tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post2289968938553978875..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate povertyWilliam M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-42476075229436385262018-10-26T14:05:15.147+00:002018-10-26T14:05:15.147+00:00Will we see shorter, more focused IPCC reports fro...<a href="https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/will-we-see-shorter-more-focused-ipcc-reports-from-now-on-the-short-answer-is-no/" rel="nofollow">Will we see shorter, more focused IPCC reports from now on? The short answer is no</a> refers :-)William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-36834157884934233632018-10-25T19:39:05.054+00:002018-10-25T19:39:05.054+00:00Press release saying "full title" is a b...Press release saying "full title" is a bit misleading, which may be common for press releases. Look at the front of the thing at http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/ – it's clear that the big bold title is "Global Warming of 1.5 ºC", and all the rest is small print by the sub-editor. http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf is similar, all "Subject to correction, copy-editing and layout ". <br />As bad as the subheads in newspapers. <br /><br />A little like On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, which has a small "On", big bold "the Origin of Species", smaller text to the comma, then even smaller text. <br />Think we used to laugh at the Victorians for their wordy titles. davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05472098969204011008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-81985018189009245892018-10-24T13:58:17.870+00:002018-10-24T13:58:17.870+00:00"
...unless you're a bureaucrat, you can ..."<br />...unless you're a bureaucrat, you can immeadiately tell that for something to end up with a title like that, something must have gone badly wrong.<br />"<br /><br />If the title had been any less literal, then people would complain that the bureaucrats had used poetic license with extreme prejudice.*<br /><br /><br />"<br />One of the things that is going wrong is that people are misinterpreting it.<br />"<br /><br />And in other news: the sky is blue.<br /><br /><br />*The ambiguous prepositional modifier is intentional.The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenusenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-39591791400678411762018-10-24T09:53:09.091+00:002018-10-24T09:53:09.091+00:00I agree there are a lot of misinterpretations, but...I agree there are a lot of misinterpretations, but the report is definitely not simply about impacts. There's a whole chapter on mitigation pathways for achieving a 1.5ºC limit and another one on implementation of emissions reduction responses.<br /><br />Interestingly, "both sides" are making the same misinterpretation for their own reasons. Pro-action peeps are talking about the IPCC "calling for" drastic action as evidence of scientific support for major emissions cuts. Anti-action peeps are talking about the IPCC "calling for" drastic action as evidence of a cabal of scientists trying to overturn capitalism and implement a new world order.<br /><br />The reality is that the IPCC haven't called for anything. They were asked to provided a report on what it would take to achieve 1.5ºC and they've come back and said what everyone already knew: it would take a lot.<br /><br />Of course, it's not really BSAB (Both Sides Are Bad). The former are a hell of a lot closer to the truth than the latter.PaulSnoreply@blogger.com