RT @Peters_Glen: @StuartBCapstick @KevinClimate @steviedubyu I have lots of examples, but you probably have to go behind the scenes to see…
@noahqk @DrAlaaClimate @HMcJeon3y4 @hausfath @ClimateFran Once it was locked in, that was it. Some argue unfccc / Kyoto only happened because of the GWP. Too many like the status quo. Shine called it an inadvertent consensus. https://t.co/f5yYKzIQYG
@StuartBCapstick @KevinClimate @steviedubyu I have lots of examples, but you probably have to go behind the scenes to see them. It is better to ask your question when AR6 WG3 comes? In any case, slightly different, but related issue, is the use of emissio
RT @Peters_Glen: Oops, I meant "*without* explicit consent of science", though, the sentence works anyways...
Oops, I meant "*without* explicit consent of science", though, the sentence works anyways...
The amazing thing here is that the problems with the GWP were known very well from the start, but they were used by policy makers with explicit consent of science, what Keith Shine calls an 'inadvertent consensus' https://t.co/f5yYKzIQYG 5/
@RusselNorman Incorrect. It’s a point that’s long been made in the scientific literature. See Wigley 1998, or Shine 2005 or Shine 2009, as well as the more recent, post-Paris critiques. The old way of making the comparison is just more obviously dumb, po
de facto accidental agreement on inaction + Why Key Climate Scientists Want Economists Off IPCC https://t.co/amcwsz8Eh3
Have a read of the Editorial by Keith Shine, one of the fathers of the GWP, it is rather entertaining! https://t.co/f5yYKzIQYG Not sure the GWP would be called the 'gold standard for policy'? @janfug @ReisingerAndy @oneill_bc (Also read the section in I
"Indeed, has there been what might be termed an “inadvertent consensus”, so that the IPCC & policymakers have each perceived that the other was content with the concept & didn’t apply pressure to fully assess alternatives?" https://t.co/f5yYKzIQYG