Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton

[David Lewis]

On the other hand, Robert Stavins has published his call 
to
 
the three Co-chairs of the AR5 WGIII ( cc'd to Pachauri) that the IPCC 
should tell all people interested in this latest IPCC effort that they need 
to read the entire 2,000 page plus document rather than the 33 page 
summary.  It matters, when governments are involved, writes Stavins, if the 
document in question was subject to government *comment*, or whether it was 
subject to government* approval*.  He suggests the Summary *For* Policy 
Makers  should be called the Summary *By* Policymakers from now on.  

He blogs that "the process the IPCC followed resulted in a process that 
built political credibility by sacrificing scientific integrity."  In the 
part of the SPM he was a Co-coordinating Lead Author on, "*all*" 
controversial text, i.e. 75% of what they started with was removed.  The 
objections of one country were enough to force removal of whatever they 
were objecting to.  It didn't matter whether the country was rich or poor:  
"any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and 
positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable."

He is publicly questioning whether the IPCC should continue to ask people 
such as himself to "put enormous amounts of their time over multi-year 
periods to carry out work that will inevitably be rejected"

If  Bolin were still around, I wonder what he would say in response to an 
argument such as Stavins puts forward.

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:21:29 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote:
>
> I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes "tampering 
> by politicians". First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, 
> that gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in 
> order to create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you 
> don't want a consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want 
> one, you have to explain how that could be achieved without having 
> governments in the process. Second: it sort of assumes that only the 
> politicians bring the politics. there's politics throughout the process of 
> various sorts. The politicians' are more overt. But they also remove 
> politics (cf the removal of preliminary matter in WGIII about ethics)
>
> best, o
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton

[Greg Rau]

Further scientist perspectives here:
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations


Stavin's comment quoted from below "... a [IPCC] process that built political 
credibility by sacrificing scientific integrity" is revealing(?)  Political 
credibility to whom? To the majority who will suffer the consequences of GHG 
effects, or to the few who will benefit (in the short term) by ignoring them?  
This begs the question how capable and willing is the international political 
process in mitigating GHG's, regardless of what scientific reports and 
summaries say and regardless of what is in the best long term interest of the 
majority of their constituents? Then there is the adaptation lobby, eagerly 
waiting in the wings to attempt to expensively treat/cope with GHG symptoms 
rather than more cost effectively removing root causes.  In this regard, it 
would be revealing to learn what sort of "politics" if any went on with the SPM 
for WG II.

Greg

Greg   




>
> From: David Lewis 
>To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
>Cc: Ronal W. Larson ; Alan Robock 
>; Geoengineering ; 
>kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 
>Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:20 PM
>Subject: Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
> 
>
>
>On the other hand, Robert Stavins has published his call to the three 
>Co-chairs of the AR5 WGIII ( cc'd to Pachauri) that the IPCC should tell all 
>people interested in this latest IPCC effort that they need 
to read the entire 2,000 page plus document rather than the 33 page 
summary.  It matters, when governments are involved, writes Stavins, if the 
document in questionwas subject to government comment, or whether it was 
subject to governmentapproval.  He suggests the Summary For Policy Makers  
should be called the Summary By Policymakers from now on.  
>
>He blogs that"the process the IPCC followed resulted
in a process that built political credibility by sacrificing scientific
integrity."  In the part of the SPM he was a Co-coordinating
Lead Author on, "all" controversial text, i.e. 75% of what they started with 
was removed.  The objections of one country were enough to force removal of 
whatever they were objecting to.  It didn't matter whether the country was rich 
or poor:  "any text that was considered inconsistent with
their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as
unacceptable."
>
>He is publicly questioning whether the IPCC should continue to ask people such 
>as himself to "put enormous amounts of their time over
multi-year periods to carry out work that will inevitably be rejected"
>
>If  Bolin were still around, I wonder what he would say in response to an 
>argument such as Stavins puts forward.
>
>
>On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:21:29 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote:
>I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes "tampering by 
>politicians". First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that 
>gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to 
>create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want a 
>consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you have to 
>explain how that could be achieved without having governments in the process. 
>Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the politics. 
>there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The politicians' are 
>more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal of preliminary 
>matter in WGIII about ethics)
>>
>>
>>best, o
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>"geoengineering" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.