Talk:Criticism of the IPCC

Totally Biased

I note that there's a bunch of missing criticism's - specifcally, those from individuals who believed the IPCC was not alarmist enough. Why aren't those included? Certainly, you must have come across it in your research? Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well to be honest nope :), i did ask a few of the AGW guys to help out with this but they declined :( Feel free to add what you think is missing mate mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What kind of research went into writing this article? Did you review the academic sources, or just newspapers from the last few weeks? Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, you alledge that you "did ask a few of the AGW guys to help out with this but they declined." Please provide diffs. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I just used newspapers, i believe they are wp:reliable? Diffs of the guys i asked to review the wip [1] asked Bozmo [2] asked kim [3] asked chriso, none responded to the request. (btw, is it now ok for me to delete this article from my sandbox?) thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why have you removed the entire antartic mistakes? mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Could it be because it was unsourced original research? You only used primary sources, which didn't say what the sentence stated. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I hardly know where to begin.... The whole thing is teeming with synthesis, original research, undue weight, unreliable sources, unfocused criticism, POV etc. All of the text is criticism of sections in the AR4 WGII or III reports, none of it is about the IPCC.... Doh! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but all the links provided lead to criticism of the ipcc, most the the sources are reliable if i made a mistake with some it will not be difficult to get new ones. I`ll let you guys do what you think is needed, then i can rebuild with more reliable sources parts which have been removed if needed. I`ll also point out, there is no undue weight here, there are plenty of ref`s covering everything mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets take this paragraph as an example:

The IPCC was accused by India's Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, of being "alarmist" in its projection of estimated Himalayan glacier melt [1] when the Indian government released their own report by geologist Vijay Kumar Raina.[2] Rajendra_K._Pachauri The head of the IPCC accused Ramesh in an interview in The Guardian of being "arrogant" and dismissed the findings as "voodoo science". He also described the report as "school science"[3] It was later found, however, that the IPCC had been in error with the 2035 date.

This is 100% based on original research. There is no references given to the "alarmist" quote (it is not in the BBC source). The middle is about "report", which isn't, it is a discussion paper (polemic?) which doesn't reflect the Indian governments position (despite what the paragraph indicates), and comments by Pachauri about it - none of it connected by reliable sources, and none of it is about the IPCC or about the 1st sentence. The last sentence is the only critique of the AR4. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems that you disagree [4]. Now where did you get the "alarmist" quote from? (just to begin with). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alarmist Which report? mark nutley (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That ascribes the word "alarmist" to "Lindzen." You ascribed it to "Jairam Ramesh." Please take care that you're not fabricating quotes. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from Hipocrite's comment: That article is strangely enough not even related to this issue, which is about the Indian gov., Pachauri, and the 2035 error. It is from 2007, and the issue here is about something that happened in late 2009. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the point of that, which I removed as synthesis, was to show "in the past Pachauri showed contempt for people that disagreed with him about glaciers, but he was wrong about glaciers, and they were right." Is that about accurate, MN? Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No you are wrong, he defended the ipcc date of 2035, thus causing the ipcc to be criticised, how hard is that to follow? mark nutley (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A 2007 Spiegel article, which doesn't mention Himalaya at all, (or 2035) cannot ever be a reference about something that happened 2009, or about the Himalaya. Whats so difficult to understand about that? And it certainly cannot be used for attribution of a quote to someone who isn't quoted! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Next up: The "report" isn't a "report" [5] but a discussion paper. Do you disagree? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Next up: The discussion paper does not reflect the Indian governments position, but is alone V.K. Raina's position - i quote:

The views expressed in these papers are not meant to represent the views of the Ministry of Environment & Forests, or the Government of India; instead we hope to gain useful lessons for public policy from the discussions contained in these papers and feedback received on them.

Do you disagree? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fail to see the difference kim, the article says the enviroment minister not the government right? mark nutley (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence i quoted is written by the environment minister, as an intro to the discussion paper. And your claim is "..the Indian government released their own report" - which isn't correct. Correct? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, then change it to the indian government released a paper they commisioned into glacial melt. mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Which would then be misleading since it doesn't reflect the indian governments position. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

{outdent} Did the indian government commision the paper or not? Add in the governments position as well if you think it`s needed mark nutley (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the Indian government "commissioned" the paper or not. Do you? Does one "commission" papers? Is a ministry per default the "government"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well governments do commission reports yes, if you feel it would be a more npov term to use the environment ministry commissioned it then thats fair enough. Like i said it is easy enough to drop in the indian governments position as well. mark nutley (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes Mark, they do sometimes commission reports - but this is no report. Do you have any secondary source that says that it was commissioned? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No i do not, i will try to find some, so remove it until such a time as i find out who paid for the paper to be done. I`m guessing the list of government agencies in the appendix of the report does not count? mark nutley (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I intend to nominate this article for deletion. Useful content should be shifted to Criticism of the IPCC AR4 (most of the substance already appears there anyway) or the main IPCC article. There just isn't any reason for this article to exist given that we already have those articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of the existance of that article. It clearly covers everything here and more, in a quite encyclopedic tone. Any relevent info in this article should be moved there. This should either redirect or just be deleted. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I intend to keep this article, not have any criticisms hidden away in a sub article. There is plenty here which is not in either the IPCC article nor the ar4 article mark nutley (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, is in this article, sourced to secondary sources, and not in a more relevent article, specifically? Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"There is plenty here which is not in either the IPCC article nor the ar4 article" can you give a couple examples of items which do belong in an encyclopedia, but would not belong in the AR4 article?--SPhilbrickT 15:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

{[edit conflict}}

Rainforests, hurricanes, neither mentioned in any other article. The mistakes over holland the mistakes about africa all these are a are a direct reflection on the ipcc and they have been criticised for it. The political fallout from these mistakes is not covered anywere else either. An article for the critics of the ipcc is needed, they have been criticised so here is were it should be mark nutley (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And these don't apply to AR4? Anything that's specific to AR4 can - and should - go to that article regardless of whether this article is kept or not. Guettarda (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is as blatant a POV fork as I've ever seen. It should be AfD'd pronto. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed look like a POV fork... most if not all "criticism of" articles do, and this one particularly so. I don't think that criticism of this particular organization is a particularly encyclopedic subject. Is it notable that criticism occurs? I don't recall reading any articles that are about the fact that there is criticism. It is probably more notable that the organization is the target of political opposition. Anyway, this article is not about there being criticism of the IPCC, the article is a criticism of the IPCC - it runs down various specific areas where the IPCC supposedly got things wrong. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@kim and chris, i asked you guys to look at this a week ago, you did not even bother to respond to my request and now you want to delete the article. Perhaps you should have raised your concerns then? There is plenty in this article for it to be retained, i have no doubt it needs work but i think doing an afd out of hand is wrong mark nutley (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I was on a voluntary ban from WP for a week[6] - that might have something to do with it? I had seen the draft, but frankly it was so POV and contained so much synthesis that i wouldn't know where to start. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have incoroporated all of the information that MN said was not in the AR4 article into the AR4 article. What else is missing, or can we just merge this already? Hipocrite (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What? no, it`s only been in main space a few hours, should you not wait to see what other people have to say? mark nutley (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide items that are in this article, that have secondary sources, and that are still unincorporated in other related articles. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I already did. I dispute this rush to delete this article without community involvement either leave it be or do an afd and let the people decide mark nutley (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You should note that I incorporated all of the information you felt was missing into the AR4 article. Please review that article closely and determine what is still in this article that is not in that article that is sourced to secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, i did not ask you to incorporate the information, i believe this article is fine and the text should remain here. as i have said either afd or leave it be mark nutley (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Right now, this article is little more than a badly-written POV fok of a much better article. I've taken the stuff from this article that wasn't in that article, and put it in that article. This article is now nothing more than a POV fork of the other article. Please review the other article and explain what in this article isn't in that article that needs to go there - if you can't find anything, we'll go ahead and redirect this article there, untill such a time as you can write an article about criticisims of the IPCC that don't just deal with AR4. Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Last time, if you moved stuff to another article then you created a point of view fork, not me. If you delete this and redirect without community input i`ll put it back. mark nutley (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, the rain forest issue, the hurricane issue, the Netherlands issue and the Africa crop yields issue all belong in the Criticism of the AR4. If there is any gray area, it is that process criticism is arguably criticism of the IPCC itself as opposed to the AR4 report. But as the AR4 article already discusses process criticism, I see no good reason (at this time) to tear it out. Maybe later, if that article gets too large.--SPhilbrickT 03:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, do you not think that the political fallout and mistakes made by the ipcc should be read about? An encyclopedia is meant to cover all the bases after all. This is not just about the ar4 report, it is about the ipcc, the mistakes they have made and the consequences of that. I believe this sort of stuff belongs in an article of it`s own, not buried in a sub-article about ar4. mark nutley (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm? Your arguments here are advocacy/POV arguments - not encyclopedic arguments. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense kim, there is no advocacy here. This is about the IPCC not the ar4 report. If the majority of criticism of the organization is due to the ar4 report then that`s just part and parcel of this article. If the mistakes were in tar as well as ar4 then they would be getting criticism for that as well. It`s not the report which is the issue here, it is the IPCC. mark nutley (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, i was referring to your argument above. The "do you not think..." and "buried" arguments. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. "do you not think" asking for opinion from someone. "buried" as in, making such critic`s of the IPCC hard to find. How many people do you think type Criticism of the IPCC AR4 into a search engine? mark nutley (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Per the above, it is quite clear that this article was an accidental, and less good, recreation of Criticism of the IPCC AR4. The obvious solution is to redirect it there; I've done so William M. Connolley (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Then undo so, this is still under discussion mark nutley (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Don`t bother i already did it, if you think this article should go do an mfd mark nutley (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for an AFD; the discussion above is clear enough. You're the only person who wnats the current article, and you're provided no reasons why it should exist: it is an obvious inferior recreation of an existing article William M. Connolley (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, either do an afd an mfd or leave it be. Those are the options when an article is disputed, you can`t just arbitrarily remove an article based on just your opinion. mark nutley (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No. #REDIRECT exists for a reason. Now, settle down and actually provide some reasons why this article should exist. You've provided none so far William M. Connolley (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am settled thanks. Please note the following taken from new article creation.

• "To be worth including in the encyclopedia a subject must be sufficiently wp:notable and that notability must be wp:verifiable through references to wp:reliable sources". Notability reliable sources and verifiablity all covered.
• "If you know that your article will require multiple edits and/or a significant amount of time to properly list references and/or make presentable, it is recommended that you place the template "newpage" on top of the page to signify to other editors that it's a work in progress. Articles tagged with the new page template are generally not subject to deletion except under certain extreme circumstances (e.g. blatant attack pages)." According to this from new article creation as this is a new article you can`t just delete it. I have given good reasons above for it to stay, those reasons are still valid. mark nutley (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If an article is essentially the same as an existing article, it can be redirected. This seems so obvious I don't understand why you are arguing against it. This article is an inferior recreation of an existing article, as everyone except you has realised William M. Connolley (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

They are noting alike, it is not obvious why an article about criticism of the ipcc is the same as an article about one of their reports. As said if you feel it is a fork bring that to the appropriate forum to discuss mark nutley (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no items in this article that aren't about the AR4. There is only one item that isn't referring to the WGII/III report (none that refer to the finished AR4 WGI report). This is a simple WP:POVFORK by now. WMC is 100% correct in his assessment that this article is a poor mans fork of the Crit of AR4, merge (which has already happened) and redirect is the only way forward. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I read both articles. While I think this title might be a better candidate for a landing spot, right now, it seems to be simply a good idea for a redirect. I don't find the argument for keeping it separate convincing, but I do think that preserving the history is useful, in that Nutley's research could be culled for potential additions to the main article. It seems clear that this article was created in good-faith, and not intended as a POV fork, but that is what it is now, regardless of intentions. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Though I'd say both titles share the fundamental problem of including abbreviations. Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut sentence

I've cut this:

It also led to India setting up its own climate change body the INCCA

First of all, because it was based on/referenced an article in the Telegraph that has been retracted. Secondly because it is wrong. The Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment was not created in response to this, it was created/planned before Oct 2009[7] and thus cannot be a response to something that happened later (in Nov/Dec/Jan 2009-10). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• You're right about this. I restored it based on simply looking at the source, and accepting that it wasn't mistaken. I apologize for my oversight in this regard. As it's now a redirect, the point is moot, though. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)