Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:53, 18 June 2003

Latest revision as of 14:17, 21 April 2025

Line 1:

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

This article would be a good place to mention the "science has been settled" pronouncements of the Clinton Administration, as well as the "balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence" quote. [[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], Tuesday, June 25, 2002

{{British English}}

{{Article history

|action1=GAN

|action1date=31 August 2007

|action1result=not listed

|action1oldid=154810776

|currentstatus=FGAN

|itn1date=11 October 2018

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=

{{WikiProject International relations |importance=mid |un=yes}}

{{WikiProject Environment|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=mid}}

}}

{{Connected contributor|User1=Jonathanlynn|U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks=[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=891512742&oldid=882279634&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jonathanlynn&oldid=880621538]}}

{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}}

{{Annual readership}}

----

{{section sizes}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive index

|mask=Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 13

|minthreadsleft = 5

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive %(counter)d

}}

==Question about the second sentence==

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

The second sentence says "Its job is to advance scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities.". I am not sure if this is strictly correct? The reference given doesn't say it like that but says "the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies". For me "advancing scientific knowledge" would sound like IPCC is doing its own research which it isn't. Maybe better: Its job is to ''disseminate'' scientific knowledge ..." Or "compile" or "make available existing scientific knowledge"? [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 21:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

:Interesting question, thanks. You're correct that we don't want to imply the IPCC is doing its own research. But it is doing more than disseminate and compile. Its role is to assess all the published scientific information relevant to climate change, to say this is what we know about the subject, this is the state of knowledge. The concept of "assess" is complicated and I'm not sure whether it would be clear and readable especially in the lead. I would argue that the assessment process does result in advancing knowledge. But perhaps it's not the best word. Can anyone suggest a better one? [[User:Jonathanlynn|Jonathanlynn]] ([[User talk:Jonathanlynn|talk]]) 18:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Whoever added this, please provide

:: Thanks, that's really useful. Perhaps we need to use a different reference in that case as the current ref for that sentence says "to provide governments at all levels with scientific information" which doesn't go as far as "assess". Are there any good articles or books ''about'' the IPCC, i.e. from a third party perspective? If so, they might have used the wording "to assess" or "to advance" in which case we could use that as a ref. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 10:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

* sources for the polls

:we're over-reaching in the article. While AR6 says "unequivocal ", there is discussion of natural forcings in many chapers [[User:Elfride-S|Elfride-S]] ([[User talk:Elfride-S|talk]]) 17:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

* margin of error and number of scientists surveyed

::I've changed the second sentence now to stay closer to the source. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 09:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

* nature of the sample -- what kind of scientists were surveyed?

:::This sentence has now been deleted from the lead by William M. Connolley with the edit summary: "advancing research: the IPCC synthesises, it doesn't do its own. nothing in the article supports this sentence; rm": {{tq|By doing so it also advances scientific knowledge about [[climate change]] caused by human activities.}}. I actually thought it was a pretty good statement and the IPCC does do more than just "synthesise", as per the comment above by Jonathanlynn on 17 December: "I would argue that the assessment process does result in advancing knowledge.". But perhaps we'd need a better source for this sentence which says so explicitly. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 14:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

== Changing the lead back to the 20 Feb version ==

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

Hi, I have just changed the lead back to the 20 Feb version. I felt that the changes made in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=1140586269&oldid=1139094311 this edit] were not really an improvement. The edit summary stated "Improved grammar and syntax in introduction and removed details best left in body" but I felt those changes were making it harder to understand it (e.g. changing active voice to passive voice, making sentences longer). Also I felt that the old summary of 510 words was a good length for this kind of article (although it might be better to change it so that it becomes 4 paragraphs instead of 5). Also, it might be better to make any changes to the lead incrementally not in bulk. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 11:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

: did you ever get those sources?

== Add a bit more about the conservative nature of IPCC? ==

:: No, and I removed the statement accordingly. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 12:40 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

I've had a discussion with [[User:FeydHuxtable]] at the talk page of [[effects of climate change on human health]] about the conservative nature of the IPCC. FeydHuxtable has made me aware of an interesting 2019 publication that explains this aspect. I think we could nicely use it in this article to update this aspect of the criticism:

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

"Here's a [http://mycoasts.org/commons/library/2019_Spratt_Dunlop.pdf good source] that show's why even in relatively climate skeptic countries, the IPPC estimates are distrusted by policy makers as massive underestimates of the CC threat." FeydHuxtable also said: "I'm not sure about adding the source to the IPPC page. It already reflects the perspective that the org can be overly conservative, adding more on those lines may not be due weight." - Wondering what others think, e.g. [[User:Jonathanlynn]]? [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 07:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

:I'd agree with User:FeydHuxtable that the IPCC article already addresses the conservative nature of the organization (it has a whole sub-section on that topic). So I'm not sure further material is required, but we should keep an eye on it. Yes it is a conservative organization like any that requires consensus from 195 countries to agree something, whether it's a report or a change to the way it works. Many countries say that the report underestimate the CC threat but accept that is part of the policy of building consensus among members under the guidance of the scientists who hold the pen. But some governments argue that draft statements overstate the case. Anyway, I also agree that AR6 is the best current summation of climate science and should be referred to. [[Special:Contributions/86.67.88.220|86.67.88.220]] ([[User talk:86.67.88.220|talk]]) 13:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

:Greenpeace International surveyed 400 climate scientists, many of whom were involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and reported the 113 responses received as of late January 1992 (just prior to one of the climate treaty negotiation sessions). Asked if there is a serious risk of a runaway greenhouse effect under continued business-as-usual policies, 15 percent said probably, 36 percent possibly, and 53 percent probably not. Other questions involved opinions on the progress of climate negotiations and whether the work of climate scientists has been taken seriously enough. (See New Scientist, p. 19, Feb. 5, 1992.) A summary is available from the Greenpeace Global Warming Dept., 1436 U St. NW, S. 300, Washington DC 20009 (202-462-1177). [http://www.globalchange.org/gccd/gcc-digest/1992/d92may23.htm]

::Forgot the [[User:Jonathanlynn|Jonathanlynn]] ([[User talk:Jonathanlynn|talk]]) 14:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

== Add something from the challenges section to the lead? ==

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

The lead is pretty good now but I think it's missing a couple of summary statements about the section "challenges and controversies". As the lead is already 510 words, we might have to condense a bit in another place to make space (I think 500 words would be a good lead length). Pinging [[User:Jonathanlynn]]. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 09:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

* The survey reported above was for 1992 - not relevant for discussing the 1995 report

* The survey was about runaway greenhouse - this is irrelevant to the IPCC report which does not consider such a scenario.

== Add some photos? ==

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

Hi [[User:Jonathanlynn]], do you have any more photos that we could add to this article? [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 09:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Onwards: I've added a note to the discussion of the 1995 report to the effect that most (climate) scientists support it, but not vocally. Without that, the section is seriously biased, because it gives the impression that it has been endorsed by a few politicians and objected to by more scientists. This is not so.

== American English spelling tag? ==

Any reason why the article is written in American English and tagged as such in the discussion page? The article is about a UN body, which uses [[Oxford_Spelling|''en-GB-oxendict'']], and related articles on Wikipedia all follow this convention (See [[United_Nations|United Nations]] and [[World_Health_Organization|WHO]]). Also, it it's also a bit jarring to read [[United_Nations_Environment_Programme|United Nations Environmental Programme]] next to the verb/noun ''program''. Addionally, see [[MOS:TIES]]. [[Special:Contributions/202.1.199.68|202.1.199.68]] ([[User talk:202.1.199.68|talk]]) 10:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

:When I gave it a comprehensive edit I stuck with the spelling convention I found, but you are right that as a UN-related body it uses British English and it would be more logical to go with that. I'll have a go when I have a few moments.[[User:Jonathanlynn|Jonathanlynn]] ([[User talk:Jonathanlynn|talk]]) 10:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

::I've now done this. [[User:Jonathanlynn|Jonathanlynn]] ([[User talk:Jonathanlynn|talk]]) 15:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

::: I am not sure. Normally I stick to [[WP:ENGVAR]] and in particular [[MOS:RETAIN]]. I don't see why the IPCC should have strong national ties to Great Britain? The UN is not a country? Overall, I have no particular objections to changing over to British spelling (most of the climate change articles are in British spelling) but I think your justification might not quite match [[WP:ENGVAR]]. If nobody objects, it can stay like it is now, I guess (i.e. British English). [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 19:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

::::Glad that this will be retained but adding a small clarification. IPCC does not have any strong ties to the United Kingdom, its ties are with the United Nations. The UN uses [[Oxford spelling|British English]] as denoted in the very [https://www.un.org/dgacm/en/content/editorial-manual/spelling spelling] of [[United Nations Environment Programme]] (I note this is still spelled incorrectly in the article's infobox). --[[Special:Contributions/123.176.11.5|123.176.11.5]] ([[User talk:123.176.11.5|talk]]) 18:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)