Core data of 2001 IPCC report manipulated
I took out this whole section, it being a disaster area and a re-fight of the old fights. Here it is, as taken out:
The Telegraph is heavily critical of the way temperature data in the IPCC's 2001 Second Assessment Report removed all trace of the Mediaeval Warm Period and the "Little Ice Age".
In February 2005 the German television channel Das Erste interviewed Ulrich Cubasch, a climatologist, who said that he had been unable to reproduce the Mann et al. “hockey-stick” graph, whereupon he – “… discussed the objections with his colleagues, and sought to work them through. … Bit by bit, it became as clear to his colleagues as it had to him: the two Canadians were right. … Between 1400 and 1600, the temperature shift was considerably higher than, for example, in the previous century. With that, the core conclusion, and also that of the entire IPCC 2001 Report, was completely undermined.”
....
The US National Academy of Sciences has since issued a statement that the “hockey-stick” graph was defective. Significantly, however, the UN has issued no statement of apology or correction. It continues to use the “hockey-stick” in its publications.
In Nov 2006 a panel set up to investigate gave some conditional support to Mann's study as well as critising his methods and conclusions:
As reported by the New York Times on June 22, 2006,WASHINGTON, June 22 — An influential and controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed Thursday, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.
The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the 1990's were probably the warmest decade in a millennium.
Firstly, this could be briefly mentioned, but save the detail for hockey stick controversy. Secondly, it could do with a less POV title. Thirdly, quotes should be sourced and please don't use the Torygraph. Fourth, whether you like the HS reconstruction or not, you ought to realise that in 2001 none of these criticisms had surfaced William M. Connolley 20:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
OK briefer, less POV, fine. However, I dont accept a ban on linking Telegraph articles because you find it Tory. While that may be true it is not a valid reason. That comes down to political censorship. I have no idea of the political bent of NYT either, it seemed to cover the study report fairly. (If it makes you happier, I have never bought the Telegraph, I just found the article relevant).The fact that none of this came to light by 2001 I fully realise, that was a large part of the critisism of the IPCC the this sub topic refers to.
Link to HS entry for more detail. Done.
Redirect pages
I'm not familiar with all Wikipedia policies/guidelines, but I don't know any relevant ones here. What do we need IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), etc. for? Brian Jason Drake 07:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Bolding in Key Conclusions
In the following statement under key conclusions of the 4th Assesment Report, the word alone is in boldface, a bias I feel was probably not in the original document. I have therefore removed it. "The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%" askewchan 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Resignations
A number of leading scientists have resigned from the IPCC in protest at what they see as their unscientific method. I added this and I think that is important.SmokeyTheCat 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Several. I will find a source soon. SmokeyTheCat 07:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
AR4 name
The name of the AR4 report is... AR4. Not FAR, which would conflict with "First" as well as a potential "Fifth" William M. Connolley 14:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hockey Stick Criticisms section
William, I know that you disagree with criticisms of the IPCC from the skeptic camp. But they are legion and all over the internet, and the hockey stick plays a central role in them.
I think if you take a step back, you'll see that you have replaced language used by both the IPCC report, and the actual criticisms of the IPCC with POV language that mischaracterizes the nature of the criticisms themselves.
I suppose that I'm trying to establish that this section is intended to communicate the content of hockey stick based criticisms of the IPCC, and make sure that you agree with that premise before we start discussing the details.
As to the title:As you recently pointed out when you deleted the section containing the hockey stick, this section is not intended for generic criticism of the hockey stick, but for the IPCC's role in the propagation of the hockey stick.
A central element of that role (handled graphically by the McKitrick reference that I added and you removed) is the decision to place a great deal of emphasis on the graph.
If the IPCC had given the graph as much space as they allocated to the other temperature graphs in this and previous reports, we might not be having this discussion.
Therefore, I think the issue is not so much the use of the graph, but the decision to make it the central exhibit. Accordingly, the title ought to be emphasis of the graph and the fact that the graph was displayed prominently should be mentioned (and the McKitrick conference paper illustrating this cited). 24.128.51.0 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Problem
This is marked as a quotation but in fact as you might expect the article doesn't say "quotes Stefan Rahmstorf". Rather the article quotes him. I'm lazy to work out the best way to fix it so I'll let someone else do it. And yes, it's supposed to be IPCC not IPSS. Also the link is dead but I found this (and multiple other versions) via a quick google Nil Einne 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Category of IPCC reviewers, authors?
I wondered if there is a wikipedia category of "IPCC reviewer" or "IPCC author" (maybe broken down by which working group). I don't see any so far, and a few known authors' pages I checked weren't in any similar category. What do others think of starting such a category?Birdbrainscan 09:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
Do a search on IPCC and Pseudoscience. A lot of people believe that the IPCC is putting out unscientific information regarding climate change. I'm not sure how you would do a fair survey of experts to find the consensus on this, as most climate change scientists are being funded to support the politicized environmental/religious agenda on this issue. Is it appropriate to tag this article with Category:Pseudoscience? Someone removed my tag, stating (hoping?) that this was a joke. 202.154.152.228 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
copyrights (and format) of IPCC reports?
The IPCC SPM documents I've looked at have no reference to copyrights or license. So, are all IPCC reports definitely public domain? I'd like to convert them to wiki format and put them into Appropedia, once I've confirmed that it's permissible.
Btw, does anyone know if they're available in Word format somewhere? If so the references will convert much more nicely into wiki format references. (I've tried Googling, and if no one here knows I'll contact them directly). --Chriswaterguy 14:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus in reports
I removed this:
Consensus in reports
IPCC Reports attempt to present a scientific consensus view. The general approach of identifying consensus among a group of climate scientists means that areas where there remains considerable uncertainty tend to be automatically deemphasized or simply omitted . Another means of handling consensus problems was used in the SRES scenarios, where due to a lack of consensus there were many variations included with no indication of which are more probable doi:10.1038/35075167.
"Firstly, the Panel as a whole must always respect and consider the specific perspectives of each member. But, more importantly, each member must respect and consider the perspectives of the entire Panel. Consensus is not something that happens by itself. It is an outcome that has to be shaped, and the only basis for shaping it is to follow the two cardinal rules that I have just mentioned" — Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC.
This is an SEWilco-ism; it doesn't seem appropriate to me. The quote re omitting stuff is deeply misleading; there is, for example, no consensus on the solar forcing, yet it is discussed in detail William M. Connolley 09:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Richard Lindzen has criticized the IPCC process and method of "summarizing" the conclusions of climate scientists. Doesn't his opinion belong somewhere in this article, especially since it claims the IPCC is under "strong scientific scrutiny" while Lindzen clearly disputes this? http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069
I agree, we should not be removing peoples comments just because we disagree. This is a discussion, not an article. Also, there is a video (Watch at Google Video) from the BBC, which is an hour long, but well worth watching for anyone who feels they should be commenting on this topic solely based o
Pro Hockey Life en ligne
Pro Hockey Life en ligne ... In Stock ... EASTON INT STEALTH S17 GRIP STICK
Hockeyworld
Featured items this week: Reebok 6K Kinetic Fit Shoulder Pads '09- Senior. Eagle X88 Pro Stock Hockey Gloves (Portofino)- Sr. CCM Vector U+ Grip Composite Hockey Stick- Senior
Pro Hockey Life en ligne
Pro Hockey Life en ligne ... In Stock ... NIKE/BAUER VAPOR XXXX STICK'UM SR STICK
PRO STOCK HOCKEY STICKS
Get hockey equipment and gear online! Go to HockeyMonkey.com for the best hockey sticks, ice hockey helmets, skates, and more. Visit us online or call 888-286-6169 for ice hockey ...
RBK Pro Stock Hockey Gloves
Get hockey equipment and gear online! Go to HockeyMonkey.com for the best hockey sticks, ice hockey helmets, skates, and more. Visit us online or call 888-286-6169 for ice hockey ...
Nike Bauer Vapor XXXX Pro Stock Regular Flex Hockey Stick [SENIOR ...
Pro Stock Inventory - Direct from the Pro's with Factory Warranty!!! * Micro-feel dimensions - Rounded corners and double concave shaft walls allow the shaft to fit comfortably in ...
Amazon.com: Mylec Future Pro Mini Hockey Stick Set with Puck & Ball ...
This item: Mylec Future Pro Mini Hockey Stick Set with Puck & Ball by Mylec . In Stock. Ships from and sold by Fogdog. $5.00 shipping. Mylec Pro Style Mini Hockey Goal Set, White by ...
Warrior Pro Series Hockey Gloves '09- Sr
Eagle X88 Pro Stock Hockey Gloves (Portofino)- Sr. Easton Synergy Jacket- Senior. Warrior Dolomite DD Grip Composite Stick-Sr '10. Warrior Hitman Grip Composite Hockey Stick- Junior
Nike Bauer Vapor XXXX Pro Stock Pro Flex Hockey Stick [SENIOR ...
Pro Stock Inventory - Direct from the Pro's with Factory Warranty!!! * Micro-feel dimensions - Rounded corners and double concave shaft walls allow the shaft to fit comfortably in ...
East West Hockey - Ice Hockey Equipment, Hockey Gear, Pro Hockey ...
Pro Stock CCM U+ Pominville 85 Flex RH Composite Hockey Stick ... East West Hockey... Your source for custom fitted skates ...