Talk:International Conference on Climate Change

Clarity?

Oren0 is unsure why the membership is unclear [1]. Presumably, because we don't know who the membership is. Or do we? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Page 2 of this report (Google result #1, not exactly difficult to find) gives a list of all members. The Washington Post says that some are not scientists, while the NY Times refers to them as a group of scientists, which is why I think calling them a "group of skeptics" is advisable. Oren0 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a list of members to me. Looks like a list of contributors to the NIPCC. Unless you're asserting they are identical? If so, why? I think calling them a "group of skeptics" is advisable. - I suppose "bunch of wazzocks" wouldn't be NPOV :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I read that as being a list of people who contributed to the writing of the paper rather than people who have contributed financially. Looking at page 39 of the PDF, you don't generally list the academic qualifications of your financial contributors in that way. And maybe I'm an ignorant American, but I have no idea what a wazzock is. Oren0 (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Add Climate change controversy and/or Climate change denial in See also

Add Climate change controversy and/or Climate change denial in See also. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is: this is a denalist (or in any case, skeptic) conference, and it makes sense for people reading this page to find related encyclopedia material. I think it would be good to include this page in categories that include the climate change skeptics. I didn't find a category explicitly for that, but other pages use category: Environmental skepticism (which I just added, it seems it should not be controversial).

Note that the current "see also" link, viz: "list of scientists opposing...," is relevant because a) many of them signed a famous declaration at the first meeting of this conference, and b) many of them speak at this conference. As to whether the proposed see-also links would be appropriate, it is unclear to me. M.boli (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

To be more precise: putting this page in the Environmental skepticism category makes it findable by people browsing global warming skepticism as well as the inverse direction. But global warming skeptics, as well as various individual skeptics, are already wiki-linked for the benefit of people reading this article, it is hard to see the value of see-also. M.boli (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This "List" List of climate skeptics ... 99.181.135.177 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The current see-also links to that very page. List of climate skeptics redirects to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. M.boli (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Skeptic" in the lede

Regarding the editor who removed "Skeptic" from the lede (and elsewhere): I think that was misguided. First of all, the conference is explicitly targeted at global warming skepticism. See for example the quote that I put in the edit summary. If you look through the contents of some of those ICCC conferences, or look at some of the presentation videos that it posts (as I have done), there is no ambiguity that this is the idea that the conference is all about. Secondly, "skepticism" is the neutral POV term that the Wikipedia community has settled on for that strain of thought and that strain of research. The title of the article is Global warming skepticism. Thirdly, I think that in some ways we do these people a disservice to remove that from the article. I think that on the whole they see themselves as skeptical of the consensus, and are proud to belong to the side of the debate that they belong to. And fourthly, if it is conference about global warming skepticism, we do the Wikipedia readers a disservice to remove the wiki-link to that very topic.

I think that despite the profound animosity in the public debate---which spills over into Wikipedia editing quite a bit---this compromise both honors the good faith beliefs and the good faith science of the skeptics while also acknowledging that they find themselves on one side of an essentially (and perhaps unfortunately) a two-sided policy debate. As evidence, I point to this very conference. It brings together people from a whole lot of positions and a variety of strains of research, with skepticism of the global warming consensus being the exact one thing they have in common.

If there is better language than the current, we should discuss it here and come to some agreement. I will happily participate and honor whatever is concluded. M.boli (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

June 2009

[2] is broken, or rather not broken but leads to irrelevance. Also the 2009 section says *The* 2009 conf, about the march one, but then there is a june one. So it all needs updating William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Conference on Climate Change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104165110/http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html to http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)