Talk:IPCC Summary for Policymakers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut (unsourced POV):

The argument is that the scientists determine what can be said, but the governments determine how it can best be said.

Whose argument is this? Sounds like something Singer or his buddies would say. ;-) --Uncle Ed 15:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, please don't just cut out stuff you don't like. Its impolite. Just ask the question here instead William M. Connolley 15:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Wasn't something I "didn't like", actually I agreed with it!
2. Nothing "impolite" about a Wikipedia:Text move. I do it dozens of times per week. Yours is the first objection I've had in months.
3. You delete stuff yourself, when you think it shouldn't be in the article. How is it different when *I* do it?
4. Anyway, I found the source, fixed it up and put it back already.

Golly, you're testy these days. What's up with that? We used to get on so well . . . --Uncle Ed 15:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Errm, yes, you've found the source. Which is why taking it out was pointless. Why not do the obvious look-up *first*? It would cause less annoyance. Anyway... I've rephrased your word. In particular, the blunt "criticism" is inappropriate, because it makes it look like T is criticising the current SPM. I've seen this used by skeptics to argue that he thinks its pro-GW biased, whereas his intent, if anything, is the other way round. So I'd like to see rather careful wording of any paraphrases (like section headings) William M. Connolley 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If T is not criticizing the politicization of science by the UN climate panel, then there are other panel contributors who have. Can you help me make a list of them? Three years ago, it was easier to find this info at Wikipedia. I'm looking for the quote that goes:

• We scientists draw conclusions based on actual science, and then the government reps go through it and change everything they disagree with, to make it look like scientist are endorsing political policy. (or something like that). --Uncle Ed 18:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this is willful misremembering. --Stephan Schulz 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why so suspicious, my dear colleague? Here's the passage I was struggling to recall:

• "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented.... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report." [1] --Keith Shine, a lead author of Climate Change 1995

You cannot deny that the actual quote is something like my half-remembered version. And I will not deny that interpreted it in a nasty light, but I won't concede to having made it up completely.

Shine said policymakers go through it ... and change the draft, which is the essence of what I said. --Uncle Ed 20:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Its already in IPCC. Note that what Shine is complaining about is the US/Saudi lobby toning it down William M. Connolley 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Singer and SEPP 2 deleting negative info 3 Merge? 4 Unbalanced POV 5 More unbalanced POV

[edit] Singer and SEPP

Ed, I took out your Singer quote. Have you read the full article? It gave no data about the supposed survey, it neither contained the questions nor the number of queried scientists, and it told us nothing about the degree and the direction in which these scientists supposedly disagreed with the report . As William points out, while Singer certainly tries to evoke the opposite impression, Shine complains about to much toning down in the summary. In short, the SEPP essay is a useless piece of propaganda and has no informational value. --Stephan Schulz 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove quotes from published authors who assert that the SPM is biased and/or fails to reflect the actual views of scientists expressed in the Technical Summary. In particular, any complaints made about the omission of the degree of uncertainty are highly relevant. So I'm putting all the quotes back. --Uncle Ed 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Singer is not a "published author" in this context, he is a bad propagandist who apparently invents "sources"[2]. An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (of all the scientific publications!) is not a reliable source in this context. And without access to the original survey and data, there is no useful information in this sentence. Giving any lengthy integration report, every scientist is likely to find something that could be improved. Maybe SEPP just asked if the use of Times/Roman vs. Sans Serif would have improved the report ("Scientists claim report not optimal!"). I don't claim that's the case, but we just don't know. Dig out the data (or the Gallup and Greenpeace surveys), and we can talk.--Stephan Schulz 14:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One columnist saying he couldn't find a cited paper is insufficient reason to exclude a source. I'm putting it back in, in accordance with WP:NPOV. If you want to quote The Guardian as dismissing Singer as a "propagandist", go ahead. Then readers can decide for themselves. --Wing Nut 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleting negative info

Dr. C., please don't just cut out stuff you don't like. Its impolite.

If you feel anti-IPCC info needs to be balanced with pro-IPCC info, you are encouraged to add it. NPOV contemplates including all relevant points of view, including the POV you support, i.e., that IPCC summaries for policymakers are flawless or excellent, or ... Hey, I got an idea: write it yourself!

What does 'the mainstream' say about IPCC SPM's? --Uncle Ed 12:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to extend the is article, I suggest you do your homework. The quotes by Shine and Trenberth are out of context and extremely misleading. --Stephan Schulz 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If by misleading, you mean that they advance the POV that the IPCC reports have biased summaries, then there's nothing wrong with being 'misleading'. If you adhere to the opposing POV, i.e., that the IPCC reports don't have biased summaries, well that's not a Wikipedia problem. Articles need not reflect editors' points of view.

If some published authors have asserted a POV opposing those of Shine, Trenberth, etc. please add them. I like balance in articles. --Uncle Ed 19:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You have, as usual, misunderstood. Shine and TRenberth are complainig about the US/Saudi lobby watering down the language, despite you efforts to lump them in with Singer which they would not approve of William M. Connolley 19:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I object to you turning this into a battlefield. I also reject your std he-said-they-said article style. There is nothing to say here that shouldn't be better said on the IPCC page itself. Your version - Singers version - is too badly biased to be useful. The mainstream does the obvious - accepts the SPM as a useful document and says nothing much about it. Only the skeptics whinge William M. Connolley 13:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

OK, so someone added a merge notice, but not the corresponding discussion. I've preserved the notice, but don't have much of an opinion re the merge William M. Connolley 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a merge is a good thing. Lots of content here to warrant it's own article. Removing tag.+mwtoews 02:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced POV

Dr. C., if there is a "point of view" that politicians cannot or do not influence the wording of the SPM, by all means, include it. But do not remove well-referenced information which advances a point of view, simply because you disagree with it. --Uncle Ed 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you seem to be taking POV forks to the ultimate by starting new sections instead of continuing the discussion above. Why? I object to... oh look, its all been said above, what a waste of space William M. Connolley 15:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

...and it's a false dichtonomy along more than one axis, and its still misleading. Grrrr! --Stephan Schulz 23:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More unbalanced POV

"Intended to aid" makes it sound like it's offering objective advice. Might it not be intended to sway?

Climate Change 2001 says:

• This Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which was approved by IPCC member governments in Shanghai in January 2001
  • describes the current state of understanding of the climate system and provides estimates of its projected future evolution and their uncertainties.

I broke the sentence to emphasize the "approved by IPCC member governments" part. Does this mean that the scientists agreed with the SPM, weren't asked, or what? Did the member governments simply vote on what they wanted the SPM to say?

This is important politically, because Kyoto supporters say there is a scientific consensus on AGW, citing the UN's IPCC Summary for Policymakers. But if the SPM can say whatever the governments want it to, then it doesn't have a direct relationship to what the scientists say. That is, the "assessment" of the science is made by government representatives, not the scientists themselves.

This bears on dispute over whether:

• there is a scientific consensus on AGW (believed by 75% of US liberals)
• the "science is not settled" (believed by 75% of US conservatives)

Basically, what I want to know is the linkage between what the scientists tell the UN panel, and what the panel's SPM says to the public. --Uncle Ed 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As you should know by now, it was written by scientists. The final draft was then approved by the gouvernments. The full reports are available, and the SPM contains references back into them. If you are truly interested in the reliability, why don't you select some points and read both the SPM and the underlying full report? As for Wikipedia, extremely few WP:RS have shown concern about disagreement of SPM and full reports. --Stephan Schulz 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The part I've known for several years is that the initial draft is written by scientists. The part I don't know (and still don't know) is that the unchanged draft is voted up or down in its entirety.

Some have claimed that UN bureaucrats have made changes in the SPM - against the wishes or even without the knowledge of scientists. On the basis of this claim, it has further been argued that the SPM was "altered" so that it would conform to preconceived notions of the panel members and therefore does not represent a scientific consensus.

There is also a question of whether the "references" feeding back to the science from the summary support what the politicians agreed on.

I do not "know" that the SPM corresponds one-to-one (with no significant change) to the points made by the contributing scientists. If I knew that, I wouldn't raised the question. I only ask for information I don't have. If I knew the answer, I would simply supply it.

So what I still want to know is the linkage between what the scientists tell the UN panel, and what the panel's SPM says to the public. Where and when are changes made from what the scientists say, to what the SPM tell us? --Uncle Ed 18:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)