Jump to content

Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Greenpeace survey

"Roughly half of scientists surveyed by Gallup and Greenpeace dispute the IPCC position."

Whoever added this, please provide

  • sources for the polls
  • margin of error and number of scientists surveyed
  • nature of the sample -- what kind of scientists were surveyed?

Otherwise I have to remove this statement. --Eloquence 12:46 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

did you ever get those sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper (talk • contribs) 12:16, 6 February 2003 (UTC)
No, and I removed the statement accordingly. --Eloquence 12:40 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Greenpeace survey

"Roughly half of scientists surveyed by Gallup and Greenpeace dispute the IPCC position."

Whoever added this, please provide

  • sources for the polls
  • margin of error and number of scientists surveyed
  • nature of the sample -- what kind of scientists were surveyed?

Otherwise I have to remove this statement. --Eloquence 12:46 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

did you ever get those sources?
No, and I removed the statement accordingly. --Eloquence 12:40 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Source

I wish you had looked a little harder. Here is the source:

Greenpeace International surveyed 400 climate scientists, many of whom were involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and reported the 113 responses received as of late January 1992 (just prior to one of the climate treaty negotiation sessions). Asked if there is a serious risk of a runaway greenhouse effect under continued business-as-usual policies, 15 percent said probably, 36 percent possibly, and 53 percent probably not. Other questions involved opinions on the progress of climate negotiations and whether the work of climate scientists has been taken seriously enough. (See New Scientist, p. 19, Feb. 5, 1992.) A summary is available from the Greenpeace Global Warming Dept., 1436 U St. NW, S. 300, Washington DC 20009 (202-462-1177). [1]

(William M. Connolley 19:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)) Having disliked that statement myself and been tempted to remove it, I shall, having read the above. Because:

  • The survey reported above was for 1992 - not relevant for discussing the 1995 report
  • The survey was about runaway greenhouse - this is irrelevant to the IPCC report which does not consider such a scenario.

BTW: I have serious doubts about the reliability of the SEPP survey too, especially after reading the above. But its still there for the moment.

Not any more. I traced it to 1991. See below. Martin 17:01, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Most scientists support 1995 report

Onwards: I've added a note to the discussion of the 1995 report to the effect that most (climate) scientists support it, but not vocally. Without that, the section is seriously biased, because it appeared to suggest that all support for IPCC came from politicians and all opposition from scientists. This is not so. The source is (a) pers comm - ie talking to scientists; and (b) the lack of complaints. A lot of peoples work went into the IPCC reports: if they felt misrepresented, they would have said so.

(SEWilco 15:28, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) I see. How many of the (a) scientists have reviewed the IPCC reports which they support? Expecting (b) complaints about IPCC reports from workers on the reports has several obvious problems, including the size of IPCC public relations and participants using IPCC publication to increase their professional value. [It doesn't seem to have stopped Lindzen. WMC].
However, the IPCC TAR itself indicates the SAR science had flaws: (here a few examples quickly found)
  • "Since the SAR, significant progress has been achieved in better characterising the direct radiative roles of different types of aerosols. Direct radiative forcing is estimated to be -0.4 Wm-2 for sulphate, -0.2 Wm-2 for biomass burning aerosols, -0.1 Wm-2 for fossil fuel organic carbon and +0.2 Wm-2 for fossil fuel black carbon aerosols. There is much less confidence in the ability to quantify the total aerosol direct effect, and its evolution over time, than that for the gases listed above. Aerosols also vary considerably by region and respond quickly to changes in emissions."
  • "Since the SAR, major improvements have occurred in the treatment of water vapour in models, although detrainment of moisture from clouds remains quite uncertain and discrepancies exist between model water vapour distributions and those observed."
  • "Major improvements have taken place in modelling ocean processes, in particular heat transport."
  • "Coupled model simulation of phenomena such as monsoons and the NAO has improved since the SAR."
  • "Incremental improvements in the performance of coupled models have occurred since the SAR, resulting from advances in the modelling of the oceans, atmosphere and land surface, as well as improvements in the coupling of these components."

(William M. Connolley 21:30, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Yes, the SAR had flaws. So does the TAR. So do all reports. The question is, does that completely invalidate them, or not? It depends on how big the flaws were. Noting that the TAR improves on the SAR doesn't make the SAR worthless, as you seem to be trying to suggest.

Flaws in the SAR are significant because of their use as supporting material for a little meeting in Kyoto... (SEWilco 18:22, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC))

The "Not Rocket Scientists" Defense

At the moment I can't find it... A climatologist pointed out that the field wasn't all that popular, so the brightest scientists went into physics, chemistry, and now computer science. So the opinion of climatologists is the opinion of lesser scientists, says the climatologist.  :-) (SEWilco 17:20, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 21:17, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)) I think what you are looking for is "Indeed the most difficult problem of astronomy becomes simplicity itself when compared with the extraordinarily complex agents that are in operation even in the simplest meteorological phenomenon" - R S Ball, Lowndean Prof of Astronomy and Geometry, University of Cambridge (1893).

IPCC impartiality

I'm not sure who to attribute this to:

The SEPP, however, is not an impartial organisation...
(William M. Connolley 19:19, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Me

but IMHO the IPCC itself is not an impartial organization. I believe it was created solely to lobby on behalf of the global warming treaty and would never willingly report objectively on climate change or the global warming theory. --Uncle Ed 14:02, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:19, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) But thats the problem: it *is* just your O. Have you actually managed to find something that the IPCC reported non-objectively? What I've been thinking of doing, and someone else is welcome to beat me to this, is to compare IPCC and SEPP reporting of some topic: the MSU stuff would be an obvious example. Because, as you say, trading opinions back and forth isn't worth a great deal; but a decent analysis is.
(William M. Connolley 21:30, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) BTW, Ed, a question for you: you clearly think the IPCC is biased. Do you think any of the "skeptic" organisations are unbiased? Where do you go for your unbiased info, which is clearly in contradiction to IPCC, though in unspecified ways.

--D. Franklin 04:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) Uncle Ed: nice work Nancy Drew: of course the IPCC is, as you claim "biased." What would be the point of a scientific committee if it didn't take a final stance for its report?! Enough of this foolish obsession with NPOV!

SEPP problems

(William M. Connolley 19:39, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) So, to gather a few quotes from SEPP:
  • They aren't very up to date: their IPCC comments [2], [3] haven't been updated sine the 1996 SAR. And this is one of their "key issues". So key, taht haven't bothered to upgrade to the TAR... why not, one wonders?
  • Side issue: their take on Ozone Depletion in [4] - always a useful sanity test.
  • On their key issues page they state: "Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever". This isn't true. It may have been when the page was written, but since its undated we can't know.
  • On page [5] SEPP sez: "It is colder now than it was 1,000 years ago.". They don't give any source. Its (probably) not true: the only records going back that far say otherwise.
  • Etc etc.
  • Another one: look at SEPPs board of advisors [6]. One of them is Sir William Mitchell. He is DEAD [7]. Is SEPP doing science by Oiuja (sp?) board?
  • And so is William A. Nierenberg [8]. Good grief, being on SEPPs board looks like its bad for your health.

Needs more work...

move to talk:SEPP? Martin

IPCC climate effect damage

The IPCC concluded that 3.5 BILLION people would be affected, directly or not, by the anticipated effects of climate change. This was by sea level rise, increased disease due to rising temperature and disrupted ecosystems, extreme weather, and loss of arable agricultural land due to any of these. This should be in here somewhere. They had a nice chart showing who'd be affected, when.

(SEWilco 04:38, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) The IPCC has several projects and reports. Look at their structure and you'll see that this article could have sections for their tasks, such as risks, effects, reduction, and mitigation. The results could be summarized in there. Or just mention the types of information and people can look up the details.

Interested party source issue

There's a problem using a single source. Especially when that source is lobbying on behalf of a law or treaty involving tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. If a corporation made a statement on an issue affecting its profits, we would all look sceptically at such a statement as coming from an "interested party". Well, I maintain that the IPCC is an interested party. They are not objective. They've been caught several times twisting the facts, leaving out inconvenient data and so on. --Uncle Ed 21:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Interest of the IPCC

What is the interest of the IPCC? ExxonMobil has an obvious motive. What is the IPCC trying to do? They're a bunch of geeks who meet in hotels and have marathon literature-browsing sessions together. Maybe they're doing it for the glitz, the glamor of being in the world spot-light, but this doesn't seem especially compelling to me, since very few people have any clue who the hell any of them actually are... they've just made the acronym famous. Graft 21:12, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
(SEWilco 04:15, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Don't confuse the IPCC with its participants. The IPCC is an organization with an existence which is separate from the non-employee workers on its reports. The IPCC may try to keep itself in existence. Its participants might be under a "publish or perish" situation, where their job performance is rated higher when their name is on a report.
(SEWilco 04:15, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) As for the IPCC interest: [Principles Governing IPCC Work] from [About IPCC].
"2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies"
Emphasis added to focus on the primary role: The role of the IPCC is to assess ... information relevant to ... risk of human-induced climate change ... impacts and options. If there is no human-induced climate change, the existence of the IPCC is threatened. The IPCC could still do its tasks of studying impacts and options, but the interest in IPCC's results would be reduced. If that is read as "risk of climate change", then the IPCC could still produce reports about impacts and options of climate change no matter what the reason for a change, as they just have to make plans in case there is a change.
UNFCCC+IPCC+Kyoto & Money motivation

(SEWilco 16:58, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Here's another opinion about the IPCC agenda[9]:

Cutting in here: it's an SEPP opinion: see that article for details on who the SEPP are. Martin 22:19, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
In particular, UNEP organized the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is both a document and another UN organization. UNEP makes clear that the IPCC was organized in 1988 to provide the scientific framework for the 1992 UNFCCC. Likewise, the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report was the primary input into the 1997 Kyoto Protocol[10] (to the UNFCCC). In fact, the UNFCCC says explicitly that the IPCC is its mandatory scientific source and provides the tasking for the IPCC.
Moreover, though not widely reported in the U.S., Article 4[11] of the UNFCCC requires developed countries to pay all the developing countries' costs of mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. On paper at least, they stand to get huge sums for "capacity building" and "technology transfer", the UN jargon for developed-country climate subsidies to the third world. The developing countries are well aware of this as yet unfulfilled promise of riches.
The promised UNFCCC largesse is predicated on the principle of dangerous human influence on climate (Article 2[12]). And UNEP has repeatedly stated its acceptance of this principle. Given this organizational (and funding) nexus, one can hardly believe that the (UN)IPCC is neutral or unbiased.
In fact, the Preface to the 1995 Second Assessment report from Working Group I ("The Science of Climate Change") is quite candid. It says that "...the underlying aim of this report is to provide objective information on which to base global change policies that will meet the ultimate aim of the FCCC - expressed in Article 2 of the Convention..." Thus, it is clear that the IPCC is never going to contradict, or even weaken, Article 2[13] of the FCCC.

IPCC twisting the facts? Who sez so?

(William M. Connolley 21:52, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Who says IPCC is lobbying? Just you? Who says IPCC is twisting the facts? You? SEPP? Come on, provide something more solid.
(SEWilco 04:25, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) WMC, you've seen references to several people who say IPCC is twisting the facts. [I have? I've seen you, EP, SEPP and Lindzen. The only one with any credibility is L. Who are the others of the "several"? WMC] There was a reference in what you last reverted -- do others here have opinions about the issue? How many others have seen such references? (Oh, great. Another popularity contest to determine reality?)
* The IPCC Summary for Policymakers for TAR Science Working Group Chapter 7 does not agree with the report's more detailed Executive Summary. see IPCC TAR Summary Conflict.
(William M. Connolley 18:43, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) That page still needs a lot of work before it becomes meaningful and unbiased. At the moment, its impossible to separate your opinions from Lindzens opinions from anything that might be fact.
(SEWilco 16:52, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Fine, just open up windows yourself to the TAR WG1 SfP and Chapter 7 Executive Summary. How do the two compare? You'll have to skip over a lot of SfP measurements and predictions to find reference to climate science...try the 3rd page.
(William M. Connolley 21:30, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) At the moment, your tar conflict page is so badly biased & laid out that I don't feel able to go in and improve it: I'd just be cutting out huge chunks. Its better left mostly unlinked, with a non-NPoV note at the top (which I see someone has added). If you care to present one or two carefully documented examples - the most important perhaps - then I'd look at that.
(SEWilco 08:16, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)) I only asked you to look at your own favorite source, the IPCC TAR.

Quantify Bogus Names

I made a few changes, some of which were necessary to present a NPOV — I fear I'm jumping into a bit of a mess with SEWilco causing trouble, but I think my changes are good (unlike his non-encyclopedic content). One thing someone might want to look into is this change I made: found that it contains a number of bogus names. I'd prefer if this was just a hard number. We should specify the number of bogus names and say what "bogus" means (people who aren't scientists, fake people, what?). I get a bit tired of all of the "some", "most", "many", "few" crap in controversial articles like this one. Daniel Quinlan 07:11, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

No, I'm just the target for trouble. Look further at my efforts and those of others. The most noise I'm getting seems to be because my stubs are bigger than others use while they're creating content. You have my history. -- SEWilco 18:54, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I should point out that we normally try to aggregate all external links in the "external links" section. Mixing external links into normal encyclopedia text should be avoided to reduce confusion.—Eloquence 11:12, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

Good idea, hadn't seen this recommendation before, but agree. Anyway, just moved the URL out of the title; it was already below. -- Viajero 13:20, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)
I've seen hints at such a recommendation, but the reference pages were not clear of what is done how and when. There are other features seen casually mentioned that I can't find, so maybe I'm just not looking in an "obvious" place (no, not in Help). -- SEWilco 18:40, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
By "mixing external links", which usage are you referring to? -- SEWilco
  1. Google
  2. Google[14]

Bogus names

We must address the issue of how the bogus names got in there.

Sure. Not here. Martin 17:53, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Were they added by organizers, to pad the list?
  • Were they added by opponents:
    • to show "how easy it would be" for the organizers to pad the list?
    • to provide "evidence" to discredit the list?

Anyway, the whole issue of "who endorses the science", while fascinating and possibly relevant, really should take a back seat to the science itself, shouldn't it? I'm mortally tired of all the back and forth between Clinton Administration officials saying "the science is settled" and various environmentalists and organizations saying things like "this is the hottest year in recorded history, so global warming is real" and "sign the Kyoto Protocal now, before it's too late!".

What I've been hoping for, these last 2 years (!), is a neutral article on global warming -- one which would explain the ideas so clearly that a six-year-old child could understand it and make up their own mind as to who or what was right. And for 2 years, I've been consistentely disappointed.

I think that advocacy within the Wikipedian community has retarded the progress toward making a neutral article. Enough contributors, with enough time and energy, have consistently promoted the view that global warming is a clear and present danger which is certainly caused by human activities which release too much greenhouse gas. The zeal with which opposing views are removed from the relevant articles verges on censorship, and this disturbs me.

What's so fearful about letting Lindzen's views be aired? Who would be hurt by letting Balunias's research be presented? Why should SEPP's analyses, surveys and reports of dissenting voices be dismissed? Because we know global warming is real? That's not neutrality, that's advocacy.

I haven't put my foot down, for one simple reason. I am a developer-rank sysop, and I must not even appear to be "POV" in any controversy, lest I lose my "moral authority". So all I can really do is humbly beg, like anyone else, for some neutrality here.

Please, let's be neutral. --Uncle Ed 14:33, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Don't know yet

There isn't a simple explanation of "who is right" about human-caused global warming because there isn't any. We don't know enough climate science and probably don't have enough data for predictions. The pro-warming and anti-warming groups have their own agendas. The true skeptics are pointing out the bad science whereever it is and continuing to wade through the scientific method to learn what is happening. Obviously things are happening -- climate changes, as does weather (except for "ecological nostalgia" followers who think everything has always been a certain way until it was disturbed). Eventually someone might figure out why things are happening. -- SEWilco 18:35, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Theory, not fact, campaign

While some degree of scientific uncertainty surrounds the causative factors in the process of global warming, it must not be forgotten that the fossil industry has spent millions of dollars to discredit global warming as "theory, not fact". This organized public relations campaign obscures and permeates all scientific discussions on the subject, and any argument needs to be tracked to its source. Public relations stunts such as the Leipzig Declaration need to be exposed as such.—Eloquence 18:43, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

Gee, you sound as if you know it is a fact. The concept of humans affecting global warming has to meet the requirements of a [[theory], such as prediction. Ignoring the other parts of the scientific method, there hasn't been time to see if predictions are true. And the computer simulations aren't good enough to demonstrate understanding through duplication of the instrument record. Changing a theory to a fact often isn't easy. SEWilco 08:37, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear of the benefit of links that aren't relevant to the IPCC here. The first link has one paragraph on the IPCC, for example. The second is "not strictly relevant". The third is an entire website - I'm sure it's got something on the IPCC *somewhere* there, but it's not obvious. If I'm here, I want good quality references specifically regarding the IPCC. Any chance of that? Martin 22:16, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think you have a relevant idea there. Perhaps there should be a separate "IPCC controversy" page, and keep the IPCC page as bare facts. I started in that direction when I split the TAR and discussion about it into separate sections in this document. There certainly are a lot of issues on the page. SEWilco 18:53, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
These links are not relevant to the "IPCC controversy" as they are not relevant to the IPCC.
A seperate "controversy" page is a really bad idea, and one to be avoided at all costs. Martin 19:26, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. You want quality references, but current Wiki style prefers all external links be gathered at the bottom. Footnote-style references are not automated because Wiki does not support page-internal links, and scholarly footnote-style references are discouraged in the Wiki style pages. Wiki style wants enough text in article to not require an attribution for each phrase. All this would result in articles with only links to other Wiki articles, and someone who is trying to find a source for a piece of information will have to read all the "external links" section and figure out from the description of the link if that source might be the source for the info. As "someone" includes editors, the external links and text will get desynchronized so sources will be harder to identify. SEWilco 12:52, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
At the moment, I'll use footnote-style refs to show sources for individual facts and list in "external links" the major source documents. Such as footnote-style links to individual TAR pages, with a link to the TAR document at the bottom of the article. SEWilco 12:52, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

SEWilco 12:52, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ed touches all the bases on controversies

Martin, I think you are right about the relevancy of links.

Eloquence, I think you are right (in general!).

SEWilco, I think your attitude is helpful.

It seems to me that the whole global warming controversy is a test case for the Wikipedia's NPOV policy. How are we to report about an on-going scientific investigation? What is the relationship between 'objectivity' and 'neutrality'? Is there any way to distinguish between a truly impartial source of information and an "interested", biased source?

If there's a well-organized or well-financed public relations campaign, what does this mean in regards to the truth or falsehood of the campaign's object? Arabs spill a lot of ink and spend a lot of money convincing the world that Zionism is racism, but neither their ink nor their money can convince me that my Jewish mom or my Jewish grandad are racists. My church has spent nearly 50 years working full-time to convince people that Rev. Moon is the Messiah; does this devotion indicate a fanatic urge to prove a canard or unswerving dedication to God's truth? (Don't answer that!)

Democrats and Democrat-dominated media reported for the better part of a decade that "the science is settled", while others including "industry-supported" groups reported just the opposite.

Here's the big question: does the amount of money, time or ink spent trying to convince the public have a bearing on the truth of any matter? Is industry automatically wrong because they have an economic interest in proving their point? In the case of tobacco, I think they were doing a cover-up. In the case of global warming, I think not. But does the Economic Factor really have a bearing?

Maybe we need a completely different way to write about controversies... --Uncle Ed 15:03, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Maybe we need a few less red herrings and a genuine effort to either (a) contribute readable, factual text that is relevant to the particular topic at hand, or (b) stop buggerising about trying to make articles on cruically important subjects unreadable in order to push a partizan point of view. Tannin


Looking for the SEPP survey on CC1995: came across a 1991 survey. I think that's the one they're referring to, so I'm moving the paragraph appropriately. And rolling my eyes somewhat... Martin 16:45, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

IPCC objectivity challenged

The IPCC's claims of "objectivity" have been challenged by scientists at NASA, MIT, and Harvard.

Although the IPCC said they "proved" their novel climate change theory in 1992, NASA scientists released data in 1999 which clearly contradicted this theory. --Uncle Ed 21:50, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That would be why this article does not say "The IPCC is objective", then? Martin 21:54, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Oh, am I beating a dead horse again? Sorry. Nice horsie :-) --Ed
The horse will be resurrected. People keep inserting objectivity comments in various articles. -- SEWilco
Ed, which is the IPCC "novel" climate change theory? So many things have been contradicted that I don't know which is being referred to. Particularly as each IPCC report states that the previous one was awful. SEWilco 18:27, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I was unconsciously quoting SEPP. I meant the theory that more CO2 will heat up the air too much. And, btw, good point about each IPCC bad-mouthing the previous one. What does that remind me of? Oh, yes: Soviet regimes each repudiating the "excesses" of the previous regime. Where is the honesty? The selfless devotion to the public good? (Okay, I admit I have a LOT OF TROUBLE maintaining my cool about the GW controversy...) --Uncle Ed 16:54, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Read Climate Change 1995 (The Science of Climate Change): The IPCC says "There are still many uncertainties" and "Climate is expected to..." and "The balance of evidence suggests..." - and that's right at the top of the summary. Science is always a work in progress. That's why every IPCC report notes areas of improvement since the last report, and it's why every IPCC report notes areas of uncertainty. Martin 17:47, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:28, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I've changed "most" to "a few" in the scientists-who-criticise-ipcc section. This is because I've actually counted the lead and co-ord authors (4/10/10/11/12/11/9/11/10/10/9/8/6/6/4; check my math) for each of the chapters 1-14 of the wg1 report, and compared that to those who have complained (2: lindzen and christy (from the dubious webace page; are others available from elsewhere); note that manning doesn't "count" here cos he's just an author; if you want to inc him and get it up to 3 you have to add in all the authors to the 120).

IPCC Objectivity

I've thought about Global Warming and the IPCC over the weekend, and I think I'd rather stay on vacation!! It mainly seems to hinge on whether the IPCC is an "objective" source. Its website promotes the need for objectivity, anyway. But it also seems to reveal that it's already made up its mind that CO2 is the devil and the Kyoto Protocol is the answer to the world's prayers.

So my question is whether:

  • they are still objectively trying to discern whether CO2 emissions have caused/will cause a discernible temperature increase; or
  • they are actively promoting the view that CO2 emissions do cause discernible temperature increases. --Uncle Ed 14:24, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Objectivity is not incompatible with making up your mind, provided that you are always willing to revise your opinions in the light of further evidence. The IPCC's record shows that they are willing to revise past published opinions, or else SEWilco would not be able to have such fun pointing out differences between earlier and later reports. Martin 15:17, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
As Kyoto was based on the SAR, and TAR points out the significant progress and uncertainties in the SAR, I await the Kyoto Protocol update which reflects that significant progress and uncertainty. --SEWilco 20:39, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The uncertainties in the SAR were also pointed out by the SAR itself (which you knew, I'm sure) Martin 20:59, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Having fun and writing a neutral article aren't necessarily incompatible. I guess we'll get something new with each roll of the dice... --Uncle Ed 15:49, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:32, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)) You seem to be very sure that IPCC aren't objective. Up above in "IPCC objectivity challenged" you appear to admit to unconsiously quoting SEPP, assuming the attributions are correct. So, I would ask you:

  • Are you under the impression that SEPP are objective?
  • If not (one would hope not), does it worry you that you appear to have unconciously adopted their opinions?
  • What exactly is your source for "IPCC is biased"?

The asnwer to the your question above (are they still objectively trying to discern CO2 effects) is yes, they are, and being objective. Which leads to:

  • Have you read or skimmed the relevant sections of the IPCC report?
  • If you have, which bits look non-objective to you?
  • If you haven't, errr..., isn't that a bit embarassing?

(WMC attribution at start of above section)

Indeed, many people haven't been reading the documents.

Up above in Interest of the IPCC I pointed out that studying climate change is the IPCC's reason for existing.

  • The IPCC must report the risk, impact, and options related to human-induced climate change. Its assesment is not required to include info not related to the risk (I'm not saying it hides non-warming info, but it does not have to evaluate what is thought to not be relevant to human climate change), so IPCC info is not required to have all climate science info.
No. This is false, because *all* cl ch info (for the "recent" past) is relevant to assessing the risk of future climate change. How does one assess whether the current change is unusual? By examining past cl ch (WMC).
  • (cont) The impact and options studies are for contingency plans, whether they are needed or not. The IPCC can exist if it finds no risk (it has to keep watching), and it can continue issuing its assessment and impact reports in case they are needed.
  • The UNFCCC (parent of the Kyoto Protocol) requires some developed countries to pay undeveloped countries for all costs related to climate change which is caused by humans. (When reading the UNFCCC, note that the Definitions section defines "climate change" as climate change caused by humans.)
Irrelevant to IPCC (WMC)
  • UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocols require monitoring and reporting various climate statistics. At least some climatologists will have to do that work. Developing countries will be paid to do that work, so the climatologists in such countries have an "industry" interest in the continuing need for such monitoring.

-- (SEWilco 20:39, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC))

At the moment, the vast bulk of "climate" type funding goes to the "western" world. I don't see that changing (WMC).


William, I regard SEPP as the most objective source of information on global warming. Like the IPCC, they have made their mind up. Unlike the IPCC, however, they have actually made an effort to find out whether or not emissions of CO2 and so forth have actually led to any discernable warming.

Well, I find this pretty weird. You're entited to your opinions but you're wrong. I can't understand how you can read the IPCC reports and still think this. [WMC].

Despite having received some help from my church early on, and exactly one donation from an "energy company", SEPP aren't beholden to any interests: political or economic. The guy who started it helped NASA develop its satellite-based program of measuring the earth's atmospheric temperature. Also, I think his connection to my church's Science Conference is a sign of objectivity: who else but someone interested in truth would dare be associated with a 'cult' and risk being tarred with the same brush? (My answer: only a scientist who considers knowledge more important than reputation)

Your church is irrelevant. I don't even know what it is (don't tell me: I don't care). SEPP is beholden to Singer. Singer is biased.

You really have to wade through a lot of statistics to get a clear picture. I think SEPP (and to some extent Lomborg) make a good case that the IPCC suppresses statistics that shed doubt on the theory they espouse. Have they mentioned temperature measurements made from weather balloons? How often do they check the predictions made by their "models" against temperature readings made AFTER those predictions? How much emphasis do they place on Balunias's work with solar variability?

This is pathetic. You criticise IPCC in total and utter ignorance. Have they mentioned weather ballons? Of course they have. Go to the wiki IPCC article, a the bottom (stupidly, someone moved the refs) is a link to the TAR; go to "obs ch"; go to upper atmos. Or just go to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/059.htm. Now, please, learn something about IPCC before you criticise it. For solar, see: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/213.htm.
So: show me where SEPPs evaluation of these matters is.

I think the IPCC exists not "to study climate change" but primarily or even solely to garner support for the Kyoto Protocol. Tens of billions of dollars are at stake, maybe even 100s of billions. The US would never reduce its energy consumption, it would just do "emissions trading", thus not reaching any Kyoto "targets" but funneling Immensely Huge Amounts of money to third world countries.

This is just your opinion. Unsupported by evidence, it worthless.

People who aren't "objective" are generally into money, power, or power over money. SEPP doesn't look like it's interested in any of these. The IPCC, run entirely by UN member nations' appointed representatives looks like it's about something other than disinterested scientific objectivity. Blocs of UN members have managed to get Zionism declared as racist (the Arab bloc). Why not get carbon dioxide declared a pollutant? There's a lot of money up for grabs.

Oh good grief. Stick to climate, at least here.

You asked, I answered. My cards are on the table. Care to lay down yours? Or should we just get back to making a mutually-satisfying, NPOV article? --Uncle Ed 16:23, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I "support" the IPCC consensus: in the sense that I believe that it reflects the consensus of scientific work (William M. Connolley 17:15, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT); and above).

L's un-missing caveats, and models discussion

(William M. Connolley 17:31, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)) SEW attempted to bolster L's criticisms by failing to find support for the positive model statements in the overall exec summary within the summary of ch 7. Thats because he should have been looking in ch 8. So I did...

(SEWilco 15:36, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I see what happened. We haven't found a way to describe a glass with water at the midpoint, so one of us is saying it is half-full while the other is saying it is half-empty.
You looked for support of models, while I looked for support of L's statement that ch 7 shows that the models aren't treating well the known processes. You're looking at the successes of models, while I'm looking at the uncertainties and weaknesses in the science which is needed for simulation.
(William M. Connolley 16:00, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)) No. You inserted L's claim that the sumary didn't include caveats. I looked at the text and discovered - surprise - that caveats were there. We're doing textual analysis, not science.
(SEWilco 08:09, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I interpret
  • This chapter dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments
as meaning the chapter dealt with two issues:
  • This chapter dealt with basic processes, and also found problems with model treatment of processes
while I think you interpret it as:
  • This chapter about basic processes found problems with model treatment of processes
This is silly. L comlained of lack of caveats in the summary. I pointed out that there *are* caveats in the summary, addressing the very points he asks for caveats upon.
(SEWilco) I think that's caused by the different interpretations of the phrasing.
  • If you read it as ch 7 found science problems and problems with model use of science then the one-sentence summary [15] seems to gloss over the many problems in the basic science, including that needed by models. [16].
  • If you read it as ch 7 found problems with model use of science then the caveats from ch 8 are sufficient.
  • You think top-down is fine, where a model which produces an expected result is a success, and then more details can be added to the model so as to replace estimates with simulations of known processes.
No. Models are built using the best available physics and computational resources. When better are available, they are put in. They are analysed on that basis.
Yes, so the best physics are used, but details are omitted due to resource restrictions or unknowns. (SEWilco)
Thats what I said "...and computational resources".
OK, so we agree that models have implementation limits. (SEWilco)
I think you believe the top-level results are already OK, while I think they're not based on enough detail

-- such as the problems with the major greenhouse gas, water vapor.

I stated what I think one of our differences of beliefs is. I shouldn't have introduced another issue at this point. (SEWilco)

You seem to think that repeating "water vapour" as though its a magic charm will do something. It won't. If you think there are problems with water vapour, then find them, and write intelligibly about them.
That is one of the issues which ch 7 points out have many unknowns in the basic science [17], which are missing in the single-sentence summary. Let's deal with that later, and get back to the L issue. (SEWilco)

Some models are on slow equipment so some processes are replaced with simpler estimates or averages (actually, in the case of flux adjustments, TAR says models without them emerged only "recently"[18]).
If you knew about climate models, you would know when they emerged, and not have to rely on vagueness like "recently".
The IPCC considers "recently" sufficient. I saw no need to assemble a multiproject milestone history. And how much I know about simulations is only relevant in an ad hominem exchange. At the moment I'm trying to determine where our semantic nets differ so we can find what should be explained to readers. (SEWilco)
As L mentions, atmospheric models still have cloud and humidity problems[19]. Ocean and land difficulties are also in ch 8. And additional resolution is still desired[20], but limited by computational resources. But then, everyone is limited by computational resources [21], and we can't requisition a planet on which to run a simulation.
Yes: this is the point: IPCC (and the scientists whose work they are using) are honest about the limitations of the models. Which makes L's complaints all the odder.
  • I think more bottom-up is needed, where the processes which cause climate have to be understood better before simulations can be built which can produce trusted results.

You want delay.
Surely you don't want the Kyoto design to be implemented, based on obsolete and incomplete science? Do MTBE[22], Rabbit_(ecology), water hyacinth [23] and kudzu mean anything to you? Several were acted upon by experts; I don't know what was considered in releasing rabbits for hunting.
If you want to talk about Kyoto, do it on the Kyoto page.
I was stating two viewpoints of the situation to see if I had found a reason for different POV about L's statement. I think we're wandering from the understanding of this issue to more general issues. I'll mark with STRIKE my suggestion that this be ignored. (SEWilco)

For example, a lunar-landing simulation can succeed by having rocket thrust be based upon the current height and amount of fuel &mdash the craft will oscillate up and down in the process, but a little additional calculation based on speed can dampen that out, and this can be refined further to produce a desired behavior. Or the calculation can be based upon the underlying science, from the formulas for calculating acceleration, gravitational attraction, and knowing engine thrust abilities, thus planning the engine thrust for the entire trip. The former approach takes less calculation but is harder to adjust when changing between goals of minimal fuel use or constant deceleration. The latter approach requires knowing enough about the relevant physics and engineering.
For example, a lunar landing could be done based upon 1960's and 1970's technology, with levels of cost and safety appropriate to those times. Or, one could say: why bother? In 10 years time we could do it cheaper and safer: lets delay. Then do the same, ad infinitum.
Hmmm... no answer?
Too many issues in converting from the simulation context to the implementation context.
Do we agree that we can't plan on solutions with future technology?Climate has to be understood, and I think we disagree about how much detail is needed. (SEWilco)

Putting a rocket engine on Jupiter and moving it to Alpha Centauri may work if you only know about the ecliptic and having to turn around when halfway there. But there are advantages to using Newtonian and relativistic physics to calculate what will happen when. And the results might depend upon whether you know that some radiation shielding will be needed, and if you don't even know that is a factor then the result is based on another random factor (luck).

to Martin

You removed my comment that SEPP had raised no issues with the TAR. But you failed to replace it with the issues that they had raised. So what are they? I can find none on their web site. Do tell. (William M. Connolley 16:07, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)).

I just did a google search of their site - they've talked about it a fair bit.
OK, I started at the top and tried to find a link to it, and failed.
That's why Google is needed - there's a lot of stuff in archives for The Week That Was which are not linked to by topic. (SEWilco)

You also removed the para showing that SEPP had used misleading/inappropriate surveys to support their position. Why? (William M. Connolley 16:07, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)).

More relevant at SEPP than here, no? Martin

To Ed

(William M. Connolley 18:58, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)) Ed: you added "It is governed by a board appointed by representatives of UN General Assembly members who are part of WMO and UNEP.". Whats your source for that? I'm not saying its wrong, but isn't obviously compatible with http://www.ipcc.ch/about/chart.htm

The IPCC website does not clearly state who's behind it. I had to use other sources.
Yes, but what are they? At the moment, its a sourceless statement that appears to contradict what the IPCC say. Unless you can source it, it should be replaced with what they say.
I've added my best guess.

And: you added "yet it has been accused of misrepresentation, bias and violations of generally accepted scientific methodology." This reads to me like weasel words.

I've toned that down a bit, and I see you've added "some of the sci whose work is summ". Good. But still, who do you mean? Are you including Lindzen? Is his work in there? Not that I know. S+C? Who?
If it sounds weasel-worded, by all means delete or fix it. The last thing I want to do is overstate my case. I trust you to be objective ^_^ --Uncle Ed 20:10, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Aha... I'll see what I can do, though not for a day or two.

(SEWilco 17:11, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)) Ed, perhaps your board is the IPCC Bureau and Chair which are elected in the IPCC plenary sessions? http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm (see Organisational Structure) If not, you should mention the board's relationship with the IPCC Chair or Bureau.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change/Archive_1&oldid=1079103289"