Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Myles Allen

Myles Allen gives his view about the longer term developments. . dave souza, talk 07:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Source request

T. O'Riordan (1997). "Review of Climate Change 1995 – Economic and Social Dimension". Environment 39 (9): 34–39.

Can anyone find this article? I can't seem to locate it, and we don't even seem to have an article on the journal it was supposedly published in. NW (Talk) 03:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to post a note on GregJackP's talk page. He may have it Minor4th 04:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This [1] suggests it may be in "environment and planning a" (but that can't be because the volume numbers don't fit: http://www.envplan.com/allvols.cgi?journal=A). Mind you this [2] Tol paper says just "environment". R Tol is User:Rtol so you could ask him. Only 2 google scholar hits are to cites in Tol papers, so maybe Tol got the ref wrong? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

O'Riordan, Timothy (1997). "Economic and Social Dimensions". Environment. 39 (9). Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor & Francis Ltd: 34–39. doi:10.1080/00139159709604768. ISSN 0013-9157. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help), "Unfortunately, involving these parties in the preparation of the final report politicized the whole IPCC process" (at p. 35), "many of the equity assessments and the highly controversial cost-benefit analyses" (at p. 35), and "This particular dispute lay at the heart of the outcry that followed the release of the early drafts" (at p. 38). The source both generally and specifically supports the statement it is cited for. GregJackP Boomer! 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Greg. Minor4th 15:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Doing further research, there may be a prob with Ebscohost. It shows a UK journal, but the ISSN points to the St Louis journal on WorldCat, so I don't have a clue which one is accurate. It could be the publisher is based out of the UK and actually publishes it in St Louis. Anyway, I was able to read the article. GregJackP Boomer! 15:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A CONVENIENT LIE

I have found actual proof of the corruption in the form of an IPCC report showing the changes made after government consultation. Anyone wishing to see my full debunking of the latest IPCC documents email me at "pahgcdt@hotmail.com".

In short, the IPCC cannot claim to be a scientific body as long as government has input into the decision making process. There is no good reason for government review and feedback during the generation of a scientific report. The attached document shows, government has no fewer than two opportunities to influence IPCC reports as they are created.

"I have found examples of a Summary [For Policy Makers] saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said," - South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, an IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

"The IPCC's editors could - and often did - reject the peer-reviewer's comments, a reversal of the normal practice in scientific peer-review." - Climate data analyst John McLean after reviewing the documents of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I.

"…it would not be surprising if working scientists would make special efforts to support the global warming hypothesis. There is ample evidence that this is happening on a large scale.... Data that challenges the hypothesis are simply changed. In some instances, data that was thought to support the hypothesis is found not to, and is then changed." - MIT Climatologist Richard Lindzen

"These [IPCC] Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts." - Physical chemist Dr. Peter Stilbs, chairman of the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm

More than 31,478 US scientists have signed a mail-in petition rejecting global warming as part of the Global Warming Petition Project,26 including 9,029 scientists with PhDs. Additionally, a minority report from the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has released a list of over 700 scientists rejecting global warming. This list is perhaps more significant because it includes biographies from the scientists as well as specific quotes. The list includes many current and former IPCC members as well as several Nobel Prize winners.

The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report states that of the nine variables that affect climate change, they have a "low" to "med" level of scientific understanding for seven, and only a "high" level for two. It is with this data that they program their 16 computer models. The IPCC's current stated level of confidence in their conclusions would not be enough to warrant scientific publication on other subjects.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies.

"Are there other possibilities to explain the temperature increase of the last 40 years? Yes! Current warming is consistent with the 300 year trend. Changes in solar activity could explain much of it. Then there is the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere 'hot’' zone that is supposed to exist over the tropics. Temperature measurements show that the hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!" - Steven M. Japar, PhD atmospheric chemist who worked on the IPCC's Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports.

"Even doubling or trebling (tripling) the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." - Geoffrey G. Duffy, professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ, who has published 218 journal, peer-reviewed papers and conference papers.

In 2007 a British court ruled that if Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was shown in schools the students would also have to be presented with nine factual errors in the movie.

The IPCC is driven by politics and is not an objective scientific body. Its conclusions are untrustworthy. There is still scientific debate about global warming. Computer climate models are unreliable. Earth's temperature has been warmer in the past. It is not hotter than normal. Changes in energy from the sun drive climate change on Earth, not carbon dioxide. Therefore, global warming has not yet been proven.

PAH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.44.51 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this news. Unfortunately, your publication does not meet the standards required by WP:SOURCES policy. You are of course welcome to propose improvements to the article based on suitable reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 08:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I noticed a trend in this section where the lede for example is a rebuttal to criticism (somewhat odd??) and the paragraphs that are positioned as "global warming skeptical" all contain rebuttals that are equal in size to the criticisms themselves, or larger. In contrast, paragraphs within the section that take the position the the IPCC underestimates, or understates the global warming effects and dangers seem to have none of the previously mentioned rebuttals? It seems to smell of NPOV 207.81.141.208 (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"The global warming scare was fun while it lasted, but the joke's over."

Cancun climate conference: the warmists' last Mexican wave - by Christopher Brooker. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8181558/Cancun-climate-conference-the-warmists-last-Mexican-wave.html

“Scientists”, we were told, are calling for everyone to be issued with a “carbon ration card”, to halt all Western economic growth for 20 years.

Meanwhile, Dr Rajendra Pachauri was telling us that we must spend hundreds of billions on covering the world’s oceans with iron filings, on building giant mirrors out in space and on painting all the world’s roofs white to keep out the heat from the sun.

Cheers Steve Harnish (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, global warming is a lie and asbestos is harmless, too. Why should Booker's opinion pieces be of interest to this article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Systemic bias" section

I've undone Ron's addition of a "systemic bias" section sourced to Pielke's blog and a UPenn report. We can discuss Pielke - at least he is an expert. However, he is mostly riding his hobby horse of local as opposed to global effects of climate change, and you cannot cherry-pick his views without providing proper context. Johnston, the second source, is a lawyer with a small side of economics. He is not qualified to evaluate science, and the publication cited is a working paper, i.e. not a properly peer-reviewed source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, Pielke is an ISI highly cited researcher. His blog posts are widely followed by climate experts around the world. His "hobby horse," as you derisively referred to it, is a climate forcing of the first order according to the peer-reviewed literature. The fact the IPCC ignores land use changes is worth noting in this article. The UPenn paper is not self-published. It was published after an extensive review of the peer-reviewed literature. This section is about criticism of the IPCC, not peer-reviewed criticism of the IPCC. I have restored the section.RonCram (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ron, the IPCC is not ignoring land use changes. They even published a report on nothing but land use change in 2000 [3], and revisited the topic in AR4 chapter 7 [4]. Yes, Pielke is highly cited. But that does not give us license to quote him out of context. And the UPenn paper is not peer-reviewed (it's a working paper, the equivalent of a "Technical Report", which every scientist can publish without significant oversight), hence useless as a source by a non-expert. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, you tried the "self-published" excuse and that didn't fly, but you are trying to resuscitate the "peer-reviewed" excuse. It's not going to work. The IPCC may mention land use changes but they are ignoring or downplaying the conclusions of the papers in order to advance their narrative. This is bias, pure and simple. The criticism by Pielke is out there for all the world to see and most well-educated climate amateurs already know. It is just embarrassing for Wikipedia to have articles which name some of the criticisms but censor others, especially when the criticisms are from such a notable climate scientist. This is damaging to Wikipedia's credibility. The UPenn report does not have to be peer-reviewed to be notable. This is an interesting and notable report because it shows the impact the IPCC assessment reports have on legal cases and the legal system. It generated a great deal of interest in blogs and newspapers when it came out. Again, the section is not titled "Peer-reviewed criticism of IPCC." It is about criticism. Other than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, do you have any other ideas for hiding these criticisms from Wikipedia readers? RonCram (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As Stephan points out, the proposed section gives undue weight to one or two fringe views, and appears to repeat blatant errors. Interest in blogs and tabloid newspapers isn't significant, if the critique is significant to this broad topic there should be more reliable sources available. Please present them and discuss proposals rather than trying to keep reinserting this poorly sourced "criticism". . . dave souza, talk 21:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the point. If someone - anyone - had found a serious hole in the IPCC position, it would be headlines in every news outlet, it would have been top of the agenda at Cancún, major parties would be presenting to-and-fro papers at world conferences... If all we have are a couple of posts on a wordpress blog and that Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper ("Cited by 1", I see), then it's just not notable in the same sense that the IPCC is. --Nigelj (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Only one law review paper? I can point you to three (DeWolf 1999; DeWolf et al. 1999; DeWolf et al. 2000) that say it's ok to teach ID in U.S. public schools. Good luck with that ;-) . . . dave souza, talk 12:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you seem to think that by including this short paragraph I wrote, that it would be tantamount to a surrender on the scientific debate about global warming. Dave here seems to think this is somehow analogous to teaching Intelligent Design in schools. Actually, Dave, decisions about Wikipedia edits do not change policy decisions made by school boards. A criticism section is, by nature, giving voice to people who have criticized. The criticism does not have to be embraced by a majority. The criticism only has to be notable. Roger A. Pielke's criticism is notable because he is an ISI highly-cited climatologist. If you do not know who Pielke is, read his article. A blog posting is considered a reliable source about the views of the blog proprietor. Attempting to block Pielke's views from Wikipedia readers only puts Wikipedia in a bad light, something that already exists because of the heavy-handed edits by some who are now subject banned. Wikipedia needs to rehabilitate its image by becoming a little more reasonable. Regarding the report by University of Pennsylvania Law School, this is notable because of its impact on the legal system and legal cases involving global warming, such as the EPA litigation. The report has hundreds of footnotes to peer-reviewed literature which the report claims the IPCC has ignored or downplayed. The release of the report generated a great deal of fanfare in blogs and news reports and its existence is widely-known. While the report is not a defeat of the IPCC, it is a significant and notable criticism of it - in a large part because of its length, high standard of scholarship and publication by a major university. I am restoring the section. RonCram (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My advice to you is to stop reverting in this contentious section, and seek consensus before editing. Your section gives undue weight to Pielke and a lawyer's report: it's clearly disproportionate to describe this tiny minority (arguably fringe) as "Critics" as though they were among a huge number of notable critics – if their criticisms are significant, you should be able to find multiple third party reliable sources showing their significance: so far you've failed to do that, and the section really has to go unless and until you present a better case. You'd be well advised to delete it yourself while preparing that case, your statement above indicates that you're aware of the sanctions and should realise the need to comply with them. . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I am familiar with undue weight. While the guideline has been modified slightly from my previous knowledge, the criticism section I wrote still complies. Quoting from UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." These criticisms are held by a significant minority of people. Roger A. Pielke is prominent. He is an ISI highly-cited climatologist (if you don't know what that means, please look it up). A publication by University of Pennsylvania Law School is a prominent publication. There is nothing fringe about climate skepticism. [5][6][7] Climate skepticism is seen to be a viable position because a number of prominent climate warmists have recently become much more skeptical. See Judith Curry,[8] Harold Lewis,[9] and Denis Rancourt [10]. This talk of climate skepticism as if it is part of the lunatic fringe is really unbecoming of Wikipedia. These are very famous scientists who are speaking out against bias of the IPCC. Your attempt to silence them makes you and Wikipedia look silly and uninformed. RonCram (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ron Cram's addition looks reasonable to me, and I'm sorry to see the old "fringe" argument (a favorite of now-banned editors) return. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The addition still has the issues of failing to demonstrate significance, misrepresenting sources, and, a favorite of now-banned editors, misusing blogs as a source. Not good. My opinion remains that this is inappropriate as being inadequately sourced and giving undue weight to what at best is a tiny minority view in science. Will review this when time permits. . . dave souza, talk 22:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at the risk of repeating myself, if the points made in Pielke's blog and this lawyer's paper were so important, why do we have no references to them from the main-stream media, the scientific press, or anywhere else? In the absence of such supporting cites to show their significance, they are non-notable and do not warrant a whole section in an article on an international UN body. --Nigelj (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dave and Nigel, you seem to want proof that Pielke and Johnson's criticisms are accurate scientifically. This is an incorrect standard to apply. If a criticism has to match your opinion of correctness, then you are forcing your POV onto the article. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to take sides in a debate. Both Dave and Nigel seem to be unaware of the size and strength of the scientists in the climate skeptic camp. You need to come to terms with the fact the skeptic camp is growing. If the skeptics held a scientifically unsupportable position, that would not happen. The criticisms are obviously significant. Dave, you say the paragraph misrepresent sources. How so? In what way did I misrepresent Pielke or Johnson? Blogs are a reliable source for the opinion of the blog proprietor, not for the point of science being debated. A criticism section represents the opinion of people, so the use of blogs is appropriate here. RonCram (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

RonCram, you've failed to provide the necessary verification of the significance to the topic of Pielke's blog comments or Johnson's legal paper, reliable third party sources are required and hand-waving about a "skeptic camp" doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements. If it's notable you should be able to provide multiple independent sources showing both the significance of these criticisms in themselves, and their significance to the topic of the article. As for the science, Pielke is of course welcome to put forward a review paper for peer reviewed publication to gain support for his claims which only seem to have tiny minority support among climate scientists. Wikipedia isn't the place to overstate the significance of his blog thoughts. . . dave souza, talk 21:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

RonCram: You need to provide independent, third-party sources to back up your claims about the alleged skepticism of climate change by more than a handful of scientists who actually study climate for a living. The "size and strength" you are referring to might just have to do with the fact that some of the biggest deniers of climate change and backers of its criticism happen to also be very wealthy (and either don't know about or don't care about the science behind it), so they make a lot of noise. Sorry, but a lawyer's scruples about climate change are irrelevant to the scientific debate. Also, a blog (even by a scientist) is, by no means, an important source for such an important topic (it is not peer-reviewed!). Show us articles in major scientific peer-reviewed journals where the author(s) provide evidence to back up the skepticism and then it is relevant to this article. Otherwise, it is just fringe science and it needs multiple independent citations to even be mentioned. PS: Just because a scientist has reservations about an overwhelming scientific consensus, does not mean that this single scientist's opinions should be given equal weight. --Thorwald (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The last editor who reverted the paragraph asked for more sources. Fine. I am restoring the paragraph with a few changes and additional sourcing from notable climatologists. RonCram (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, a lawyer is unqualified to comment on the science of climate change (I removed his info.). Also, sorry, Cato is probably the very definition of "biased". They, too, are unqualified to comment. Please find qualified (i.e., made by actual climate scientists) sources; any others will be removed. --Thorwald (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Critics do not need to be reliable, only notable. I completely disagree with the deletion, and Pielke and Johnson appear to be climate scientists. I'm going to add a {{content}} tag until this is resolved. Removing the tag while the discussion is in progress is non-constructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnson "appears to be a climate scientist"? Please explain. 06:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that the section became heavily decorated with banners while I was working, but I just made some changes so that we better represent what Curry is actually reported as saying in that source. Misrepresenting BLP positions on important matters is very bad form and we must not make that mistake. I agree that we cannot give space to blog comments in a top-level article like this, no matter who makes them. If they are worldwide significant to the IPCC, then mainstream media will pick them up, and it is those that we should work from. --Nigelj (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I quite disagree. The mainstream media would probably not pick up serious criticism of the IPCC. And, a blog is reliable for the purpose of reporting the views of the blogger. If the blogger is notable, than the criticism is notable, and probably should be included in this article. Now, I'm not convinced that all of RonCram's additions are appropriate, but there were more examples of notable criticism than just Curry's. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"The mainstream media would probably not pick up serious criticism of the IPCC"? Are you kidding?? Don't you think their readers or their proprietors would be interested in hearing that the IPCC, and the whole global warming "myth" that they had "constructed" was crumbling down? They'd love it, but even they have to be constrained by basic facts; unlike bloggers. --Nigelj (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Judith Curry, Patrick Michaels and Roger A. Pielke are all climatologists. They are all notable. The fact Cato published Michaels criticism does not make the criticism invalid or biased. You are trying to create a standard which is completely foreign to Wikipedia. I practically quoted Judith Curry. None of those criticisms should even be controversial. The paper by the legal scholar is a tad different, but still a notable criticism from the legal profession. His opinion is based on the peer-reviewed literature. There is nothing which says criticism can ONLY come from climate scientists. RonCram (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In the latest version, I made some adjustments to make it clear that Curry is still concerned about global warming - but I removed the cheerleading added by one of the editors. I left out some of Curry's harsher statements such as when Curry accused the IPCC of "corruption." I think I am being quite reasonable, gentlemen, and I would like to see you do the same. It is not reasonable to exclude criticism from someone because he is not a climate scientist. It is especially unreasonable to exclude criticism from an ISI highly-cited climate scientist like Roger A. Pielke.RonCram (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, wikispan just reverted the edit without comment. He should have at least used WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.RonCram (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You should have offered to trade one of your surplus WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policies that you're looking for, Ron, are WP:UNDUE and other guidelines linked from there. If what these guys put in their blogs was worth quoting, someone else would have published or quoted it by now, like Nature did with Judith Curry. --Nigelj (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Use_of_blogs_and_self-published_sources. As the arbs commented in the case, this is intentionally more restrictive than general policy on SPSs. Guettarda (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, actually I had this ruling in mind when I wrote the paragraph and quoted Pielke's blog. A blog posting is a reliable source for the views of the blog proprietor. If you doubt me, reread your own link again. The only question is if Pielke's view is notable. It is for two reasons: First, Pielke is an ISI highly-cited climatologist. As a noted climatologist and prolific author of peer-reviewed papers, his opinion is important to Wikipedia readers. Second, Pielke's blog post gives depth and detail to a viewpoint held by other noted climatologists (Curry and Michaels). The particular blog postings I cited were first written in 2007. They did generate news at the time. News outlets do not keep their stories online forever. There is no excuse for attempting to block Wikipedia readers from knowing about these criticisms. RonCram (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? The ruling says that SPSs can be used "typically articles about the blog or source itself". This is neither an article about Pielke, nor is it an article about Pielke's blog. So what - you were aware of the ruling and chose to ignore it? Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That (Guettarda's) is an appropriate comment, one of the few I've seen from either "side". However,

1. IPCC is not a living person; criticisms not directed at an individual or individuals are not subject to WP:BLP restrictions, including the more restrictive requirements on source notable opinions to the opinion-maker's web site.
2. it is not the case that the appropriate expert for discussing errors in IPCC procedures is necessarily a climate scientist; a lawyer or an NGO organizational expert might be more appropriate.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

it is not the case that the appropriate expert for discussing errors in IPCC procedures is necessarily a climate scientist; a lawyer or an NGO organizational expert might be more appropriate. --> Mmm, not so sure about this. It might be true if we were talking about COP15 procedures, but the IPCC is supposed to be strictly a scientific body. jps (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom's language here followed their usual preference for inscrutability. My guess is that the restriction on blogs is meant only to protect BLPs of contrarians, and that they don't give a damn about quality of sourcing in general. But that's only a guess. Perhaps we should request clarification? I'm willing to do the legwork on the request. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

While the ruling mentions BLPs, it doesn't restrict itself to them. And had they meant for it only to apply to BLPs, there wouldn't have been any reason for them to say that it meant to be more restrictive than existing policy. Guettarda (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's clear. If they had meant for it to be a general restriction, why the mention of BLPs? (It's like all the confusion that results because the Second Amendment begins with "A well-regulated militia...") Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled Boris - it almost sounds like you expect clarity in arbcom rulings. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the arbcom's ruling was quite clear. You cannot use blog postings a reliable source for factual information, but you can use it as a reliable source for information about the blog's proprietor when he is talking about himself or his views. Reread the ruling. It's very clear.RonCram (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The ruling says "typically articles about the blog or source itself". That means you could use Pielke's blog in Pielke's bio, or in an article about Pielke's blog. This is neither of those. Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am willing to go to arbcom on this. Several editors are being completely unreasonable.RonCram (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, utterly unreasonable. Imagine that - actually quoting the ruling in question and expecting people to abide by what it actually says. Can you imagine? Guettarda (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What? You cannot read the word "typically?" You don't understand how a scientist's opinion can be reliably expressed in his blog? Yes, that is unreasonable. RonCram (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There are thousands if not millions of scientist-blogs, university courses, textbooks, public lectures, and message board comments I can point to which comment favorably on the IPCC. Cherry-picking the skeptics for inclusion here is indeed a violation of WP:WEIGHT. jps (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(a) RonCram, I have asked you before to try to be civil. This is not a matter of personal preference, it's a matter of Wikipedia policy. (b) Yes, I can read. Again, I ask: do you consider this to be an article about Pielke or about his blog? That's what the "typical" case where it would be OK to use his blog as a source. (c) As for your statement that a scientist's opinion can be reliably expressed in his blog - how is this relevant? The arbcomm has set more restrictive conditions on the use of SPSs in the area of climate change. My opinion on the reasonableness of arbcomm rulings is irrelevant here. Guettarda (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, the fact a scientist can reliably express his own opinion in his blog is relevant because criticism of the IPCC is a matter of one's opinion. Do you think Judith Curry's opinion is more reliably expressed because it appeared in Nature News instead of her blog? Of course not. If anything, it is less reliable. Curry could conceivably say she was misquoted by NatureNews, but she cannot say that about something she wrote in her blog. The rules do not allow us to use a scientist's comment in someone else's blog because someone may be impersonating the scientist, but when Pielke is the proprietor of the blog - well, then we are certain it is Pielke expressing his opinion. I do not understand why this is a difficult concept for you to understand. This is a matter of Wikipedia policy. The policy is clear. Your attempts to obfuscate the policy are unreasonable. The article is about the IPCC, not Pielke. But Pielke is not a "typical" blog. This is not a "typical" situation. The ruling does not say "only articles about the blog or source itself." If they wanted to say "only," they could have. By saying "typically," they are admitting exceptions. Further unreasonableness is seen in the contrary reasons given for why the paragraph should not be allowed. First, people say the opinion or criticism is not notable because not enough people hold the opinion. When I provide more examples, people say I need more sources. When I provide more sources, people say it violates WP:WEIGHT. Right now, the single more important criticism of the IPCC is not represented in the article. RonCram (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If that isn't clear enough, Coren's clarification should be:

I obviously cannot speak for all of us, but I certainly understand that this is more demanding that policy, and that is the intent. In general experts' blogs can be used as sources for certain things without straying too far from WP:V and WP:RS — but when every citation becomes a battle then it's best to shy away entirely from the gray area. (Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision/Archive_7#Suggestions)

No matter how often you repeat it, your point is still entirely irrelevant. Unless, of course, you believe that this is (a) an article about Pielke, (b) an article about his blog, or (c) arbcomm rulings do not apply to you. Guettarda (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, here are the salient points. 1. Criticism is a matter of one's opinion. Do you agree or disagree? 2. A blog post by the owner is a reliable source for the owner's opinion. Do you agree or disagree? RonCram (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither point is relevant unless (a), (b) or (c) apply. Which do you believe applies here, and why? Guettarda (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't consider that a plausible interpretation of the Arbcom ruling. It's a plausible, and probably accurate, interpretation of the interaction of WP:BLP and WP:SPS, but I see no evidence that it was intended to apply to all climate change articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, Arthur has it right. Neither (a), (b) nor (c) apply. As I pointed out before, "typically" means "usually," not "only." Clarification is starting to come. Jclemons noted that WP:SELFPUB applies and I noticed that WP:BLOGS also applies. Pielke is an established expert in the field. Now back to my questions.RonCram (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

So you missed both the quote from Coren made during the arbcomm case and his comment in the request for clarification? Ignoring everything except the information that can be twisted to fit your views? Very, very impressive. Guettarda (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I read it. But Coren's opinion is not determinative and its goes against WP policy.RonCram (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. So now you're the authority on what the arbcomm can and can't do. Too funny. Though I suppose consistent with the rest of your arguments... Guettarda (talk)

Coren expressed an opinion without any support. Jclemons expressed his opinion (contrary to Coren's) and provided support showing he was right and Coren was wrong. You are still dodging my question. Do you agree with the two statements or not? 70.187.133.147 (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That last comment was mine. I slipped away from the Christmas celebration for two minutes and forgot to login. My apologies.RonCram (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The only thing left when I looked at this section was a overblown narrative about Judith Curry. I shimmied it down to a summary and shunted it off to the appropriate location. jps (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

jps, your edit was not appropriate. Do a little reading of the Talk page before making edits.RonCram (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I read the talkpage. It was uninspiring, to say the least. I stand by my edit and you can expect more like that from me in the future. Cheers! jps (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

jps, according to your statement just above, it appears you made the edit first and then read the Talk page and tried to explain your actions. I find it is better to comment on the Talk page first and then make the edit. BTW, you are right about the overblown narrative on Judith Curry. It was atrocious and not my idea at all.RonCram (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an incorrect interpretation of my statement. In this case, I read the talkpage before even reading the article! In this case, this section of the talkpage was so full of meaningless protestations and arguments that were unrelated to the content in the article that I thought it better to just be bold and fix it. Sometimes talking on the talkpage first makes sense. Sometimes it doesn't. I stand by my edit. jps (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification filed

I've filed a request for clarification regarding the intent of the "blogs and SPS" remedy. Anyone who wants to say their bit is of course welcome to do so. Hopefully we can get this cleared up before things become more contentious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Boris.RonCram (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps useful guidance will come of this, though replies from Arbcom so far have only added to the vagueness and ambiguity. As usual, Arbcom is "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Signatories.

I took a look at the list of signatories to the letter. Thus far I've looked up 6 names, using a random number generator. The first is a Neurophysiologist, the second is a forester, the third is an organismic and evolutionary biologist, the fourth was a computer scientist (admittedly a related field), The fifth was an ecologist, the sixth was an expert in the physics and chemistry of valcanoes and water. --216.67.32.189 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

openletterfromscientists.com is a spoof site now

There is a link in the article to http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/ but at least today it is a spoof site. Maybe they lost the domain?--Qgil (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Guess so.... I changed the link to an AGU statement on the matter, which was the most reliable source I could find. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Vincent Gray Criticsm

Removed from article as hardly any significance to topic:

Retired coal industry researcher Vincent Gray wrote:

"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning." National Post

Someone best known as a skeptic, apparently Vincent R. Gray, complaining in the Financial Post section of the National Post, is no more news than dog bites man. At best it's a primary source for a fringe view, and needs more coverage in more reputable sources if it's to feature anywhere, let alone in the main article on the topic. . dave souza, talk 18:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

IPCC WG3 and Greenpeace report

Steve McIntyre has posted a study of the source of WG3's recent claim that

Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies. a new report shows.

Per McIntyre's research,

The basis for this claim is a Greenpeace scenario. The Lead Author of the IPCC assessment of the Greenpeace scenario was the same Greenpeace employee who had prepared the Greenpeace scenarios, the introduction to which was written by IPCC chair Pachauri.

We should wait for a third-party report, I think, but it doesn't appear that the IPCC has learned anything from their recent stumbles. Quite remarkable. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you're keen on pushing comments by bloggers, the comments of the rather more qualified Michael Tobis may be of interest. McIntyre's expertise in innuendo appears to be unabated. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave, you (and others) may be interested in the comments of Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, here. And I think your comment on "McIntyre's expertise in innuendo" is unjustified, especially here.

Once again, we should wait for 3rd-party RS publication of this, which I expect won't be long. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Andrew Revkin at the NY Times has now published an account of this: A Deeper Look at an Energy Analysis Raises Big Questions. So we have our RS, but still might better to wait a bit. WP is not a newspaper, etc. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And Revkin has quickly added a couple of updates, including a statement by a lead author. Looks like much ado over very little. Since the report isn't mentioned in this article, it is indeed premature to start including this blog speculation. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave said, "Looks like much ado over very little." Well, I don't think so, but you (and others) may want to read Zeke Hausfather's take on this at Lucia Liljegren's: A new IPCC “scandal”: a tale of poor choices and press releases. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

More blogs? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Kim, there are blogs and blogs. Hausfather is a regular contributor at the Yale Forum on Climate Change, and IB we have used one or more of his articles as RS's here. In the climate change world, he tilts more "your" way than "mine".... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Still blogs. The Arbcomm case specifically cautioned against blog-sourced content. If this is notable, it will be covered by some high-quality source. Content only covered by blogs, no matter how notable the author, really doesn't belong in this article. Guettarda (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Another RS report: Climate change panel in hot water again over 'biased' energy report, The Independent (UK), June 16, 2011
  • "Another"? A handful blogs and an editorial don't amount to anything of substance. An editorial which says that unnamed critics are unhappy. In essence, he's saying "bloggers have complained!" Wow! Let's create an article about it! Let's create a whole series of articles about it! Or you could stop wasting everyone's time creating entire sections on every bit of trivia you come across. Guettarda (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea: you can save your time by not sniping here.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's an even better idea: Wait until a story is notable before starting to "prepare the grounds"? And generally not use Wikipedia as your personal blog/news-aggregator. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Kim, I think this is a pretty standard way to prep for writing a breaking-news section. Only RSs will go into the article, if we judge this substantial enough to include. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillman (talk • contribs)

No, that is definitively not a "pretty standard way"... We're an encyclopedia here - not a newspaper. We're supposed to be reactive, not pro-active in reporting. You are trying to scoop - not trying to describe an already existing item - and that is something that WP should never do. (per WP:NOT#JOURNALISM) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• New RS: The Economist's Babbage covers the IPCC-Greenpeace controversy. He's unimpressed with the IPCC WG3 authors' responses so far, and has some constructive suggestions. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote, "In this blog, our correspondents report on the intersections between science, technology, culture and policy." Very questionable if it's a rs. Authored "Jun 17th 2011, 17:15 by O.M." so no indication of any expertise, an anonymous blog correspondent. . . dave souza, talk 20:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't "Babbage" one of their regular columnists? I've never much cared for that Economist practice, but always figured it was some UK tradition thing... --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Babbage is the name of the column, not a pseudonym of the author. The Economist does not credit individual authors or editors except in rare cases. It's not a UK thing, it's an Economist thing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

<ec> Note the plural, it looks like "Babbage" is the blog, and articles are written by "our correspondents" which might mean no more than people who write to them. WP:NEWSBLOG says "These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." No evidence of that, at best it's a comment piece by an anon. Given the propagandising of business interests it would not be surprising to see this rather trivial spat published somewhere, but this ain't it. If it does get published, care will be needed to show mainstream assessments of this rather gossipy claim. dave souza, talk 21:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephan. Dave, the column is bylined "O.M."; perhaps a regular Economist reader can decode? It certainly looks like professional journalism. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• "OM" is Oliver Morton (science writer), a widely-published writer and former chief news and features editor at Nature.

This op-ed at The Australian quotes Lynas at some length, and notes that "The affair has developed into a new scandal for the IPCC, dogged by criticism over the quality of some of its research material."-- Pete Tillman (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Another opinion piece, this time by a partisan newspaper (tabloid?) known for unrelenting partisan attacks on science. Hardly a third party source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Conflict of interest claimed for IPCC energy report by Fred Pearce, New Scientist. Pull quote:

The charge of a conflict of interest has been made by people unconnected with climate scepticism.

• Should Greenpeace Be Writing IPCC Reports? By Hank Campbell, Science 2.0. Pull quote:

For climate scientists to make positive inroads in policy regarding a problem we know is only going to get worse - pollution and climate change - they need to police the actions of a few in their circle, most notably the very loud.

---

I think we have enough RS's to write this up now. Lead with Andrew Revkin, Oliver Morton and Fred Pearce, I think. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Still very much in the blogosphere, Pearce is essentially reporting that Lynas has blogged some demands that no-one with campaigning or industry connections should be allowed to be an IPCC lead author. Since authors don't get paid for the work, that cuts down the field of experts available and makes it harder for this intergovernmental panel to do anything. Probably what its critics want. Of course this comes from "climate change campaigner Mark Lynas", so pot meet kettle. Essentially this seems to boil down to a complaint about press releases going out before the relevant papers. Take it up with the IPCC press office.
As for Science 2.0, that seems to be somewhere between a blog and a wiki. "Hello and welcome to Science 2.0®, the world's largest science outreach network and the flagship of the Science 2.0 network. By getting an account you can customize your profile with pictures, banner, a personal blogroll and more. You can also leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site, make blogs on your column or eventually write articles that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of other Science 2.0 participants." Nothing there about qualifications or expertise, nor in the profile of Hank Campbell.
Arbcom made a point about sourcing climate change info from blogs, these proposals look very much over that line. Please stop wasting people's time with such inadequate sourcing. . . dave souza, talk 20:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Nature editorial on the IPCC-Greenpeace affair: "Shot with its own gun", 29 June 2011. Re IPC COI policy: "Pachauri is on record as saying that the new conflict-of-interest policy will not apply retrospectively to the hundreds of authors already selected for the IPCC's fifth assessment report, due in 2014. This is unacceptable. He should make it a priority to ensure that the rules cover everyone involved — including himself." --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Also some other interesting quotes in that article: "Claims in the blogosphere that Greenpeace 'dictated' the IPCC's renewable-energy report are vastly exaggerated. In fact, the Greenpeace writer was one of six authors of a peer-reviewed paper that examined an extreme scenario of favourable economic conditions that allowed the maximum possible take-up of renewable energy sources by 2050. Although the scenario is optimistic — and no doubt in line with the agenda at Greenpeace HQ — its inclusion is entirely justified. How else could the report answer the question of how much renewable energy would be possible under different economic assumptions?

    The IPCC's vulnerability to such attacks should also prompt it to reconsider how it frames its findings. Journalists and critics alike gravitate towards extreme claims. So when the IPCC's press material for the May report prominently pushed the idea that renewables could provide “close to 80%” of the world's energy needs by 2050, it was no surprise that it was this figure that made headlines — and made waves. The IPCC would have saved itself a lot of trouble and some unwarranted criticism had it made the origins of this scenario explicit."; "There is no escaping the fact that the IPCC operates in a latently hostile environment. Its critics are vocal, frequently melodramatic and unlikely to surrender the limelight any time soon. The IPCC has to stop handing them ammunition on a plate." NW (Talk) 18:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these. It's a reasonably-balanced editorial, though still a bit too concerned with providing WG3 a fig-leaf, in my judgment. Good to see them pressing Pachauri re COI.

It will be awhile before I can write this up, but you (or anyone else interested) are (of course) welcome to do so. It definitely seems to pass the notability test. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. If you don't have the full version of the editorial, just pop me an email. NW (Talk) 22:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations have broken links

I have found a number of important citations with broken links. I cannot make any more edits, could someone please correct, or remove these? 173.58.71.50 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Good gosh a golly, yes, it's terrible! Outright violation of WP:Verifiability. (Don't any of these editors know how to cite?) There are incomplete citations, very incomplete (i.e., bare url) citations, and some of those are dead links. Well, I can fix some of that (though my plate is getting rather full, perhaps not right away). But I will do it my way -- including {{Harv}} templates. I am not going query, ask, or propose, for the simple reason that as all of you watching this article have failed to fix these glaring violations you have effectively quit the field. Assuming these are not fixed before I get started, I will let you know when I am done. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a scientific body

Even the opening sentence of the article is wrong. The IPCC is essentially a political body not a scientific one. It's brief is uphold the theory that CO2 is causing global warming. So naturally it does this, come what may. SmokeyTheCat 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lacking reliable sources to support your statement, it's just an opinion. And that's not what this is built on. And before you get all hot to argue the point, please note that this is not a forum. – J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be so hasty when attacking uncomfortable suggestions, please!. WP may not be a forum, but Talk Pages are definitely a forum for improving the article. So, in that respect, this IS indeed a forum. Perhaps the statement could be reconsidered as a poorly-worded request to improve the article by including more discussion of the political ambitions of the IPCC. How are we going to deal with the recent revelation that two-thirds of the IPCC's Climate Bible were written by World Wildlife Fund flacks? Eight of the authors of the Ecosystems chapter were written by authors affiliated with the WWF. How will we improve the credibility of this article if we don't discuss the political roles of Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, and the WWF within the IPCC? Santamoly (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that what Smokey said is significant, and I'd like us to make some effort to find reliable sources that support (and oppose) the viewpoint he introduces.

• Supporters of the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) generally assert that the IPCC is an objective source of scientific information.
• Opponents of AGW have been accusing the IPCC of bias for at least 25 years.

In accordance with NPOV policy, therefore, I request that we present both pro-IPCC and anti-IPCC viewpoints. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

[The IPCC] was established [...] to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. [...] The IPCC is a scientific body. I also think you confuse objectivity/bias with scientific/political, or you seem to talk about something different than Smokey. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your source for "The IPCC is a scientific body" is the IPCC itself. What's the policy on using a the topic of an article for a source? Do we rely on whitehouse.gov for information about The White House? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The opening statement here makes no suggestions (uncomfortable or otherwise), it is a declaration of personal opinion. Smokey says the IPCC's "brief" is to "uphold the theory that CO2 is causing global warming", but without citing any kind of source. Stephan cites the actual brief, which says otherwise; that trumps the unsupported personal opinion. The accusation that the IPCC is biased (or that its own statement is not reliable) is WP:FRINGE, and per WP:WEIGHT does not belong in the lede. Finding sufficient reliable sources to pull that viewpoint out of fringe status is highlydoubtful, as that ground as been well trod, and has a diminishing trend; such an effort would certainly constitute WP:POVPUSHing.

And you all have been around long enough to know all that, so cool it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Are you actually saying that if I produce a reliable source, who is the author of a peer reviewed paper on climate change, who feels that the IPCC is biased, that would constitute POV-pushing? (I assume I'm not understanding you correctly, because giving all points of view on a controversy is not POV-pushing.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you, nor that you understand WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. One peer-reviewed paper does not, in general, make someone a RS, much less a significant voice. For comparison, the IPCC position has been endorsed by scores of academies of science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot say that IPCC is a scientific body without an outside source saying so. I'm sure there are some. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the US EPA [11]. Then there are several papers making that claim: [12] [13] [14] [15], and more is easy to find. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You can do better than that. [1] and [4] just quote the IPCC charter; [5] says "generally accepted as the main, expert, scientific body on climate change issues", and shows bias in the name of the journal; and I can't read [2] and [3] as behind a paywall. As I said, I'm sure there are outside sources, but I'm not sure any of those are. If "scientific body" is referenced to a reliable source which really says that, I have no objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but the sources are plenty good. [1] and [4] use the same phrasing as the IPCC, but in the authors' voice. [5] is from a collection of scholarly papers published by OUP. Also see WP:PAYWALL. If you are in law school, your institution almost certainly can provide access. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Uncle Ed: Yes. Neutral point of view depends on the WP:WEIGHT of all sources. If there are a hundred (a thousand!) papers saying "white", and one paper that says "black", the positions are not equal, and presenting them as equal would be NON-neutral POV. It is not a matter of presenting all points of view, but of presenting them in proper importance or weight. To insist on giving any source more weight than it warrants is pov pushing.

For all the carping you might find that some narrow position or another of the IPCC is not exactly balanced to someone's personal satisfaction, there is no signficant pov (and I suspect not even a single reliable source) that the IPCC as a whole, or its work, is biased. Nor has anyone here presented any documentation of any "brief" to "uphold the theory that CO2 is causing global warming". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

More than a scientific body

The discussion above shows some confusion about the IPCC which I've tried to resolve by clarifying the lead. The IPCC is an intergovernmental scientific body, involving both scientists (and other experts where appropriate) and representatives of 120+ governments. The review procedure involves both, and summaries for policy makers are subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. Note that I've also worded the Nobel Prize bit to correspond more closely to the source, and have moved that to follow from the other plaudits rather than mixing it with the basic description of the IPCC at the start of the lead.
Weart describes it as being formed as "a new, fully independent group under the control of government representatives" and "neither a strictly scientific nor a strictly political body, but a unique hybrid. This met the divergent needs of a variety of groups, especially within the United States government, which was a prime stimulator for the action." There's more in Weart, and my aim is to improve sections of the article using his history as a basis. Work in progress. . . dave souza, talk 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Good. "Weart" is, of course, Stephen Spencer Weart and his book is "The Discovery of Global Warming". I believe it has a good reputation, but be careful of not getting too wrapped up in any one source.

And the citations here are still wretched. I am almost ready to start hacking on them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 19:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

IPCC citations

As part of IPCC citation work I have created a Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/citation subpage that documents the canonical format (and other subpages with the AR specific details). Hopefully all that is clear, and will be satisfactory. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource, new report

Wiki is not a new aggregator and thread lacks specific article improvement ideas such as draft text

From Kampala meeting, per NHK ... http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session34/doc01_p34_prov_agenda.pdf 99.112.212.242 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC) From Talk:Extreme weather ... U.N. Panel Finds Climate Change Behind Some Extreme Weather Events by Justin Gillis published November 18, 2011 New York Times (page A5 in print), excerpt ... The findings were released at a conference in Kampala, Uganda, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a high-profile United Nations body assigned to review and report periodically on developments in climate research. They come at a time of unusual weather disasters around the globe, from catastrophic flooding in Asia and Australia to blizzards, floods, heat waves, droughts, wildfires and windstorms in the United States that have cost billions of dollars. U.N. Sees Links to Extreme Weather by Nicholas Bariyo and John M. Biers November, 2011 Wall Street Journal (page A11 in print), excerpt ... Climate change is leading to at least some cases of more extreme weather events across the globe, according to a report released on Friday by a United Nations-led scientific panel on the subject. The IPCC report comes against the backdrop of the most severe drought in the Horn of Africa in 60 years, unseasonably heavy snow in the U.S. and floods in Thailand and a national drought emergency in Tuvalu. It includes recommendations for measures, such as early warning systems, better land-use planning and more sophisticated risk management to address climate change. 99.56.120.136 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC) As I said before (but was anonymously deleted) these reports are not about the IPCC. By the IPCC, yes, but they do a lot of reports, and unless someone is proposing to do a bibliography of all of the IPCC's reports there is yet to be shown any reason for featuring this one report. You are confusing news about unusual weather with the agency that sponsored the research that lead to the news. This article is about the agency, not unusual weather. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Unusual weather redirects to Extreme weather. 99.35.12.139 (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC) So? What is your point? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 22:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC) (od) From What Happens When a Super Storm Strikes New York? by Douglas Fox November 18, 2011 4:00 PM Popular Mechanics, excerpt ... UPDATE: Today, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the organization that releases major reports every few years on the state of climate change science, released a new report specially focused on super storms and other extreme weather events. Heat waves will get longer and more intense, IPCC says, and the frequency of heavy precipitation events and other major storms will increase over the 21st century in many places. "It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur throughout the 21st century on a global scale," says a summary of the report. [99.181.143.108] 03:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Need to get exactly four tildes. Again, what is your point? This is news (and Wikipedia is not a newspaper), about a report by a Working Group of the IPCC; it is not about the IPCC. And we don't need to rely on Popular Mechanics for details of the new report when we can go straight to WG2. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken Caldirea resigns from AR5, criticizes outcomes of AR4

New Directions for the Intergovernmental Climate Panel By Andrew Revkin, NY Times, December 21, 2011

Kenneth Caldeira: "Can anybody point to any important positive outcomes resulting from the IPCC AR4 process? Is there reason to expect a greater positive impact from the IPCC AR5 process?

I am all for scientific reviews and assessments, and I think the multi-model comparisons reviewed by the IPCC have been especially useful. However, it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillman (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 December 2011‎

.... Again, I think the IPCC has been extremely useful in the past, and I believe the IPCC could be extremely useful in the future. But, if the IPCC is to be extremely useful, it must re-invent itself, so that it efficiently supplies decision-makers with the most important and reliable scientific information while placing a minimum of additional burden on the scientific community.

(As an aside, I recently resigned as a lead author of an IPCC AR5 chapter simply because I felt I had more effective ways of using the limited amount of time that I have to engage in scientific activities. My resignation was made possible because I believe that the chapter team that I was part of was on the right track and doing an excellent job without my contribution. Had I had a scientific criticism of my chapter team, you can be assured that I would have stayed involved. So, my resignation was a vote of confidence in my scientific peers, not a critique. It is just not clear to me that, at this point, working on IPCC chapters is the most effective use of my time. Also, I do want to be careful not to pre-judge IPCC AR5. It may turn out to be a far more efficient and effective vehicle for scientific communication than I now anticipate.)

An important question is: How can the IPCC be made into a more efficient and effective vehicle for scientific communication? It would be good to have this discussion before the AR6 train leaves the station.

[Dec. 23, 11:08 p.m. | Updated | Caldeira, noting quite a bit of Web chatter about his withdrawal from leading the writing team for a report chapter, offers an expanded comment below.]

Call it naivete, but I was surprised when the last remnants of the climate-science denial team erupted with glee in the blogosphere at my remarks on the IPCC made on Dot Earth earlier this week. This shows that I may have been wrong about the effectiveness of the IPCC, as at least this marginalized faction thinks that the IPCC is an important and effective too for scientific communication -- important enough that they feel it is worth their time to try to weaken its influence.

Instead, I was looking for was to strengthen the IPCC, ......"

Thanks, Pete, we can rely on you to pass on gossip from the climate-science denial team blogosphere. . dave souza, talk 07:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, Dave. I imagine Andy Revkin and the NY Times would be a bit surprised to be labeled as part of the "climate-science denial team blogosphere" .... And Merry Christmas! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Before you go, do you have any intention of cleaning up the mess on Ken Caldeira, the reason for his resignation having been made clear to you? — ThePowerofX 19:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that you have raised the matter here, does that make Wikipedia part of the "climate-science denial team blogosphere"? And what is the point in raising the matter here in the first place? From what I read, Caldeira was criticising the IPCC's effectiveness in communicating the message, not the science it was based on. So what is your point? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Style etc. edits

I'm going through and making edits mainly for readability and style. I might be a bit bolder than that if I find problems that are fairly easy to resolve. In the long run I would like to see the subarticles on the individual reports either improved and extended, or merged in here. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

By "individual reports" you probably mean the several Assessment Reports (right?). There is a very significant difference between an organizaiton, and the reports of the organization. And the IPCC's Assessment Reports are so immensely notable that there should not be any question of their not having separate articles.

I want update the IPCC citations. (Some are atrociously bad.) And the current References section, containing the notes (footnotes), should be renamed to Notes. I hope there is not objection to that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I did mean the four existent and one planned Assessment Reports. Certainly there is independent notability for the Reports per se and I very much hope that we have enough for one article on each. The current quality of the dedicated articles is very variable though. On your second point, of course no objection, very welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem with citation format?

[Kim made the following comment on the citation subpage, which I have taken the liberty of moving here for comment -JJ]

Citations following the guideline, does not adhere the requested citation format in the AR4 reports. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen

Yes. Or more precisely, not exactly. E.g., see Le Treut, AR4 WG1 Chap. 1, bottom of page:

Le Treut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson and M. Prather, 2007: Historical Overview of Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

The principle differences are:

1. The IPCC requests listing of all principal authors. This is contrary to all standard bibliographical practice (I can image the wail that would go up here if we "had to" include all of them). So we go with standard practice, and cite only the lead author (plus "et al.").
2. The example does not list specific location (page or section) within the source. Of course – the example is for the whole chapter; they expect professionals to know how to cite specific passages. (Whether we should cite specific passages is being argued in various other places.)
3. The example incorporates the entire "full reference" to the "whole work" that includes the chapter (everything after "In:"). This is the repetitive part that so bloated prior attempts to do a proper IPCC citation. The major improvement that I have brought here is include the full reference to the work only once (usually in the References), then link to it.

The canonical format developed here is is not exactly in accordance with any other "style", but I believe is a quite reasonable, even optimal, compromise that is proably as good as we can expect. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The "canonical" format (by what notice is it canonical?), does indeed have that problem, and thus it should be listed as a problem with your proposal. Yes, the citations are long, but then again this is how the IPCC is cited in papers, journals and other media where "professionals .. know how to cite ...".

• Le Treut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson and M. Prather (2007), IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 (ed.), Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |separator= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (link)

or

• Le Treut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson and M. Prather (2007), "1.4.2 Past Climate Observations, Astronomical Theory and Abrupt Climate Changes", in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 (ed.), Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |separator= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (link)

is long ... but contains all of the information that is recommended by the IPCC. (note: it uses your #3) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps too long: not only is recitation of all but the lead author contrary to standard citation practice, the long string of names that do not signify tends to bury such other information that does signify. The only reason for doing so is to gratify the IPCC in giving more exposure to the coauthors, which in any case seems too minimal to be of any worth. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Which "standard citation practice" states that you can abbreviate the authors list in the reference/bibliography section of your work? (do try not to confuse in-line citation such as (Hansen et al(1981)) vs full citation Hansen, J.; D. Johnson; A. Lacis; S. Lebedeff; P. Lee; D. Rind; G. Russell (1981), "Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide", Science (213): 957–966). Some journals shorten the reference list because of space problems - but afaict (from doing a spot check (on the paper cited here - it has 500+ citations)) most do not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer to this.... (btw. chosing a template makes it possible to cut authors down (or up), without doing any change to the articles), which again makes text versions bad. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your comment. As you are not familiar with standard citation practices I would suggest reviewing (for example) sect 16.16 of 13th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS): 'References in the text or notes to works by more than three authors use only the first name followed by "et al." or "and others" (see 15.17-19).' (MLA and APA are similiar, though I don't have exact citation at hand.) Now that is in regards to what CMOS calls "note" references, equivalent to short citations, or, on WP, in-line citations. And you are correct to distinguish between them and the full reference or citation, where a complete author listing is usually expected.

In trying to look forward to how things should be there is an immediate question: are these in-line cites? Or the full reference? Note that the full references I created for the ARs list all of the lead editors. But should the rest be "short" or "full" format?

The distinction between them is rather undercut by current practice in most articles here in not making such a distinction. E.g., (to grab some examples at random) in Global warming controversy: notes 6, 93, 95, 111; in Global warming: notes 31, 50-52, etc. I skipped over citations I have revised, but even there: if you go back to a version of Global warming from before I started revising (say the version from July) many of the citations ("full references") used "et al.", and many also provided no authors whatsoever. Which is part of the problem of trying to stay consistent with the extant "style": there is no consistency, no "style" to speak of. So if you have a complaint how multiple authors are handled: surprise, the problem is everywhere. You really should directing your ire more generally, not just to my attempt to improve matters.

Even if we go with "full" format there is another problem: some styles (e.g., APA) suggest truncating the author list after eight or nine (which is what the citation templates here implement). For something like Le Treut (Chap 1, AR4 WG1, above) you would get a full list. But Chapter 2 has fifteen authors, so it would get truncated to "Forster, et al." That some chapters get a full list of authors, and others only one, introduces an apparent inconsistency. My recommendation is that (for the IPCC citations) we always use the "et al." form, which increases consistency, and avoids having to modify citations depending on whether they are intended to be "in-line" or "full reference".

I have given much thought to opitimizing this "style" across a range of issues. If you can suggest improvements please tell us. Perhaps you can also justify them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering immediately, i've been busy. So in other words - your response is (cooked down): No citation practice,despite your assurances that it was "standard citation practice", actually says that you should cut down authors in the reference section of an article. They in fact state the opposite. Do note that "in-line citations" referenced in citation practice, is the visible part of citations in text - not the Wikipedia versions, which are merely a way to create the reference section while writing text.

As for your description of APA ... that is incorrect - it would be trucated to Forster, (+7 author names) et al. [trucating the list after 8-9 authors]

Building a citation template for IPCC citations would solve this - you can use citation/core to truncate author-lists at which ever point is needed. Do take a look at the IPCC template that i've started. (by the way: I do beg of you not to assume what i know/not know about citation practices as you do in the first line of your comment - you failed there again). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I could also "beg of you" to not be so snide with your "do try" kind of comments?

Perhaps you might also pay closer attention, and not misrepresent matters? In actual fact the "standard citation practice" I cited (CMOS-13, sections 16.16 and 15.17.) does say to truncate ("cut down") authors "in the text or notes". Now before you start screaming that I misrepresent you: yes, I see your qualification of "in the reference section of an article." Can you see "in the text or notes"? Can you see that we have two different situations here? Do you not read my comment about this? Do you possibly not understand the difference "text or notes" and bibliographic references? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've specifically adressed that we have 2 situations. But the situation that we specifically are talking about, is the reference section. You specifically (even explicitly) are referring to truncating the author list in the reference section.

I don't know if you are deliberately confusing what Wikipedia is calling "in-line citations" (here it references the "invisible" ref tags that automagically gets routed to the reference section), and what citation standards call "in-line citations" (which are explicit visible in text citations such as "Hansen et al(2007)", referencing the reference section - Wikipedia does not usually use this style - but instead has ^[1] kind of links). .... but can we please agree that this is two different things? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been thinking our argument is analogous to my saying "drive on the left [side of the road] in England", and you saying "no, no, no, drive on the right in Denmark". There is no "no" about it; each statement is quite correct, given the qualification of where. (Right?) At this point the essence of this argument is the where: "in-line" (or textual) citation, implying the "short" form, or complete bibliographical "reference", implying the "full" form. I believe your objection (at this point) is based on the assumption of the latter case.

I say this assumption is the essential point in dispute, and definitely questionable. Don't be misled because the html/wiki construct used to create notes is named "ref" (short for "reference"), or that the actual notes are generated by a template named "reflist", or that this is often done in a section named "References". Okay, perhaps you don't agree, so let's look at usage.

You often invoke what "Wikipedia does" (or does not) as authority, so let's look at actual Reference sections. In most cases use of the short form – evidenced by "et al." or "and others" – is sufficiently prevalent to dispel any claim of consistency, and indicates ambiguity (if not outright error). I do not claim that justifies the short form; I claim typical usage is ambiguous at best, not in itself establishing the full form.

You could argue that the "References" of this article are fairly consistent, having only three instances of "et al." in 121 footnotes. I would have to object, because the citations here are so putrid as to be quite unreliable (and that any considered form would be an improvement). In particular, many of these citations omit the author attribution entirely, providing no guidance as to typical practice. (Even to being negative guidance.)

For an example of a "References" section just as you envision it (with "full" references), look at Puget Sound faults#References. Or even Global warming#References. But note that in both cases there is also a Notes section, which collects the notes, and uses the short form. This kind of dual structure resolves the ambiguity of which form by distinguishing and separating the functions served. If all articles (or all climate change articles?) were like that, then the citation format could be more specifically adapted. As things are, the format has to cope with this ambiguity of usage. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

After having counted to 10 several times and taken several breaks from the keyboard - i will try again:

I am talking about the section in every article in which the references are located, whether it be called "notes", "references", "bibliography" or whatever other name an article may give it. Or in other words the section in which the full citations are given.

Pudgett sounds is a bad example - since it uses harvard style.

Global warming is a good example if you had used a version before you changed it. [16]

Both are examples of how you do things - not examples of typical wikipedia usage, or even of proper citation usage as described in various Manuals of style.

Can i please ask you to try to read: What it is that i write, without attempting to deduce what i might think, and ask if a specific point is unclear? Because quite frankly, so far this has been something of a Gish gallop. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Calm down Kim, we're both on the same side on the larger issue.

To the extent this is a "Gish gallop" (interesting term, thanks for bringing to my attention) it is because one point connects to another, and I am willing to follow your lead. E.g., this discussion started with your comment that the citation form I am promulgating "does not adhere the requested citation format in the AR4 reports", particularly regarding author attribution. I explained why, claiming "standard citation practice". Which you questioned, and I cited CMOS-13 (sec. 16.16). Which you said (essentially) wasn't applicable for full bibliographic references. Where upon I said you are assuming that is the proper context, but I question that assumption. So, yes, we have covered a bit of ground, and to the extent the main point depends on any subpoint I am willing to address any point you think is relevant.

As to "deducing what [you] think": if I took your (and indeed, anyone else's) words alone, and strictly literally, I would often be quite baffled to make sense of them. It is because I allow for the possibility of unstated assumptions (etc.), of a different frame of reference (even if it is not exactly yours), that I do not take you for a blithering, nonsensical, idiot, but might actually make sense in some context. That we differ in some opinions is not a matter of right or wrong, but (largely) of context. (E.g., are we using English driving rules? Or Danish?)

I think you misunderstood the point of my examples (above). In part I was trying to show that "typical wikipedia usage" is generally trash, and quite worthless in supporting your point. (Which I do not take as diminishment of your point.) I was also providing examples that better support your view, and also trying show my understanding of your concept of how full (bibliographic) references should be formatted. If those were not good enough, how about taking on a climate change article (one of the smaller ones, but with a fair number of IPCC citations) and formatting the citations in the way you think best?

The one point in all of this I find unclear is this: why are you so adamantly opposed? For all the points you have raised (and I believe I have addressed), or might raise: is there some central issue I have missed? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So lets take it a step at a time:

Can we agree on this: In the full citation section, no manual of style argues that citations can be cut down to one author + et al, you can cut the number of authors down - but as the APA states - it should only be done on papers/books of more than 8 authors, and in that case it can be cut down to 7-8 authors + et al. (or A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,A6 et al).

In case you do not agree - i will ask you to quote/link the citation style that advances this view. (if you refer to CMoS, i'll ask you to refer to a new version, preferably the online version (which is complete)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

One step at at time is fine, even preferred. We are not quite aligned on what the issue is, so let's first clarify that. I suggest it is about using either short citation format, where the author list may be truncated to a single lead author (plus "et al." or "and others", of course), or full citations/references, which are essentially bibliographic, and list all (or some large subset) of the authors. In essence, this issue comes down to whether the first chapter of AR4 WG1 should be cited (in part) as: "Le Treut, et al.", or: "Le Treut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson and M. Prather" (but without the bolding). Whether, in the latter case of "full" references, longer author lists can be truncated to 8 (or some other number of) authors is not the issue, as it does not distinguish between short and full formats.

Are we agreed that the present issue can be formulated as the use of either short or full format, the truncation of the author list (to a single author), or not, being indicative of short or full format? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I asked a clear question. And you didn't answer. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you did not ask a "clear" question (and certainly not a simple one). You made an ambiguous qualification, an assertion ("manual of style argues..."), and then.. well, I can't decide if your discussion of APA is intended as a further qualification of the question, an illustration, or an argument. With all that encumberance and ambiguity I can't see what the question is.

Let me help you simplify your question. How about we just drop any consideration of how more than (say) six authors is to be handled? That is not the issue here. The issue is whether (in some context) multiple authors can be truncated to a single author. (As I have been doing.) Allow this simplification, and we're about half-way to an answerable question. Okay? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh! So let me cut up my question into the simplest possible one:

• In the full citation section: Does any manual of style allow for citations being cut down to only one author + et al.?

There, it is cut down to the simplest part - we can take it further later. I'd appreciate if you answered only this question, and not embellish it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the simplest possible form of the question. You still have that qualification: "in the full citation section," which I find ambiguous. Do you want to drop that entirely? Or would you accept an alternative qualification: "in the full format form of a bibliographic reference? If you accept that then, in that case, I would agree with you, that no manual of style truncates a full, bibliographic reference to a single author. Is that acceptable? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think you know what section i'm talking about. Most wikipedia articles only contain 1 reference list... The exception being, the case of using Harvard style references, and then there are 2. And we aren't talking about Harvard inline citations here, which would require a second reference section. Yes, i do mean the full bibliographic reference, which in this case for IPCC chapters is described in the preface to each chapter. And that is the one that you want to cut down to one author despite that "no manual of style truncates a full, bibliographic reference to a single author". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Convenience break 2

Finally we get down to the core issue. Because I have never (?) disagreed with you about what any MoS says about the full, bibliographic reference. But what about short (or shortened) citations? (What some styles call the "note" form.) That is the real issue here: you keep assuming the reference (full) form in all cases, while I distinguish between that and the note (shortened) form. It comes down to whether certain "citations" (to use the term loosely) should be in short (truncated) or full (non-truncated) format.

BTW, use of separate "Notes" and "References" (or "Bibliography" or whatever) sections is not a requirement that arises from using {{Harv}} templates. Examples: IPCC Third Assessment Report uses {{Harv}}, but has no "Notes" section, while Mercantilism has "Notes" and "References", but no instances of {{Harv}}. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually you have disagreed with me on what various MoS's says - in fact you claimed that shortening full citations down was standard[17] (in fact you claimed it was "contrary to standard citation practice"). This apparently, you've finally agreed, isn't the case.

Now as for the "short" citations - they are really irrelevant here, since we aren't (and haven't at any point) been talking about these. (so they can't be the "real issue"). The references you make to IPCC chapters here aren't short citations - sorry. Unless we're doing double (or in case of the IPCC refs triple) indirect citations - we're talking about full citations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you are talking about full citations. You also continue to misstate what I have said, and I am getting tired of discussing it. If anyone else has any comments to make perhaps this is the time to do so. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I know I started this, so perhaps ought to comment now, but I don't have much to say. It's good sometimes to focus on detail, and it's good to be consistent. But it should not be so difficult as this to work out how best to format references. There are policies and guidelines, and we can if necessary get editors who are professional librarians to comment. The only really important thing is to give enough information to readers so that they can verify info and find further reading. I eventually worked out what Kim meant by "metadata", and I see the point but we aren't actually required to enable people to generate databases of sources out of our articles. You can't readily do it from a printed book either. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Judith. I have wondered if my focus on getting the details "right" – intended to enable a high standard of citation usage – might be part of the meta-problem here, in raising consternation that such a high standard might become required. Well, I would raise the minimally accepted standard, as many of the existing citations don't meet even Wikipedia's minimal expectation. But the important point is that what I recommend is flexible, and any variant thereof would be an improvement over what we have now. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Kim: I suspect you are not yet entirely satisfied on all points, which I would prefer to resolve. On the other hand, if you want to take a break – that's fine, but I also want to get back to fixing citations, and soon. I would also suggest an alternative: why don't you select one or two climate change articles and fix up the citations (or at least the IPCC citations) in whatever style or format you think is best? I am inclined to having some degree of consistency with the citations/references, but that doesn't mean everything need be done just one way. The format I have been developing is flexible enough to accommodate different preferences; it might well accommodate yours. Even if you come up with a distinctly different approach, having two styles is much preferable to the many crappy citations on this and other articles. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(Convenience break)

Another problem with your changes is the loss of metadata. To explain it simply: An automated tool cannot rework your changed references (the non-citation based versions) back into citation templates - the information to do so is ..... lost. Bibliographic processing capabilities of the references has been lost as well.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your English here. What are "bibliographic processing capabilities of the references"? References don't have capabilities. Do you mean "have been lost"? So long as we stick to the general principle of including enough information to allow readers to track down references and verify the content, erring on the side of inclusivity, then we are OK. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Kim, due to my own ignorance in this tech area (or publishing) I did not follow it either. What sort of auto tool are you referring to, what do they do, and can you provide an example of their source material and their output? Alternatively, a link to something (short!) that explains the basics you are talking about is just as good. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Whats the most cited paper on the climate change pages outside of the IPCC? Is a question that can be answered with tools easily when you use citation templates. Without them it would be extremely hard. Basic indexing, collecting bibliographic information for a specific topic area etc. etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Basically Judith, when data is marked up with the citation template, a tool can examine the data and understand what it is about. Collecting bibliographic data, would be a tool that collects up the citations and be capable of answering questions such as "How many unique papers of James Hansen do we cite?", "Who is the most cited scientists on the climate change pages" etc. By not marking citation data as such (fx. by doing it manually), you lose that capability. You also lose the capability of making a large search/replace formatting change on the pages (for instance changing to another citation method).

There are 2 aspects of citations - the most important one is for verification to our readers, and the second one is generic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Btw. references certainly have capabilities (albeit not by themselves :)). They have the capability of telling you loads of information about a specific citation. Who's the author(s), who published it? when was it published? Where was it published ....

If you just write "Hansen, James; Travis, Larry D. (1974) 'Light scattering in planetary atmospheres' Space Science Reviews. Vol 16, no. 4, pp 527-610" - you have all information there, but it is useless to a tool, because the tool can't determine what is what. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding metadata: let there be no doubt that I am all in favor of it, and in that regard fully concur with Kim. And of course it is through the use of citation templates that metadata is identified and can be extracted for whatever other purposes, which is partly why I am also a strong advocate of using templates.

I believe (correct me if I am wrong) the basis of Kim's statement of "loss of metadata" is that the examples I have provided are not in template form. However, templates are not precluded. I have not templated the examples because I did not anyone to think that templates are required. I have to run now, but perhaps tomorrow I can provide a templated example. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, cover me with a surprised look! Most of your changes of IPCC citations have been to convert citations to text. (Example:[18]). Not only have you collated book citations into harvb book references (laudable!), but at the same time you've removed the citation templates for the specific pages/sections and exchanged it into text (not laudable!). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Kim, using the DIFF you provided can you please provide an example or two of how you would have done it differently (without the not laudable part)? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, I have not been implementing the citations in template form lest anyone think templates were required. But to show that it can be done, here is an example:

Le Treut; et al., "Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science", Section 1.3.1: The Human Fingerprint on Greenhouse Gases {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help), in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007.

I have added an explanation and other details at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/citation#Citation templates. I think it could be argued which way (formatted text or template) is better, but that is irrelevant to the point here: this style is neutral in that regard. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting the "in <Harv>" outside of the template removes the linkage between the actual citation and the book. Again loosing metadata. Why exactly is formatting more important to you here, than actually getting the citation right? But even outside of the metadata issue.... Take a look at the asymmetry of your choice:

Chose citation templates: One change in the citation templates could solve the formatting problem you have on all articles.

Chose formatted text: All citations on all articles, will have to be changed.... manually.

Now that assymetry tells me that formatted text is a very very bad choice. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you not read my previous comment? The "style" (formatting) I am recommending does not preclude using citation templates. As I said before, I was converting citations (of a very mixed colleciton of "styles") into formatted text because I didn't want anyone complaining I was prejudiced for templates. (As a matter of fact, I am, but I didn't want it to be an issue.) If the editors here want to establish use of templates as the preferred style I am quite willing to do that. As to putting the Harv link inside or outside the template, I presently favor the latter, but am willing to consider the matter. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree Kim's word choice is frequently needling, and often wonder if that is carelessness or craft. On the other hand, JJ, you manage to work in some digs of your own. So as I follow the discussion (not really knowing enough to have an opinion) I regularly wish you both you guys would work harder to wordsmith your remarks as though you were the other guy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You may want to consider that nuances in my writing shouldn't be interpreted, since i'm not actually a native english speaker. So do consider that it might be neither "carelessness or craft". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Who objects to the use of citation templates, and why? --Teratornis (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Lots of editors, actually, though perhaps no one present on this discussion. I suspect what you are picking up on is Kim's objection that I did not use a citation template in the improvements I was proposing. Which is bogus, because – as I explained above, and demonstrated – those proposals are fully compatible with citation templates, but I chose to demonstrate them without the templates, lest some of the less attentive editors take fright that templates were required. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)