There has been comparatively little research formally constructing or eliciting subjective probabilities for comprehensive ranges of the key drivers of baseline emissions in a country‐specific context, and this remains an important research need for scenario development.

WG3 Chapter 6

If qualitative issues are all we are really talking about, then let’s not add numbers as a kind of sparkly garnish.

Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-century

Copenhagen showed that unless there is clarity and convergence on the overall objectives of the negotiation (the meta-negotiation), the technical level negotiations will get stuck.

Many of these studies are poorly done.

This point is not an argument for any particular attribution level. As is well known, using an argument of total ignorance to assume that the choice between two arbitrary alternatives must be 50/50 is a fallacy.

It is very much the case, I think, that many of the comments seem to miss this point — seem, to think, that is, that it’s consistent w/ science’s way of knowing for people “to form whatever opinion … they WANT TO” in the face of uncertainty.

I couldn’t disagree more.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/5/271/2014/esd-5-271-2014.pdf

autisutekh:

post-eldritch-horrorcore:

jayno-eyes:

Unnecessarily gendered things:

  • clothes
  • shampoo
  • babies
  • deodorant

Children’s toys
Colours

genitals

chromosomes

(via stopgenderingchildren)

As a referee, I would not need to offer an independent data analysis and proof that the statistical error would have a major effect on the conclusions. It would’ve been enough just to point out the error. But once the article appears, the burden of proof is reversed. And I think that’s too bad.