Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Further controversy

This was reverted [1] with "rv: not even close to NPOV". How would it be better put into a NPOV, please? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the disputed text:

"Pachauri was recently in news about IPCC's incorrect prediction of Himalayan glaciers melting completely by 2035. The Environment Minister of India slammed IPCC of not having done "due diligence" and slammed Pachauri for "scornfully" dismissing doubts raised by Indian government agencies.. Pachauri later apologized for the misleading data "

May I suggest the following revisions:

"Pachauri has appeared in recent news items regarding IPCC's predictions of the complete melting of Himalayan glaciers by the year 2035. Following revelations that this prediction was based on speculation rather than scientific evidence, the Environment Minister of India criticized the IPCC for failing to follow "due diligence." Pachauri has conceded the error, but maintains that it does not have a significant impact on the overall body of evidence that AGW is occuring."

(Citations in the appropriate places, of course.)

I think this sticks pretty closely to the facts -- the IPCC was in error about this particular issue. So I think my version follows NPOV. I'm not entirely convinced that an article about Pachauri is the appropriate place to add this, though, as Pachauri's involvement in the whole thing is somewhat tangential. I could go either way on that issue.

Not to stir up any trouble, but I'm a bit concerned about reversion of this kind of thing with no attempts to discuss or improve first. Having language like "X slams Y for blah blah blah" is pretty clearly POV and strikes an inappropriate tone, but that doesn't necessarily justify unilaterally striking the entire paragraph. Just my two cents. J. Langton (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pachauri has not actually said sorry, a spokesman for the ipcc did. I am writing up a section about this for the ipcc article. I think it belongs over there.

The text is obviously unacceptable; Following revelations that this prediction was based on speculation rather than scientific evidence is wrong. It is all clearly written up in Criticism of the IPCC AR4, if you don't know what has happened William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, the glacier-error belongs with the IPCC. The discussion of Pachauri's role is confined to blogs. Delingpole sums it up here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022694/syed-hasnain-rk-pachauri-and-the-mystery-of-the-non-disappearing-glaciers/ It'll be a few weeks before other journalists have woken up. Richard Tol (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is correct; this really isn't directly connected to RKP William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I`m glad to see you agree that this belongs in the IPCC article WMC, Rtol i am writing up a section about this, would you be interested in helping out? mark nutley (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

@WMC: Your link is dead; did its target get deleted or something? From the news sources I've read, the issue appears to be pretty cut and dried: the IPCC included a claim regarding the rate that Himalayan glaciers were melting. That claim is erroneous, and will likely be retracted. See, for example, [2]; in particular: "Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was 'speculation' and was not supported by any formal research." Which sounds pretty much just like what I said.

I'm still somewhat ambivalent about whether or not this belongs in the article. One could make the case that it's worthy of inclusion, given the intensity with which Pachauri defended the initial suggestion, and the fact that there are RS's [EDIT: specifically, the India Times, in news articles rather than blogs] specifically documenting his role. But it was a pretty minor role. J. Langton (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've invisibly fixed it :-). Reload the page. Follow the link to find The WP:TRUTH William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As of right now, this issue is tangentally related to Pachauri, and would be better explained in the IPCC #4 article as noted above. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the gent in question chairs the IPCC, the topic is directly relevant to that person. Is Wikipedia going down the google route to censorship? Did George Orwell really write about this very problem??Peterlewis (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The "gent" didn't write the WGII report, nor did the "gent" oversee the peer-review. While he is the administrative head of the IPCC, he doesn't oversee every little detail. Yes, it was an error, Yes, it has been reported, and Yes, we also describe this in Criticism of the IPCC AR4, where it belongs. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But he is responsible for the output, so this section should be included. How much else will be exposed? Why are you trying to hide the detail? Peterlewis (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it (as your link also described) was an error in a single sentence in an several thousand pages report. Putting this up as a problem with Pachauri, or the IPCC in general is undue weight to the extreme, since as your link also describes, this error is one of the very few found, despite sceptics "scrutinising every claim made by the panel" for the last two years. As a side-comment: you may want to turn down the accusational tone and claims of "censorship" and "hiding", it isn't really beneficial for your argumentation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not use a link so this is a straw doll. "one" error understates the problem this gent faces, and I can't see why Wikipedia should bury this and other controversies associated with the IPCC and its current boss(such as data manipulation, bias and so on). Why are you so busy trying to hide inconvenient details? You should try to keep a neutral stance in your arguments (argumentation is not a word I recognise). Peterlewis (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The link is in your revert/edit[3], specifically it was this one perhaps you should read it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should respond to my critique and the serious issues of censorship, and burying bad news.Peterlewis (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think i've already explained it. It is undue weight. Your personal opinions that "understates the problem this gent faces" are irrelevant here, and original research. Unless you can find some serious reliable sources to describe this (and Watts up with that is not such a source). You have misunderstood Wikipedia's concept of a neutral point of view, so i suggest you read up on this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have explained nothing, and not addressed the issues I raised. This article has been overtaken by events, and the article should reflect the controversy. Otherwise, it loses credibility with users. Peterlewis (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news, and any biographical information about living people has to be held to high standards, not reflect the latest hot gossip. . . dave souza, talk 08:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The news is hardly hot gossip and the man in question has issued an apology. High standards have to be kept by keeping the article up-to-date and relevant. Peterlewis (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

An apology on behalf of the IPCC, of which he is the head, not because of any direct personal involvement in that issue (as other editors have pointed out). -- ChrisO (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Pachauri has in the past weighed in rather forcefully in regards to criticism of this prediction being "voodoo science;" see, for example,

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Glaciologist-demands-apology-from-Pachauri-for-voodoo-remark/articleshow/5477796.cms

It seems that this story -- specifically, Pachauri's involvement in "Glaciergate" (not that I'm particularly fond of that name) -- is being picked up by a number of reliable sources, Times of India and Asia Times, to name a couple. It's much less clear to me that it passes WP:WEIGHT than it was with the conflict of interest stuff, but I think it's worth keeping an eye on. J. Langton (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Now in the Sunday Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2 and in the Sunday Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html More in Der Spiegel of Monday. Richard Tol (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

2035/2350 TERI, IPCC nexus

A new article is claiming that there's a nexus between TERI fellow Syed Iqbal Hasnain who apparently started the ball rolling on the glacier melt date mistake, the IPCC AR4 report and successful TERI grant applications that rely heavily on the imprimatur of the IPCC AR4 prediction. The common thread is Pachauri who is prominent in both groups. There is also a relevant Times of India article on the subject. Doesn't this alleged nexus rate a mention under conflict of interest? TMLutas (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Himalayah Controversy

moved to improve flow Richard Tol (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Rajendra K. Pachauri is the current boss of Syed Iqbal Hasnain. This person brought up the idea of Himalayah glaciers shrinking down dramatically up to 2035. That statement was from a 1999 e-mail interview for a popular magazine, found its path to some WWF papers dated 2005 and later on even was included in the 2007 IPCC report. There is the protective claim that there was a report in preparation for showing that to be true, but it is said that is was found beeing not solid and thus got never published. Despite this single sourced set of statements found its way trough several papers that have a self understanding of only publishing hard science evidence. Just last friday Pachauri, Hasnain and Olafur Grimsson (President of Island) announced a cooperation claiming in their press release that Himalayah galciers "could melt away in only a few decades". recent research from the Indian government (ordered by environment minister Jairam Ramesh) did not find scientific evidence to back up the initial prognosis of radical glacier shrinkage in his neighbour region up to 2035. instead the glacier situation is just stable and there is no indication for any major trend, especially not a correlation with what is published by the IPCC for beeing the world climate. source: financial times germany - article: "Weltklimarat stolpert in Gletscherspalte" ("IPCC stumples into glacier gap") dated 21.01.2010. see also TP:Schlamperei im letzten IPCC-Bericht, in an english language article: Hasnain issues denial, IPCC admits mistake, and here the times online: World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown, 20.Jan.2010; a further link to the Carnegie Corporation of New York just winning the Nehru Prize, article with picture of Hasnain and contrary statements from him: Pachauri: there's money in them glaciers --Alexander.stohr (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

See "proposed extra sentences" abovebelow. Richard Tol (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed extra sentences

After "Pachauri has denied all allegations." Pachauri vigorously defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 (ref to voodoo science, Times of India) before admitting that an error was made (ref to CNN). TERI won two research grants to study the implications of the erroneous prediction (ref to Sunday Telegraph). Although Pachauri argued that there was probably only error in the Fourth Assessment Report (link) of the IPCC, another error was quickly found (ref to Times of London). Note that with all the digging that is going on, it is unlikely to stop here, but this has credible and reliable support. Richard Tol (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

support this inclusion, it is both properly sourced and pertinent to the article. --mark nutley (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

support --14:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.stohr (talk • contribs)

Gutter journalism. As an encyclopedia, we have nothing to lose by waiting for the truth to emerge. --TS 16:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not my business to attack or defend Tony you wrote that just a few minutes ago on my talk page, yet here you are defending again :( Tell me please how the above is not true? --mark nutley (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not defending. I'm advocating that we wait and see what becomes of these allegations. I'm sorry you don't recognise the difference. --TS 16:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gutter journalism? I don't think The Times comes into that category, or The Sunday Times with its report today. An inclusion is needed very quickly. Peterlewis (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Classic synthesis (Pachauri early comments combined with current state) as well as POV writing ("revealing" that Pachauri stating one thing, and combining it with a latter speculation (the # of errors thing) to give impression of P being wrong). The "one error" thing is was about the past, the latter happened after the fact, thus there is no contradiction. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is yet more confusing: defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 (ref to voodoo science, Times of India) conflates two different issues. This seems to be confusing a number of people: listen carefully, for I will only explain this many times: RKP's voodoo science quote, whilst regrettable, was directed at an Indian report - see [4] for details, if you care. That report had nothing directly to do with the 2035/2350 claim. Whilst "voodoo science" was unfair, RKP was correct to note that the report was a poor one, from a scientific viewpoint (it failed to cite many highly relevant publications with non-Indian authors; much of the observations were fine but the conclusions were unreasonable; it was part of some odd positioning by the Indian govt). I haven't seen a quote in which RKP defends the 2035 number: I have However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement." [5]. Or you could have The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas. [6]. But I don't see RKP defending 2035 (probably because he wasn't even aware of it). Somewhere must be his full statement, which NS quotes in part William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to alternative formulations.

The juxtaposition I tried to create is between the following three facts: (1) error in IPCC; (2) TERI getting research grants based on that error; and (3) Pachauri vigorously defending that error.

The second juxtaposition is between (1) Pachauri saying on Saturday that there were probably no further errors in AR4 and (2) the Times writing on Sunday about another error.

The second juxtaposition is, I think, less important but it is more widely reported than the first one. Richard Tol (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that your juxtapositions are WP:SYN to imply a specific POV right? And thus are unusable for wikipedia, save them for an Op-Ed :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Happy to rewrite it such that someone else made the juxtaposition (as Booker did, for instance) and WP just records. Richard Tol (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It certainly can't be Booker, since that is an Opinion article, which can't be used for BLP material (other than for Bookers own BLP). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC - the statements of the IPCC about the Himalaya were pulled back with NO replacement. Thats what i read this afternoon in the above archived and closed discussion. But "having an idea" is great for some folks - it might be anything but just not science. By the way, any contributions to the proposed text addition? --Alexander.stohr (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here. Which statements were pulled? As to the "juxtaposition" stuff; yes that looks very WP:SYN William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever-it-is

First call for Pachauri's resignation in a major, by an academic, not anonymous: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,673568,00.html Richard Tol (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My german is poor. Translation needed William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Der deutsche Klimastatistiker Hans von Storch ist der Meinung, Pachauri solle den Posten zur Verfügung stellen, "um weiteren Schaden vom IPCC abzuwenden". = The German climate statistician Hans von Storch argues that Pachauri should step down "in order to prevent further damage to the IPCC". Richard Tol (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it might be von S again. Sigh. No, not a good source. von S's biases on this subject are clear - hold on. Maybe you accept that? Or are you suggesting he is neutral? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions on Storch are irrelevant. Richard Tol (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then again von Storch is a rather dissonant voice in the general debate, perhaps because few "honest brokers" do state their opinions, but that is neither here nor there. I also note that Der Spiegel isn't actually quoting vS here, but instead paraphrasing, and they have presented his views wrongly before in this month. vS is unusually precise in his choice of words, so that the nuances are made clear, so to me a paraphrase is an alarm sign. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually my opinions on von S are relevant: as are yours, and others: because we have to evaluate him as a source. You are, I assume, evaluating him as a useful source: so you believe that your opinion of him is relevant; and somehow I'm not allowed to have an opinion? Odd. Anyway, I asked you a question: do you consider him neutral on this matter? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, Storch is neutral on Pachauri and the IPCC. Richard Tol (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well from reading this WSJhe is kinda down the middle, gets flak from both sides. --mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats unfortunately faulty logic, the implicit assumption being that the "sides" are equally big, and thus getting flak from both means he is in the middle. And we know (from surveys made by vS himself) that there isn't such a 50:50 separation. All that can be surmised from getting "flak from both sides" is that he isn't at either extreme end. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we'll wait till tomorrow. We'll have an English language source then, and William has the chance to gather evidence for his so far unfounded claim that Storch has a grudge against Pachauri or IPCC. As it stands, William is just smearing Storch's name. Richard Tol (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC) moved to improve flow Richard Tol (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well here`e one i never thought i`d see Pachauri must resign at once as head of official climate science panel By geoff lean of all people :) so how many`s that now want him sacked? --mark nutley (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

4, and of these only one is potentially interesting (von Storch). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We have

1. Monckton (former advisor to the prime minister of the UK)
2. Fielding (senator of Australia)
3. North (freelancer)
4. Lean (journalist)
5. Storch (professor of meteorology)
6. Pielke Jr (professor of environmental studies)
7. Tol (professor of economics)
8. Samson (member of Netherlands parliament) http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Wetenschap/256661/PvdA-erkent-geblunder-VN-Klimaatchef-moet-weg.htm Richard Tol (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Weaver (climatologist) http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/Canadian+scientist+says+global+warming+panel+crossing+line/2487264/story.html[he didn't say that[7] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)]

Verbatim: "A senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations' panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled." Now why is ITS CHAIRMAN SHOULD RESIGN not a call for resignation? Richard Tol (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Raina http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/ipcc-rajendra-pachauri-glaciers Richard Tol (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Richard, this certainly tells us why we shouldn't just accept things blindly, and a good hint as to why WP:NOTNEWS exists. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

More tomorrow. Richard Tol (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Never believe the predictions of an economist: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,673765,00.html Richard Tol (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Sciencemag.org Covers the piece by storch richard and pielke.

We will need some links on these, especially since Der Spiegel article doesn't say this (in the text - it does in the header though, but these are often added later and do not have the same editorial oversight). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Or is Der Spiegel link an Op-Ed written by you 3? The heading doesn't make that clear, and the content doesn't reflect the heading. (it is critical, but doesn't state that Pachauri should resign) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC) - nb. i see on Klimazwiebel that it is indeed an Op-Ed by Pielke, Tol & von Storch. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is less whether or not von S is a neutral source, and more whether he's sufficiently notable that his criticism of Pachauri is also notable. I would concede that he's not a neutral source -- this issue appears sufficiently polarized that I'm not sure that there is any such thing at this point -- but he is a notable climate scientist, and if he makes a public statement criticising the head of the IPCC, it's worth noting. J. Langton (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Kim raised a point of procedure: As I have now publicly called for Pachauri's resignation, I should not be involved in debating whether that should be reflected in Pachauri's article. Richard Tol (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough richard, i think however you should have mentioned you were a co-author on this piece from the get go. Should you find more links please post though. I believe given the amount of people calling for [RKP - PAs removed - Nutters, please don't use deliberately offensive diminutives William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)] to go we should put this newest one in the article given storch is a centerist on the whole issue so there is really no bias from him n this. --mark nutley (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I knew that this would be published only on Jan 24 around noon. Richard Tol (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

They did`nt give you much notice did they :) Are you freelance or do you work for an established paper? I saw one of your bits in an irish paper not so long ago :) mark nutley (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

'old on 'ere. So RTol has been pushing a piece calling for RKP's resignation and just happened to forget to mention that he had signed it? - oh come on, this is very poor faith. And clearly, you judgement on whether von S is biased is itself rather biased by his being a co-signatory to this piece. This is tawdry William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion was clear for all to see.

Can you provide evidence that Hans von Storch is not neutral with regard to IPCC or Pachauri, or do you wish to withdraw your comments? Richard Tol (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on RKP was there for all to see, yes. But was everything relevant about your opinion of von S's reliability and neutrality out there for all to see? Most certainly not. You hid the fact that he was a co-author with you of the resignation stuff. It is hardly surprising that you consider your co-author to be entirely neutral; but that he was your co-author on this piece is really very relevant and you should have disclosed it at the start. Are you not arguing for higher standards and greater transparency from the IPCC? Begin at home William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Storch's opinion on Pachauri's resignation was indeed known to me before he announced it to the rest of the world. That's not the point. I never write about unpublished material. I would think that people are to be considered neutral until there is evidence that they are biased. You are the one who accused him of bias, so it is on you to provide evidence. Richard Tol (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My post above shows his neutrality WSJ --mark nutley (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I don't think the issue is whether von Storch is neutral, but rather whether he's a sufficiently important figure that his call for Pachauri's resignation is worth recording here. I would argue that he is, and it is. Regarding the neutrality issue, though, in what respect is neutrality to be desired? Neutrality regarding AGW? Neutrality regarding Pachauri? As it currently stands, the issue isn't particularly well defined. J. Langton (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He is certainly well known, and i believe this should be in. We have reliable sources, a well known (and not a wacko) person saying he should step down, it is a notable event and should be recorded here. mark nutley (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BBCThe chairman of the UN's climate science body, Rajendra Pachauri, has said he will not resign over its discredited claims that glaciers in the Himalayas will melt by 2035. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has also faced criticism over a claim that global warming is linked to worsening natural disasters. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chair of the IPCC, explains the organisation's role in tackling climate change Well he has responded to the calls for his resignation so i see no further problems with this inclusion now --mark nutley (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No: he is repsonded, so it must be right makes no sense. As before, the judgement goes on Weight and NOTNEWs. This is not wikinews - go over there if you want to write up-to-the-minute stuff. We (you) need to get out of the habit of trying to rush stories in without leaving them to settle William M. Connolley (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well we now have eight people asking him to go, I`m afraid this must go in, whe nso many are publicly calling for you to be sacked it is WP:Notable don`t ya think? --mark nutley (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Got a reliable source? We seem to have an op-ed in German, which hardly implies notability or a suitable source for a BLP, and a few denialist politicians unsourced as far as this section shows. The proposed Telegraph blogger is hardly suitable, and the Radio 4 brief news item didn't match up to the words you quoted when I listened to it. "PLEASE NOTE: We are unable to offer transcripts for our programme interviews. Today is broadcast live and the running order is subject to change." So, has that been published somwhere more reliable than a brief news interview with Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (NOT Pachauri)? . . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all this is breaking news and thus never should go in (WP:NOTNEWS), we should await the results of the news-cycle. And secondly 8 people aren't very many - since i will bet that 8 is a figure that can be reached for any person in a high-office, without serious problems. The major aspect would be the notability and influence of the people who are calling for his resignation. And here really none of these count, nor does the references reach notable levels. The only surprises here is vS (and possibly Samsom, who i don't know). The rest can be split up into extreme perennial critics (Monckton,Fielding) and moderate perennial critics (Pielke Jr, Tol, Lean). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC) [you may as well make it 9 since i'll bet Inhofe will join soon (that he hasn't is a hint on notability), just as the usual suspects in the pundit echo-chamber will] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@kim Samson is the Dutch environmental spokesman for the Labour Party, @ davethe bbc usually transcripts a day or so after a show, i`ll look it up then . mark nutley (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i know who Diederik Samsom is. The question is how much influence he has, and i guess it is as little as his counterpart environmental spokesperson in the Danish opposition (which is extremely little). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Samson is the environment spokesperson of one of the parties in government, and in the same party as the responsible minister. Richard Tol (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that Weaver has called for pachauri to go shall we get to work on some text? --mark nutley (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the amount of sources calling for this is weight to be attributed to the call here, and no longer news. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm rapidly becoming extremely cynical about the entire GW lobby - the IPCC AR4 was supposed to be written to a very high scientific standard, and we mustn't dare sully the discussion with politics. I feel pretty negative to Pachauri.

But that doesn't make it alright to attack him here, or re-cycle the attacks being made on him. There should be no mention, anywhere on WP, of these calls for whatever-it-is. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Except of course that Weaver doesn't say that Pachauri should leave - he says "Some might argue we need a change in some of the upper leadership of the IPCC, who are perceived as becoming advocates,","I think that is a very legitimate question.". Being a legitimate question doesn't make it his opinion, or a call for his resignation.

But even if Weaver had been of that opinion - so what? My question is still what influence do these have on the question of whether Pachauri should resign or not? And the answer is: None. 9 people are still not extraordinary, and a figure that could be rounded up for every person in a high-office. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Verbatim (from the Windsor Star link that Kim crossed out): "A senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations' panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled." Now why is ITS CHAIRMAN SHOULD RESIGN not a call for resignation? Richard Tol (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Weaver is important because, unlike Pielke and Storch, he is an IPCC author. Unlike Tol, Weaver was in AR4, the subject of the current controvery. Richard Tol (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If Weaver's opinion is so important, why didn't the source quote him as saying exactly what the spin piece says? Newspapers have a habit of spinning things and distorting statements, and more reliable sourcing is needed. If he's so influential, we should find out in due course, but this isn't the place for dubious speculation. . . dave souza, talk 22:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I unstruck weaver, he obviously says pachauri should resign. Dave why is it a spin piece? mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so obviously, Kim is correct. Do please present a verbatim statement from Weaver, not a commentary from the reporter or editor. . . dave souza, talk 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Weaver says Pachauri, the panel's chairman, should resign, not only for his recent failings but because he was a poor choice to lead the IPCC to begin with Looks like he asked him to go to me, if you think the reporter got it wrong i`m sure weaver will be screaming about it soon enough, don`t you? --mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Contention

What is making the call to resign a BLP "contentious" issue? Please provide sources. The are abundant sources for public figure inclusion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because there's mass censorship of these articles going on and this is yet another case of genuine referenced material being edit-warred out doesn't mean that such material needs to go in.

This is one of the few bits of 'politics' which is fleeting, and practically irrelevant. The 'believers' still can't accept that the current iteration of the Global Warming Industry is holed below the waterline - let's spend our time documenting how bad it was not who needs to walk the plank. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Google News, there are now 935 news articles with the words "pachauri" and "resign" in them. I realize Wikipedia is not a news site, but this issue has become more than news and is an issue of world politics. The lack of any mention of it in the article is an embarrassment and will certainly be referenced by others as evidence of the alleged "liberal bias" in Wikipedia editing. Marteau (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes Marteau, and we have an indian climatologist now asking for him to step down. It is time to write this up and insert it in the article.mark nutley (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Turns out he knew about the Himalayas before cop15, Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen I figure this should als orate a mention given the furore over the whole glacier thing. --mark nutley (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The man's position as a leader has been, and is being, debated on a world-wide stage for weeks. But thankfully, people coming to Wikipedia will, at least know he is a vegetarian, even if they won't know he and his position are under direct and serious attack. Marteau (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Give him a chance, he only started thinking of coming clean on the 18th Jan 2010, according to the Guardian, seemingly unaware that the story broke in the BBC on 5th December 2009, long before COP 15. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Relocation

The discussion has now moved here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Rtol. Richard Tol (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest adding Emerging nations meet in India over climate change link

Emerging nations meet in India over climate change "... Speaking at a press conference on Saturday, the head of the UN's climate science panel R.K. Pachauri expressed hope that the BASIC nations (G4 bloc) would offer some chance of a binding pact in the near future." 99.155.158.125 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Links to those calling for Pachauri`s resignation

Given the mess the thread above has become i`m putting the links here to try and keep things tidy.

• Times Online Charles Clover, journalist and author
• The Guardian VK Raina former deputy director-general of India's Geological Survey and the man who wrote the glacier report dismissed by Pachauri
• Windsor Star Weaver (climatologist) [8]
• Samson Elsevier (member of Netherlands parliament)
• The Telegraph By geoff lean Environment Correspondent
• Der Spiegal Richard Tol, Pielke and Von Storch --mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• John Sauven director of Greenpeace UK
• Hartmut Grassl former director the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology and the World Climate Research Programme Richard Tol (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• John Barrasso, US Senator (R-WY) Richard Tol (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Pachauri was selected by the leaders of 139(?) countries, these are also the people that will take a decision regarding Pachauri, once some of these leaders come unto the playing field, then it becomes interesting. As before: That 10-20 people will call in the media, for any person in a high office to stand down, is hardly remarkable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no, if a sizable number of IPCC authors were to ask for his resignation, it would be interesting news as well. Since such a case is much more telling regarding potential scientific, procedural or management problems than the quibbling of politicians, whose decisions are often motivated by completely different things.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if and when that happens, we can review it again. The only AR4 author in the above, just got crossed out. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not quite kim, seems richard tol was one of the authors os said report :) mark nutley (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

New text to be added to article here

Pachauri vigorously defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 (ref to voodoo science, Times of India) before admitting that an error was made (ref to CNN). TERI won two research grants to study the implications of the erroneous prediction (ref to Sunday Telegraph). Although Pachauri argued that there was probably only one error in the Fourth Assessment Report (link) of the IPCC, other errors were quickly found (ref to Times of London). Removed call`s for resignation per consensus. Thoughts please on the remaining proposed text? --mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC) This was Rtol`s original text to be inserted along with the resignation stuff, make your proposed changes below please.--mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(Remove my own suggestion for improvement and MN's thoughtful response). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Pachauri vigorously defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 (ref to voodoo science, Times of India) - as I've said before, this is an error conflating two issues. The India report (not the Times of India) was indeed bad, though not voodoo. But that is a different issue William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You say a report undertaken by the indian government by VK Raina former deputy director-general of India's Geological Survey and the man who wrote the glacier report was bad? How exactly is it bad? And do you have any actual WP:RS to prove your claims? or is this just based on your own thoughts on the report? --mark nutley (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, vair bad [9]. owever, you're missing the point: the error is conflating the two issues. Since we don't deal with the Indian report here, its badness and politicking don't much matter William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So your criticism of the report is based on your reading of it. I actually fail to see how we are conflating the issues here, he said what he said, and was wrong i believe, i know you don`t agree with that but the Indian paper seems a little bit, shall we say better researched than the WWF one :). So tell me, whats your take on the proposed text? Any additions or removals you`d like to see? mark nutley (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, your criticism of the criticism suggests that you haven't read the linked page, it includes useful links to other analyses, including a couple of news reports which count as rs's as well as to the report in question. Try it, quite interesting. WMC, thanks for the useful links. That gives the start of November as a time when the 2035 issue was being revived. So, the report acknowledged that glaciers were shrinking, but apparently denied this was caused by global warming, without any analysis to support this denial. Amusingly ironical that Ramesh made the denial while saying ""My concern is that this comes from western scientists", little realising that the 2035 figure came from Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and the India Environment Portal. . . dave souza, talk 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No dave, one of the links from williams site is to a guardian page, that story is the one were pachauir called the indian government arrogant, the indian telegraph is linked in but supports the findings of the study, the other link is to simon donners blog, but he studies aquatic ecosystems not glaciars, plus he does not really put down the report, just says bloggers are reading to much into it. Perhaps i missed a link in there? Dunno, but we relly need comments on the proposed addition here so sorry for going so off topic :) mark nutley (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pulling together links and evidence based on the various links and subsequent findings. Just to say at the moment that the review paper by the retired Vijay Kumar Raina, published by the Ministry of Environment & Forests and released on 9 November by India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh who made claims that the paper would "challenge the conventional wisdom" about melting ice in the mountains. Pachauri said "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement." Soon afterwards, Lonnie Thompson said "First and foremost this is not a peer reviewed report and nothing scientific can be claimed based on 25 glaciers out of over 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas.... if Jairam Ramesh can write up these results showing just how he came to his conclusion for a quality peer reviewed journal then he should do so. Otherwise the report certainly does not challenge the conventional wisdom." The dispute resurfaced in January; it's not clear when the the "voodoo science" remark was made, it's noted in NS of 11 January. No sign there that Pachauri was defending the 2035 date, he was clearly rejecting the claims made about the paper. However, the news reports refer to the IPCC predictions. So, a bit more clarification needed, but the first proposed sentence looks rather misleading. . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the indians want him to say sorry :) Glaciologist demands apology from Pachauri for 'voodoo' remark and here is the report on the actual statement he made [10] Pachauri calls Indian govt. report on melting Himalayan glaciers as “voodoo science”

mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dated 19 January 2010, but referring to a remark that seems to have been made as far back as 9 November,[11] and was certainly made before 11 January. The spat lingered. . . dave souza, talk 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry dave, i`m missing your point i think. What does it matter if the spat lingered on? How does that change what he said? mark nutley (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The timeline clearly shows him attacking the non peer-reviewed "discussion paper" as inadequate for the claims being made about it, there's no evidence there of him defending the specific 2035 prediction, especially after it came into the open this year. Fortunately, the spat seems to have subsided a little: "Mr Ramesh, who had been at the receiving end of scathing attack from the IPCC chief reiterated the government’s support. 'The government backs Pachauri as the chief of the IPCC at the highest level. Past is past'." [12] . . dave souza, talk 12:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes to new text

"another error was quickly found" should be replaced with "other errors were quickly found" I've lost count how many errors have now been reported. Richard Tol (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, it must be said the sheer amount of errors and reliance of advocacy group reports is beyond belief --mark nutley (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just start checking all the references and has already found some inconsistencies. If you see something, please add it here or just correct it :-) Nsaa (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Which refs are inconsistent? --mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Two sources needed to be updated: This was no longer valid (why we should always use webcitation.org if the source accept it), and and this using a source from october 2003 to document a 2007 incident. Nsaa (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading the long threads above, I agree that the calls for Pachauri to resign should not yet be included in this bio. I do believe that a single sentence, "Pachauri has been criticized for his support for the prediction in IPCC #4 that the Himilayan glaciers would melt by 2035, a claim since discredited."[extensive ref list]. This is a fair statement and not undue. Cla68 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)(move cla68`s proposal to here) mark nutley (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise, until we see how things play out. J. Langton (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

The word "Pachauri" doesn't redirect anywhere. I don't know how to create a redirect and it seems that it should redirect here. Can anyone here point me to a page that tells me how to create a redirect? Thepm (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC) WP:REDIR there ya go --mark nutley (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Marknutley! I've done it. The excitement is a bit much. I need to have a lie down now. Thepm (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTNEWs: why

Weaver says Pachauri, the panel's chairman, should resign, not only for his recent failings but because he was a poor choice to lead the IPCC to begin with Looks like he asked him to go to me, if you think the reporter got it wrong i`m sure weaver will be screaming about it soon enough, don`t you? --mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC) - but A recent article published on Jan. 27 in many Canwest papers suggested I believe that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled. These statements do not accurately reflect my views. I have acted as a lead author on chapters in the last three IPCC assessments, published in 1995, 2001 and 2007. The IPCC has, and continues to offer, policy-makers thoughtful and rigorous assessments of the science of climate change... I agree that these are legitimate questions to ask, but that does not mean that I am calling for the chair's resignation. [13] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lucky for me i did not put weaver in the new list above then :) --mark nutley (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for asking, but what is this about? (I'm quite new to this article and its talk page) I know I've seen WMCs claim about NOTNEWS before where it was unfunded (here: Talk:Stern_Review#NOTNEWs) Hopefully it's not the case here? Nsaa (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No it`s about if weaver called for pachauri`s resignation, noting to do with stern --mark nutley (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone else did it for you then, i've crossed Weaver off both lists. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Malicious redirect

Extended content

Editors familiar with the subject may wish to weigh in on this violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Iff it's a violation of WP:BLP, please nominate it for WP:Speedy deletion (I'm unsure under which policy) and add a report at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Nsaa (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC) It's okay. Someone with a brain has already speedied it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC) If you don't stop mocking other persons and editors I will try to get you blocked by filling the appropriate report. Look at is a warning. Nsaa (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC) If you warn another editor, the warning needs to go on their userpage talk page, not here. Cla68 (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Yes I know, since I then know he has read it next time he edits. I've just done it. Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Hahahaha. PLEASE go ahead and fill in "the appropriate report", Nsaa. Because if you really think complimenting the person who speedily-deleted the redirect is equivalent to mocking you then I'll be able to sit back and watch you getting mocked for real. Go ahead, make my day, as Harry Callahan would say. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I've given you a warning and next time it goes straight to WP:ANI. Your way of communication is far beyond what's acceptable (I've answering you here, since you just deleted my post on your page Reverted to revision 341684228 by Scjessey; rv note + laughable warning. using TW). Nsaa (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

More on the Himilayan issue

Moved suggestion up --mark nutley (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading the long threads above, I agree that the calls for Pachauri to resign should not yet be included in this bio. I do believe that a single sentence, "Pachauri has been criticized for his support for the prediction in IPCC #4 that the Himilayan glaciers would melt by 2035, a claim since discredited."[extensive ref list]. This is a fair statement and not undue. Cla68 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Do you mind if i move this up to proposed changes to help keep track of everything cla68? --mark nutley (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC) No, I don't mind. Cla68 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC) It looks fine, just give the refs also that supports this. Nsaa (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTNEWS, food for thought

Apart from arguing strongly against inclusion of all this new controversy section per NOTNEWS in the first place, I have stayed out of this discussion, despite following the news developments themselves keenly. In my view, Pachauri is going to be forced to resign regardless of all other considerations. In light of recent developments, e.g. the bizarre story of his porn novel, his "voodoo science" blunder, his refusal to apologise and his arrogance; he's become a PR nightmare and a liability. He'll have to resign, and if he doesn't, he'll be pushed. If I'm right, what does this mean for the reams of discussion we see above? The entire section will need to be rewritten, and replaced with a section explaining, historically, his forced resignation from the IPCC. On the other hand, if I'm wrong, then in twenty years this whole episode will likely be seen as a blip, and probably not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. To the editors of this page, can we not see how much wasted time, and conversation, and Wikipedia server space this is costing us? Wikipedia is funded by charitable donations. We're meant to be writing an encyclopaedia, not arguing about which daily news developments can be forced into Pachauri's Wikipedia biography in part of what appears, to me, to be actually a campaign to hasten his demise. To admins, the NOT#NEWS guideline needs to be tightened. Who would seriously expect any of this stuff to appear in a real encyclopaedia when it still has the status of breaking news? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct alex, this is why i am dropping the resignation calls from the proposed new text. Which i believe is the current consensus anyway :) mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Best to wait until it actually happens. Don't get too excited William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Like Alex Harvey I foresee big changes in the whole Climate Change Industry, with players expected to be a lot more humble and rigorously ethical in future. However, I never saw the point of including whatever-it-was and in fact it was asking for trouble letting it in. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Sorry to top-post but this section seems to have gone a bit screwy? Seems that the references from Pallab1234 were closed with "<\ref>" instead of "</ref>" and everything thereafter is gawn. If I change it myself, it looks like I've signed all the comments. Sorry, but I'm not especially technical... Thepm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC). Thepm, please do not delete the sourced material. Editors can always improve the article by adding reputable sourced material. It is NOT necessary to discuss this in the talk page. Although discussing it before editing is indeed a good practice. My sources are times magazine. Which is no doubt a reputable source. Please feel free to modify and make the paragraph more informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Marknutley, Please be specific. I am aware of NPOV and other wikipedia guidelines. Please tell me exactly how it is violated. Times is a reputable source and prominent source. It is important that the article contain a short summary of http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece. If other reputable and prominent sources say otherwise then please inform me about them. Actually in my summary I only reported incidents as reported by times and as far as I understand wikipedia works in this fashion. I particularly refrained from anything subjective. I hope to get a response otherwise I have to again revert the changes in few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, this stuff you added is already linked in in the controversy section. If you look above you will see a section here in talk about adding some new text dealing with this issue, the article is under probation and all new additions really should be discussed first. Please remember to sign you talk posts with four tildes (~) Cheers --mark nutley (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pallab1234. The paragraph that you added was partly covered elsewhere but mainly I reverted because it portrayed a very specific point of view. Phrases like "bogus claims" or "considered ludicrous" are emotionally charged and not suitable for an encyclopaedic article. Please don't take it personally and feel free to stay involved here and help to improve the article. Keep in mind that for articles like this one, which is both BLP and controversial, editors will be more likely to have success if their changes are carefully referenced and worded in a balanced way. cheers. Thepm (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thepm, thanks for your reply. Indeed "bogus claims" or "considered ludicrous" are emotionally charged. However these type of things may be written when it is clearly attributed a prominent third party, i.e. times in our case, and copied verbatim. It is unencyclopaedic if an editor says show, but reporting that some prominent source says so is not unencyclopaedic and actually explicitly mentioned in wp:npov. In any case I guess I will go with you in this point. We may not write these weasel words here. However, I feel that a short summary about the nature of controversy should be added in the article. What is already written in the article should be expanded by adding a short (only few lines at best) summary of the times report. Pallab1234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC). Pallab1234. Three quick points. First, if you're quoting from a third party source verbatim, be sure to indicate such by putting in quotation marks. Otherwise you might be accused of plagiarism. Second, it's not necessary to add a new line for each newspaper article. If the article addresses issues already covered, you might just want to add it as an additional reference. Third, don't forget to sign off on all your posts with four tildes (this thing -> ~). That way we know it's you! cheers Thepm (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's also wise to say whom that comes with claims like "bogus claims" or "considered ludicrous". Fine points from (talk). Nsaa (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thepm, I surely agree with the verbatim thing. The point is that the article does not contain any information about the nature of controversy. That should be inserted in the body of the article. I think I may do it. Only a bunch full of links is not sufficient. Pallab1234 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I am going to write the following paragraph: "TERI claimed that climate change is likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. This idea is considered baseless by most glaciologists. This claim has been used to get a £310,000 grant from Carnegie specifically given to aid research into "the potential security and humanitarian impact on the region".[14] Pachauri said a personal apology on the glacier mistake would be a "populist" step. Greenpeace UK director John Sauven said that Pachauri to step down over glacier controversy.[15]. mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reformatted malformed refs for proposal. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is all a bit dubious. TERI isn't directly run by Pachauri, as I understand it, and they didn't cite the 2035 date according to The Times : the press release, author unknown, said "According to predictions of scientific merit they may indeed melt away in several decades." What looks like the press release in question describes a joint announcement, and quotes Pachauri as saying "Scientific data assimilated by IPCC is very robust and it is universally acknowledged that glaciers are melting because of climate change." It also quotes "Prof. Syed Iqbal Hasnain, Distinguished Fellow, TERI" who just talks about the proposed research. The Times seems to be making the spurious claim that "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus", when in fact the funding is for research into just how fast the glaciers are melting. If it finds they're not melting, I'm sure the Indian government will be delighted, but that goes against even the famous discussion paper. The Greenpeace director didn't say Pachauri to step down, according to the Daily Telegraph he said that he didn't think the IPCC would regain needed credibility under Pachauri, and "If we get a new person in with an open mind, prepared to fundamentally review how the IPCC works, we would regain confidence in the organisation." Not quite the same. . dave souza, talk 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we add the resignation stuff now?

It looks like the head of Greenpeace UK is joining the fray. At this point, it seems to me that the calls for Pachauri's resignation are sufficiently widespread, and have occurred over a sufficiently long period of time, that we really should include them here. We have more than enough to pass WP:WEIGHT. mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Langton (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Pallab Carnegie has withdrawn the funding, Everything else you wish to add is being discussed above @ j langton current consensus is for the resignation calls not to be added, that link has already been added above btw :) please guys could you sign your comments with four tildes ~ mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this particular story above -- I think this one is new. Apparently the head of Greenpeace UK is also one of the people calling for Pachauri to resign. It might be one of the links above, but I'd argue it warrants a specific mention here. While I had supported the earlier consensus not to add the resignation stuff, I think at this point it's become sufficiently widespread that I'm changing my position. Multiple notable figures representing a wide variety of professional and political backgrounds have now publically called for Pachauri's resignation. Regardless of whether or not he keeps his job, I think it's becoming increasingly difficult to maintain that is story is just a flash in the pan. J. Langton (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Worth noting that the Indian government is asking that he stay.[16][[17]] . . . dave souza, talk 13:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting it was a political move as well But the support came after Mr Pachauri agreed to accommodate an Indian scientist from the environment ministry in the IPCC Bureau as the chair’s nominee while preparing the panel’s fifth assessment report. --mark nutley (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree there's been a lot of politicking on both sides in India, however, if we're getting into calls for resignation we also need to report backing up to the hilt, as Mark Antony said. . . dave souza, talk 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a notable event for this public figure. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Now India's in, now India's out, the Telegraph shakes it all about

A paragraph on the Torygraph's Telegraph's claim that India was forming a rival to the IPCC was added. Since it missed what had been going on, I clarified matters a bit:

On February 4, 2010 the The Daily Telegraph announced under the headline "India to ‘pull out of IPCC’" that the Indian government was going to form its own climate panel because the work of the IPCC and Dr. Pachauri was considered unreliable. This misrepresented its own story reporting the formation of the Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment, which had already been announced on 25 January 2010 as part of India's actions under the Copenhagen Accord. By the morning of February 5, The Daily Telegraph had changed its headline to "India forms new climate change body".

If we're covering this issue, we should also cover the statements from the Indian government fully supporting Pachauri's place on the IPCC. Seems a bit detailed, other thoughts? . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can i get a link to the telegraph story please, i see no difference from what was written yesterday Telegraph—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 February 2010

Since you ask, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-to-pull-out-of-IPCC.html is now a redirect to the current story. The original version was mirrored here:
"India has threatened to pull out of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is to set up its own climate change body because it "cannot rely" on the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri.
The Indian government's announcement is a snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he fights to defend his reputation after the disclosure that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035."
Some Wattsup blog also reported it. A few hours later we have:
"The Indian government is backing Pachauri to the hilt. Let there be no doubt on that. There is no wavering in the support of the Indian government. The Prime Minister and others in the government are supporting him as chairmen of IPCC. Let there be no two opinions on that," Mr Ramesh said."[18]
dave souza, talk 17:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes dave, i refer you to my post above in "can we add resignation stuff now" There`s backing to the hilt, and there`s backroom shenanigans mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks dave souza (talk · contribs) for removing it from the article. I don't understand why this is relevant for the biography. It looks more suitable in the IPCC article? Nsaa (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, there's coverage of the main issue at Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment. not sure if it's very significant anywhere else. . dave souza, talk 19:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alleged mistakes? Hah, However it still warrants a mention here, it is this guy getting the flax after all, this did happen on his watch. mark nutley (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it something in this part that directly relate to this biography? Nsaa (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That India might pull out of the IPCC seems a Torygraph invention: see [19] for the PM supporting the IPCC William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Also on the Beeb. . dave souza, talk 21:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Beeb is saying "The endorsement that Manmohan Singh has given to Rajendra Pachauri appears highly significant in two ways. For him personally, it is strong backing from a government that in recent months has been a harsh critic. For senior UN officials, support from their "home" government can be vital to keeping their jobs when criticism is in the air, as it is now. More importantly, Mr Singh's choice of words makes clear that despite the IPCC's recently documented lapse over the likely melting date for Himalayan glaciers, his government finds no reason to dispute the panel's core projections about the progress of climate change or its impacts. That appears to be the case among virtually all governments, with only some Chinese and Saudi officials expressing doubts."

But there is still no reason to include any of this in the article until after it's settled. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like NOTNEWs. A good principle to apply elsewhere, perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks But the support came after Mr Pachauri agreed to accommodate an Indian scientist from the environment ministry in the IPCC Bureau as the chair’s nominee while preparing the panel’s fifth assessment report purely political this one --mark nutley (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the time or patience to sort through all the deliberate obfuscation and minutia - but there sure seems to be a deliberate attempt here to censor global warming skeptics. On the efforts that Pachauri and his ilk - let's be clear, corrupt people pursuing a billion dollars of grant money in hopes of getting their hands on hundreds of billions of taxpayer money - is it surprising that other corrupt people would defend them? Enjoy yourselves guys, but money doesn't buy truth. You do know the word truth? Steve Harnish (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Help, help, I'm being oppressed! See WP:V and WP:NPOV. Unsupported opinions on The Truth are inappropriate for articles. . dave souza, talk 09:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, Dave, I'm just having fun with you guys. If the shoe fits wear it, if not, then it doesn't mean anything. Let's face it, Dr. Pachauri is nobody on his own, he's just a figurehead in the massive global warming hoax, so any criticism of him is irrelevant to the larger view. Just the fact that the organization is IPCC and not IPGW is an implicit testament to the absurdity of the original claims, which have taken on a life of their own due to research dollars, political views, and the opportunity to scalp hundreds of billions per year off the backs of hard working people. Over decades this means multi-trillions of dollars - who is going to step in front of that train? What happens when someone with a pang of conscience speaks out? Do a couple burly guys in suits appear on the doorstep? Steve Harnish (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that India's status in the IPCC is relevant to an article on Pachauri. J. Langton (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not India's status, it's that India said his work is unreliable because of all the falsity that has been exposed. Steve Harnish (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't talk this personally, Steve Harnish, but you're soapboxing and such comments can be deleted or archived in accordance with the talk page guidelines. If you have specific proposals, with sources, for improving the article, that will be welcome. . dave souza, talk 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand, really. But tell me, was Pachauri soapboxing (and with a financial motive) with his term "voodoo science"? I appreciate your diligence and hard work. Have a great day. Steve Harnish (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that the Indian government is repudiating Pachauri is a claim that needs strong, strong sourcing to overcome our BLP guidelines. From what I'm seeing, that info should not yet be included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

At the moment we have a RS for the PM saying "India has full confidence in the IPCC process and its leadership and will support it in every way [20] so I rather doubt we'll get even a weak source for the opposite William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The wheels of justice (and arbitration) grind slowly, no way to predict the outcome, but the trend is in a downward direction. Steve Harnish (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the BLP policy is clear. The sources need to be very strong to support inclusion of any negative material about a subject in a BLP article. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. Hey, did you guys see this one? Looks like Pachauri is doubling down (hope this link works): U.N. Climate Chief: Critics Should Rub Their Faces With Asbestos Steve Harnish (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so Faux Noos didn't realise that the "critic" is a denialist who claims that asbestos is as safe as talcum powder, and Pachauri was rhetorically calling his bluff? . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Critics apparently choose not to take the "asbestos" challenge. Telegraph 2/6/2010 New errors in IPCC climate change report Steve Harnish (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing there about asbestos, though it does list the Torygraph's Telegraph's subsequently debunked claims. . .dave souza, talk 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Update 2: The human toll of faulty science. Times Online 2/7/2010 I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones Steve Harnish (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

More like the human toll of relentless press pressure on scientists caught up in a political controversy, see the full article rather than the front page summary, and read more about David Kelly. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Recommend adding "Extended Interview: Climate Science Leader Rajendra K. Pachauri Confronts the Critics"

Recommend adding link to Science (journal) 29 January 2010: Vol. 327. no. 5965, pp. 510 - 511 (DOI: 10.1126/science.327.5965.510) "Extended Interview: Climate Science Leader Rajendra K. Pachauri Confronts the Critics" by Pallava Bagla; also, related article ... [21] 99.60.126.124 (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The mood here is that no controversy exists because nothing has been proven. So why allow Dr. P. to respond - to nothing - if we are to be so neutral?. Steve Harnish (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of critics

The statement that "In addition, Pachauri has faced public criticism for alleged falsification of information from the IPCC to exaggerate the effects of global warming" was introduced, cited to the Guardian. It looks like a misreading of the newspaper's statement that Pachauri "has faced criticism as chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change following allegations of inaccurate statements in panel reports." As discussed above, he has responsibility as chairman, but did not write the incorrect reports, and they appear to have been in error rather than deliberate attempts to exaggerate. So, have removed that and restored well sourced information, as well as mention of a couple of appearances which should be discussed before removal . . . dave souza, talk 11:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Context - the human element. We have high standards for biographical information, but hey, why are people interested in reading biographies at all? Successes, failures, character strengths and faults. I.e., personal qualities are as much of interest as professional accomplishments, while of course being much more subjective and difficult to prove. So why not let Dr. P testify in his own words, and include his statement that his critics should rub their faces with asbestos? Seems fair, and lets him show his personal qualities. Steve Harnish (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave - I hate to break the news to you but this article in the Telegraph states that Dr. P was directly involved in the decision to select and present the most hysterical global-warming claims and got paid a ton of money in the process: Quote: "However, the story then got worse when Dr Pachauri himself came to edit and co-author the IPCC's Synthesis Report (for which the IPCC paid his Delhi-based Teri institute, out of the £400,000 allocated for its production). Not only did Pachauri's version again give prominence to Agoumi's 50 per cent figure, but he himself has repeated the claim on numerous occasions since, in articles, interviews and speeches –such as the one he gave to a climate summit in Potsdam last September, where he boasted he was speaking "in the voice of the world's scientific community"." Link African crops yield another catastrophe for the IPCC . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharnish (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 February 2010

Please sign your posts. The Telegraph has a poor record for fact checking and accuracy in this subject, got any more reliable sources to back up this claim? . . dave souza, talk 17:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Dave that was me. I know you're going to fight this every step of the way but the truth always will come out over time. Looks like the hockey stick is going out thr window too. Steve Harnish (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave the telegraph is a reliable source, you do not get to pick and choose which stories are reliable or not mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Telegraph has a poor record for fact checking and accuracy in this subject"

Do you have a reliable source for this, or would it be WP:OR? J. Langton (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. "The Telegraph has a poor record for fact checking and accuracy in this subject" is a shocking quote to come from somebody who claims to be impartial. As far I am aware, and I have been following this subject in great detail, the Telegraph is one of very few papers to investigate and research this topic in depth, publishing detailed investigative reports. Pretty much every other news report I have read on this subject has been a watered down, and often inaccurate, version of the Telegraph's original reports. It's not the Telegraphs acuuracy and fact checking you should be checking, Dave Souza, but the IPCC's. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Torygraph usually gets climate science wrong. Can you point to any report it has made that has been correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A minor example of Torygraph errors is [22] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol at wmc, you actually link to a blog which has lifted the story from your blog :) Yes such a reliable source :) mark nutley (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And, since OR is ok on talk pages to a reasonable extent, a rather blatant example. Much better coverage of the story here, with the dates right and without the bizarre Torygraph spin that it's a new snub to the IPCC. . . dave souza, talk 23:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Dave did they or did they not correct that mistake you point to? The telegraph is a reliable source, your and wmc`s personal opinions of it matter not a jot. mark nutley (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

@ mark, no they did not correct it. The current version is headlined "India forms new climate change body", conveniently omitting its formation last October, and the heading is "The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri." Oh yeah? And so it contnues, describing it as a "snub" and so on. Read it, and compare to an accurate version. And yesterday they seem to have been plagiarising denialist stuff about weather stations,[23] something already shot down by the NCDC.[24] Not a good way to report science. . . dave souza, talk 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd be rather wary about relying on the telegraph and the referred article above is clearly mixing opinion with reporting. However beside its style the actual facts it reports seem to be correct for the most part and I'd agree that formally the telegraph is "reputable" source as far as average newspaper source is concerned. Independent of that the telegraph article is about a false/unreliable IPCC prediction regarding crop yield in Africa and not Pachauri, i.e. it content is better used in an article on the IPCC report than here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

seem to be correct for the most part is damming with faint praise. The Torygraph has a long history of errors on these issues William M. Connolley (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That phrase refers to article in question not he telegraph's reporting on climate science in general and it is hardly a "praise" of anything but a sober assessment. In any case there should be no problem to cite other newspapers for the same content, so there is no need to rely on telegraph anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We may consider including a subsection on Pachauri's temperament, with P's own words on Hitler, voodoo, and asbestos. Richard Tol (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like trivial gossip, so a very reliable source with expertise on temperament would be needed. Not someone like Booker, who notoriously argues that white asbestos is ""chemically identical to talcum powder" and smoking is good for you. . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Booker and everything to do with Pachauri. I mean, c'mon Dave, you're insisting on a standard for Wikipedia that is far beyond anything Pachauri was concerned with. Anyway, the arguments are transparent because the "high standard" is only to be applied to the skeptics, who are dismissed as gossips and rumor-mongers, and not to the global-warming-defenders, while in the real world the uncovering of corruption continues on a daily basis. About as transparent as someone who arbitrarily removes facts and quotes that he doesn't like, and then threatens the "offending" party with Wikipedia sanctions because they plainly speak the obvious truth instead of fudging their remarks and hiding their biases in "Wikipedia-acceptable" language, while claiming the mantle of an established Wikipedia editor/authority. Steve Harnish (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody gets to be an authority here just because he claims it - or does he? What confers that authority, a flattering self-portrait told in the third person? And how does he attempt to exercise that authority? Maybe he will tell us. Steve Harnish (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph is, in general, considered a reliable source. If some editors feel that it is not reliable on climate change news, then it's incumbent upon those editors to provide a reliable source to justify their objections. Otherwise, it's simply opinion, and we can't use that as a basis for excluding generally reliable sources. J. Langton (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For entertainment purposes only, George Will has a few words about the controversy in this opinion piece: Blinded by science Steve Harnish (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

An amusing display of ignorance. Back on topic, regarding the Telegraph as a reliable source on global warming, see Press Complaints Commission >> Adjudicated Complaints >> Mr Bob Ward and note that The Sunday Telegraph published a number of inaccurate and misleading statements, and refused to publish a correction. . . dave souza, talk 07:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, nope At a late stage, it offered to publish a letter from the complainant, and to mark its cuttings with it in relation to the Tuvalu issue So were did you get they refused to publish a correction? Also and for the final time, The Telegraph is a wp:rs AGW proponents do not get to pick which stories are reliable. We put in the ref`s and the reader decides, this is how wp works mark nutley (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"The complainant had submitted a letter for publication after these articles appeared, which the newspaper had declined to publish." Declined = refused in polite English. Since the Telegraph refused to correct its article until a late stage, we should reasonably show caution in accepting anything they publish on the subject until a similarly late stage, and in the interim check their claims against more reliable sources. All in accordance with WP:SOURCES. . . dave souza, talk 08:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a stretch, Dave. First of all, the offending column was an opinion piece, which we would obviously wouldn't use as a source for anything except the author's opinion. Second, I doubt very seriously that you could find a single newspaper which has not, at some point, committed similar errors. If the Daily Telegraph isn't a reliable source, then neither is anything else.

Furthermore, you're looking at primary sources and extrapolating -- in one opinion column, an inaccurate claim was made and the paper dragged its feet in allowing a response, and therefore nothing that it publishes about climate change is reliable. That's OR, and not particularly well-founded OR at that. J. Langton (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, things here becoming very transparent. Steve Harnish (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see how the objections are made to this one, from the Telegraph, 2/23/2010: Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal "Dr Pachauri has rapidly distanced himself from the IPCC's baseless claim about vanishing glaciers. But the scientist who made the claim now works for Pachauri, writes Christopher Booker" Steve Harnish (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an informative article, but I believe most of the information in it belongs in Syed Hasnain's BLP, if there is one, and the article about the Himalayan glacier melt controversy, if there is one. If no article, then it belongs in the "Criticism of the IPCC" article or the IPCC #4 article criticism section. If there is a battle between Paucheri and the Indian government, and it has been noted in more than one source, I think that could go in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the alleged corruption that's most interesting. False data, a shell game being played with the sources of the data, and with a financial interest by Dr. P. behind it. (Just one of many such players now being exposed.) If corruption is proven, there could be criminal charges, maybe after a change in the political climate as a result of the continued melt-down. (excuse the bad puns) Steve Harnish (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Booker's column is an op-ed piece, and therefore isn't generally considered RS. It seems to me that we have enough controversy from really solid sources (notwithstanding efforts to downplay those sources) that it would be best to focus our attention on those. J. Langton (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. It will take awhile for the legal proof to catch up with the facts. Besides, this is the talk page, not the article, and what is said or not said on Wikipedia will in no way affect the prosecution one way or another. I just want to see what kind of risk to their integrity the "downplayers" are willing to assume as they try to spin this. Steve Harnish (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad you've found The Truth, integrity is essential. Hide the embarassment! . . . dave souza, talk 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to twist my mind into 16 knots in order to follow all the intrigue in that piece. If you have a point, feel free to make it. Corrupt science is corrupt science. Steve Harnish (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Biased and selective quoting of Revkin?

StS, I don't wish to unfairly summarize Revkin's point. What nuance has been left out? I am sure that we can find a way to work it in. The main point here is that a knowledgable and unbiased observer has made the observation that in their opinion Pachauri often crosses the line from neutrality into advocacy and is hurting the IPCC by doing so. This is an important point given the charter and importance of the IPCC. Including example(s) of where Revkin believes that Pachauri has crossed that line seems pertinent to helping the reader understand his point. What else do you think needs to be included to compose a fair summary of Revkin's piece? --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

While Revkin is one of the better journalists on the topic, it's one blog and highlighting it in this way gives a degree of WP:WEIGHT that seems rather inappropriate in a WP:BLP. While Revkin's subsequent blog indicates he holds a view on these lines, it's obviously contested by the historian Spencer Weart. So, more context and a more authoritative source would be needed. . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the follow on post. Revkin represents a knowledgable voice from outside the climate science community. He is a strong supporter of the IPCC view and so his criticism can be taken as unbiased. If you feel that including only Revkin's comments is biased then let us also include Weart's point as well to provide the needed context and balance. Would this satisfy your concern? The fact that Weart responded at all points to the significance and notability of Revkin's point so I think some discussion of this is worth including in a summary form, or do you fundamentally disagree on that point? --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Revkin wrote a longish piece that mixes advice and criticism. It's clear that the "one way ticket" joke was, in fact, Branson's. You concentrate on the criticism and repeat the wrong impression about the joke. Moreover, this is one opinion piece. I tend to agree that it is hard to avoid undue weight when introducing it. I also find it confusing to have a "Controversies" section that covers his IPCC work and also add criticism to the general IPCC section. We should keep it consistent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question: What else needs to be included to compose a fair summary of Revkin's piece? It is clear that Branson originated the one way ticket joke and directed it specifically at federal housing authorities. It is also quite clear that Pachauri subsequently made the same joke but broadened the scope of those to whom it was directed to be "those who are becoming obstacles ...". So to say that the joke was purely Branson's in disengenuous and misleading. Pachauri made the joke although it is unclear exactly toward whom he was directing it at the time. Clearly Revkin and Mark Hertsgaard both felt that he was at least including climate change deniers in his phrasing. So I have not repeated the wrong impression of anything. I originally included this where I did because I don't consider this to be a "controversy" so much as a comment on his work at the IPCC. If you feel it is a controversy then fine we can included it in that section. --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of Advocacy and Activism

We need to include some discussion of the accusations of advocacy and activism which are coming from both sides of the debate:

• Andrew Revkin: Climate Panel Needs to Follow its Own Advice, New Directions for the Intergovernmental Climate Panel
• Mark Hertsgaard: New approach to climate deniers: Launch them into space!
• Don Surber: NYT global warmist: IPCC chief should quit
• Donna Laframboise: Rajendra Pachauri: Ever the Activist

This is more than sufficient material to establish weight for the topic and to provide a cross section of opinion on the matter. I don't want to misrepresent what is being said here so what specifically are the points from all this that should be included to make a fair summary of the situation?

I believe that the key points that jump out at me are:

• Revkin is a supporter of the IPCC view and he believes that Pachauri crosses the line into advocacy.
• The event that caused Revkin to speak up on this point was the one way ticket joke, among other things.
• Hertsgaard is included merely to substantiate that Pachauri actually made the joke.
• Hertsgaard can be used to include that Pachauri claims he didn't mean to include climate change deniers.
• Surber makes the point that Revkin is more politically aligned with Pachauri than the deniers and still has this opinion of the man.
• Laframboise argues that Pachauri's actions are indistinguishable from those of a green activist.

These are all sources published in the mainstream media and by people known to be knowledgable of the subject matter involved. What other points should be addressed to make a fair summary in the controversies section? --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)