Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 90 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 31, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 11, 2018.

International relations: United Nations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Science Policy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Jonathanlynn (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. ([1][2])

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Section sizes

Section size for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (41 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	9,496	9,496
Origins	3,360	3,360
Organization	299	20,945
Way of working	809	809
Rules and governing principles	797	797
Structure	3,323	4,977
Chair	857	857
Panel	797	797
Funding	1,724	1,724
List of all reports	7,839	7,839
Activities other than report preparation	1,064	4,500
Communications and dissemination activities	2,872	2,872
Archiving	564	564
Assessment reports	1,107	19,605
Review process of scientific literature	1,494	1,494
Selection and role of authors	6,474	6,474
Review process for assessment reports	2,175	2,175
Key findings and impacts	33	8,355
Assessment reports one to five (1990 to 2014)	4,862	4,862
Sixth assessment report (2021/2022)	3,460	3,460
Other reports	21	10,331
Special reports	440	6,619
Special reports in 2011	2,243	2,243
Special reports 2018-2019	3,936	3,936
Methodology Reports	738	3,691
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines	941	941
2006 IPCC Guidelines	2,012	2,012
Challenges and controversies	1,370	18,166
Conservative nature of IPCC reports	5,280	5,280
Potential industry and political influence	2,286	2,286
Controversy and review after Fourth Assessment Report in 2007	2,000	5,111
InterAcademy Council review in 2010	3,111	3,111
Issues with consensual approach	1,446	1,446
Criticism by experts involved with the IPCC process	2,673	2,673
Endorsements and awards	31	6,061
Endorsements from scientific bodies	4,698	4,698
Nobel Peace Prize in 2007	698	698
Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity in 2022	634	634
See also	285	285
References	30	30
External links	714	714
Total	88,993	88,993

Question about the second sentence

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"? EMsmile (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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? Jonathanlynn (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. EMsmile (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the lead back to the 20 Feb version

Hi, I have just changed the lead back to the 20 Feb version. I felt that the changes made in 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. EMsmile (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add a bit more about the conservative nature of IPCC?

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: "Here's a 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? EMsmile (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. 86.67.88.220 (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Add something from the challenges section to the lead?

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. EMsmile (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add some photos?

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

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 en-GB-oxendict, and related articles on Wikipedia all follow this convention (See United Nations and WHO). Also, it it's also a bit jarring to read United Nations Environmental Programme next to the verb/noun program. Addionally, see MOS:TIES. 202.1.199.68 (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.Jonathanlynn (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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). EMsmile (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 British English as denoted in the very spelling of United Nations Environment Programme (I note this is still spelled incorrectly in the article's infobox). --123.176.11.5 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]