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As did i but he removed it --mark nutley (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

People. Are you all seriously saying that we should propagate an error that we know is an error? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying we should follow wikipedia policy. But if you want to "interpret" things then it is clear, by my interpretation, that their proposed additions did not follow the spirit of the exception section for peer-reviewed research - since it didn't follow the spirit of that excemption then they did in fact break their rules. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The probation terms on this page appear to have been set at 1RR rather than consensus only. At least that's my reading of the above. GR asked for consensus only but got 1RR. It was discussed around the place I think --BozMo talk 23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, BozMo. The terms set by Ryan above are WP:1RR, so if people are so inclined they can revert WMC's WP:BOLD edit that completely lacks consensus (I assume since he declined on his talk page to point me to where the consensus for his change was determined). --GoRight (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can't argue both sides of the fence, ESPECIALLY not on the same talk page over the same topic. That's just nonsense. WMC is using a technicality to try an wikilayer away a valid criticism given the prevailing posturing here on Wikipedia regarding the IPCC reports and the science that underlies them. Well, if that technicality calls the peer-reviewedness of those reports into question it is fair game to call their use on Wikipedia into question as well. --GoRight (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Say what? Have you even looked at the change that WMC made? [12] He removed the error - not the criticism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Bozmo, it was said no contested text would be removed nor added if protection was removed, look in page protection section above @Kim, Are you all seriously saying that we should propagate an error that we know is an error I ask you to look at WMC`s edit and tell me it`s not been spun? name changed and then this IPCC lead author Murari Lal claims there was no mistake about the glacial melt apart from it being out by 300 years of course. --mark nutley (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GR, given the above can you offer text on the PR nature which reflects the source better than the words WMC removed? Viz that the text cannot refer to "an IPCC mandate" since the RS doesn't but could to what people feel the IPCC is mandated to be doing? I think including that some people feel it broke expectations of the IPCC is legitimate but breaking a mandate per sae is completely unsupported. Then we can decide if here or at AR4 --BozMo talk 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely unsupported? I quoted the exact passage from the source - the BBC! TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No. As I've pointed out, the (former) article text is not a quote from the BBC, it is a misleading paraphrase William M. Connolley (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A misleading paraphrase? I shortened, ""Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing." - into something like "breaking an IPCC mandate." That isn't misleading at all - that's paraphrasing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the phrase says: The IPCC is mandated to do P-R. Not the IPCC must use P-R. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Not as far as I can see, or at least not in the reverts you did perhaps there is an original contribution in the article history? I can see completely unsupported words like "breaking an IPCC mandate" in the article versions but in the source only stuff about being outside what the journalist feels the IPCC is mandated to be doing which has a totally different sense? --BozMo talk 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you rephrase? I don't think I understand what you are trying to say. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you appear not to have paraphrased you appear to have completely changed the meaning (unless I misunderstand which is your text). I suggest you read the above. WMC pointed out that the text switched attribution. I pointed out that "what the IPCC is mandated to be doing" in a political context (per Singer and BBC) means anything anyone says they expect of the IPCC. "An IPCC mandate" however is legalistic wording and implies something to do with their legal obligations or formal statues. These are completely separate meanings of the word mandate listed separately in the dictionary. Switching from expectation to formal statue and simultaneously changing attribution from a journalist to an IPCC officer does not look like "exactly quoting" --BozMo talk 23:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> Wait wait wait....so you are arguing that while I used the same word I somehow "changed its meaning" to make it "completely unsupported" by the source? I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous - the only distinction is in your interpretation, which is completely subjective. I used the same word - I simply shortened (paraphrased) it.TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be abusive, especially when three people are being very patient in explaining something to you. You changed the meaning whilst claiming that you used the "the exact passage". I think you need to consider where you are standing on this more carefully. --BozMo talk 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Abusive? There was no abuse - you seem to subjectivly interpret a lot of what I write in the worst possible way. I used the same word that the journalist used to describe what they did - the word didn't change its definition because I shortened the passage a bit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, i want to know what is being done by connolley`s edit to contested material in breach of the agreement made before page protection was removed? At the moment i see everyone being sidetracked into an argument which only serves to hide this breach of trust? --mark nutley (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I answered above. AFAICT no admin gave a "no non consensus edits" ruling, one gave a 1RR ruling and one a "no edit warring" ruling. If you think someone made a edit which went against a ruling above talk to the admin who made the rule. --BozMo talk 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW on the edit warring one which you could try but I think given that he did not revert the whole passage out as in previous reversion wars but only changed a few words in it, it is hard to argue it is edit warring. --BozMo talk 00:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bozmo, it was agreed man, even ts said he would block anyone adding, altering or removing contested text it`s right there in article protection. I hate it when people break an agreement.

I have re-edited the article back to the way it was prior to WMC`s revisions. I was trying to talk here, my arguments above go unanswered and then this breach of trust takes place. So is it a case of they can`t win an argument so ignore it and then edit the article into a nice positive light, sorry but thats just plain wrong. mark nutley (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I just put a note on your user page. AFAIK TS is not an admin and said simply anyone doing it might be blocked (not by him). GR asked 2/0 to make this statement, 2/0 discussed it with me User_talk:2over0#Edit_waring_warning_at_IPCC_please_... and decided not to. Please don't try to start a fight on it. --BozMo talk 00:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replied and self reverted Bozmo, i am however still fuming at WMC`s breach of trust --mark nutley (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Objection

Discussion of change to the uses-peer-reviewed-lit bit

This] is unsupported by discussion. The previous text "compendium of peer reviewed and published science" doesn't imply that everything is peer-reviewed, and the new text seems quite frankly to be pointy, and is certainly not as GR stated "Per talk page discussion on P-R sources". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC`s edit`s were not supported either but you do not seem to have an issue with that? --mark nutley (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stay on-topic? Even if i concede your point (which i do not), then two errors do not make a right. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is on topic, you can`t complain about one but not the other. --mark nutley (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "doesn't imply that everything is peer-reviewed" - I never claimed as much, but I fail to see how this is relevant. You are only making the argument that my change didn't substantively alter the meaning of the text so why are you complaining? Doing so seems rather disruptive to fostering a collegial atmosphere here.

"[This] is unsupported by discussion ... and is certainly not as GR stated" - Please see this section, [13], wherein WMC clearly states:

"I would read that as clear evidence that while P-R lit is preferred, non-P-R lit, provided it is internationally available, is permitted."

I was merely being WP:BOLD and reflecting his position in the article. My reference to "Per talk page discussion on P-R sources" was to that. Are you now contesting WMC's position?

"the new text seems quite frankly to be pointy" - Please be mindful of the new probationary sanctions coupled with assumptions of bad faith, especially when they are actually articulated as you have here.

Regardless, the standard on this page at least seem to be WP:1RR and not consensus as BozMo pointed out above. I have not violated WP:1RR. --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between "published science" and "as well as other internationally available non-peer-reviewed materials" ? And what your background/references are for creating this dichtomy? Does it accurately describe what the IPCC is doing without breaching due weight? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My references are WMC's references and my argument is WMC's argument. If you feel that either are found wanting, please take the matter up with him. --GoRight (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but could you please summarize the parts of WMC's argument that answer my questions? As far as i can tell, WMC hasn't made this edit, but you have.. In fact i rather strongly suspect that WMC wouldn't agree with your edit - so somewhere there is a disconnect. So please answer yourself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"could you please summarize the parts of WMC's argument that answer my questions" - I already have above (i.e. see the quoted bits and follow them back to their sources as provided by WMC). Please stop asking the same questions over and over again. That could be considered tendentious behavior and therefore disruptive editing under the climate change probation. I don't believe any sanctions are warranted at this time, however. --GoRight (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight is indefinitely blocked--effectively until he agrees to work with other editors. Meanwhile does anybody know what argument he was claiming to have made, and more to the point does anybody honestly think the edit makes the article more accurate or better in any way? --TS 08:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are talking about the same thing, it is not immediately obvious to me that his edit was wrong but I haven't read the whole article context and am really tight for time today. Anyway I would want more discussion before we take in out during his block. His point AFAICT was that if the IPCC reports are free to use internationally published non PR material then they are not a compendium of PR. They are themselves PR so they would be a PR compendium but not a compendium of PR. They would be a compendium of PR and non PR material which is what he wrote. Its an obvious point (peer review is not a pedigree thing and you can have peer reviewed material made of non PR). But moving the PR to a different place in the sentence might be an alternative or maybe there is a subtlety on the relationship between a compendium and its references which I haven't looked at. It is not entirely clear in what manner the reports are a compendium to me and if someone can explain precisely that would be fine. --BozMo talk 09:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Oops, I just took it out. Well, if you like it we can re-add it. I don't agree with BozMo's suggestion that the text should stay during GR's block - that is a curious interpretation of convention, and inappropriate given that GR's block was for - and I quote - You are blocked. Basically for being a complete waste of time. I argue that GR's addition is controversial, and that there was no attempt prior to addition to support the text. Nor, indeed, has there been any attempt afterwards - all the conversation above has been along the lines of "I didn't like something else, so I did this". That won't do William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there were clearly stated objections to GoRight's edit, and would add that he stonewalled requests for a proper explanation, perhaps realizing that his claim that William M. Connolley had argued for the edit would not stand the "sniff" test. I think it's appropriate that William M. Connolley, who should know whether or not he supports the edit, should revert it. --TS 10:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I'd missed that. Yes, I was merely being WP:BOLD and reflecting his position in the article is certainly a misunderstanding of my position. I don't think anyone else has made this same misunderstanding, but I'll be happy to explain further if anyone likes William M. Connolley (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

BOLD suspended?

Rejected: no support

I notice above that someone has said I was merely being WP:BOLD and.... I suggest that BOLD is not a good policy in these delicate times. I propose an extension to the existing community probation explicitly discouraging BOLD edits from articles under the probation. Since the issue arose here I'm talking here first; if this gains any support it can go to the probation page William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Be bold policy is perfectly fine. The trouble is that some people don't read it. A better name might be "Be bold!...but please be careful"--the names of the first two sections in the policy. Being bold doesn't give anybody carte blanche to make an edit for which there is clearly no consensus, and the recently reverted edit was just such an edit, because GoRight supported it by the false premise that another editor had argued for it. Obviously that's not so much bold as suicidal. --TS 10:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe, but I think it would be good to see it "officially" tempered a bit. BOLD says "Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, usually painlessly." which is very easily taken as an excuse. At the moment we're sort-of in a regrettable position of having one policy (be bold, you can be reverted) whilst the probation strongly discourages reverting! William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm i see, now you have made you bold edits with no consensus you wish to prevent any other editors from rectifying the incredible spin you have put on the article? If you feel that wp:bold should be suspended perhaps you should replace the contested text you removed? Which was an obvious breach of the agreement to have page protection removed. --mark nutley (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I didn't claim BOLD, unlike GR, and indeed I discussed it beforehand, unlike GR. If you indeed believe my actions were an obvious breach, then you should report them for enforcement. If you don't believe yourself, then don't William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No i`m afraid you are mistaken, i never said you claimed bold and i never said you did not discuss your changes. I said you made a bold change without reaching consensus and in a breach of honour against the decisions reached in the above article protection section. I am still considering if i should report it, or is there a time limit on these things? --mark nutley (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Problems with a recent edit by Marknutley

Disputed text currently out

Mark has added the following text in this edit:

However the 2035 date was still being used by Jean-Pascal van Ypersele the IPCC Vice-chair in a meeting at the UNFCCC in Barcelona on 3 November, 2009.

The IPCC was accused by India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh of being "alarmist" in their estimated projections of Himalayan Glaciers melt.

The problem isn't so much with the text as the sohurcing. The first source is a PDF containing a transcript of a speech [14]. That looks a tad too close to original research to me. We're not journalists.

The source for the second statement puzzles me greatly. It is an external link to the Wikipedia article Retreat of glaciers since 1850. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for in that article.

Beyond that there may be due weight problems, for all I know, but the most glaring problem at the moment is the inappropriate sourcing. --TS 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i linked to the glaciers article as there is mention of them in the addition. the part about india`s enviroment minister is already linked in by WMC in his previous edit (bbc link)sorry the .pdf is hosted on the ipcc website (check url) --mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried cleaning up the references a bit. I substituted the BBC reference in the immediately preceding paragraph as a reference instead of the Wikipedia article Retreat of glaciers since 1850, which I've removed, and I gave the PDF reference a ref tag. See what you think of it. --TS 14:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks tony, i really have to get the hang of ref`s don`t i :) mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a controversial edit made with no attempt at discussion. I object to the edit, and the failure to discuss William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I objected to your edit and you blew me off, you certainly had no consensus for it and to have the cheek to whine about mine is hypocritical. I also fail to see how it is controversial, it is well sourced and obviously pertinent to that section of the article. Perhaps you should say which part is controversial instead of objecting to it just for the sake of it mark nutley (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've taken MN's added text out. There is clearly no consensus for it - indeed, no-one has spoken in its favour. You'll immeadiately note the contrast to the text change I made, which generated considerable support.

Also, the text itself makes no sense. However the 2035 date was still being used by... However? However what? The BBC report is dated 5th Dec, so something from Nov does not count as a however William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You had no right to do that, only you have spoken against it and no the revisions you made gathered only support from your supporters. I see plenty above who were not happy with what you did. something dated from nov counts as it shows how much the IPCC messed up. Once again you make changes to push your pov without discussing it. You show a blatant disregard for WP process and refuse to debat changes to the article which will not suit you POV. mark nutley (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This talk of "right" is meaningless. What I did gathered support from people who supported it and (a point you seem to have persistently missed, so I'll repeat it) was discussed *before* I made the change. You were opposed to removing a clear error from our pages, because that error fitted your POV. You're now adding text you know to be controversial with no consultation beforehand. You've now made a number of PA against me - that my edits are "obviously" against the probation and that I'm showing a "blatant" disregard for process. These are all false claims by you. ~~Back off, or its the enforecement page for you.~~ [Apologies: refactored to: please cease making these false claims or I will see enforcement against you]

Now, I've asserted above that your text makes no sense and provided a justification for that assertion. You've made no attempt to defend your text at all. Perhaps that is because it is indefensible William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not threaten me, you got support only from your supporters as well you know. I have made no false claims and if you feel i have go get enforcement. I have no need to defend my text, the facts speak for themselves. You have yet to say why is it controversial. mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't know that. I've said your text makes no sense, and provided a reason why. You've rather noticably failed to defend it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Christ almighty your good at obfuscation ain`t ya, answer my question why is it controversial? mark nutley (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there is an enforcement request, I popped in here to try to get some understanding of the context. I must say I'm dismayed at this subthread. MN and WMC, you BOTH need to "back off" from going at each other's throats, I think. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC did refactor, see his strike, above. Words softened. Message about the same. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the "however... still being used.." part is completely wrong, not to mention original research. The dates do not fit neither "however" or "still" (since the BBC article is dated after the event). I also question the expansion of a section that is already is RfC'd for WP:UNDUE concerns. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well no surprises there kim agrees with WMC :) Still waiting to hear why it`s controversial.

Your wp:undue concerns were addressed above you have yet to bother to reply. mark nutley (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lars, you have my apologies, however try to understand my frustration and what is happening here.

WMC is making changes to existing text without consensus, he is reverting good faith edits without offering an alternative which i believe the project rules say he should. When article protection was lifted we were assured that no changes could be made without consensus, WMC has ignored this and gone ahead with business as usual. I will try to remain calm but the way things are going it is not surprising if i get angry. mark nutley (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he's making changes to your text without your consent. The edits have been discussed and have support beyond just WMC. So, be constructive not obdurate. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No you are wrong, this was the disputed text [[15]] which wmc altered without consensus when the consensus was for it to stay, he also altered it without discussion and made the announcement after the change, so i fail to see how he got support for that change when it was done with no discussion. Also that text was not mine, it was the good locusts addition. Yes he did revert one of my additions, once again without discussion first or any attempt to offer alternatives. --mark nutley (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Connolley's earlier edit, which you dispute, was not a change to the essential meaning of the text, so it was not against the spirit of the RFC (which is ongoing as far as I'm aware). You addition, likewise, was well within the spirit, although perhaps the fact that you expanded a text whose presence in the article was already disputed is pushing it a bit. Nevertheless I don't think either of you acted outside the spirit of the probation.

However in the opening of this section I raised several points about the new text. While I worked with you to improve the sourcing the problems stil remain, and it is still a borderline edit because it's an expansion of a disputed section that is under RFC. I think it's quite in order for other editors to refactor or remove it.

The only problem I have is that it was William who did it, and often his editing strays, as you have observed, into the realm of Ownership of articles. I hope William does not mistake my defense of his editing here for a licence to act as a gate-keeper for any and all changes. We're trying to get out of a vicious cycle where point of view editing leads to a group of "defenders" fighting those edits, which gives the impression that they are taking ownership of the articles, and that in turn alienates the defenders from Wikipedia mainstream, which encourages the POV editors, and so on. We should address both concerns to arrive at an acceptable editing environment on Wikipedia's global warming articles. --TS 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[1] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm

[2] ttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/326/5955/924

[3] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm

[1]

[2]

[3]