A summary of 'Mitigation of Climate Change' -- the much awaited third report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- was issued last night.
According to Michael Casy writing for The Guardian:
International delegates reached an agreement early Friday on the best ways to combat climate change despite efforts by China to water down language on cutting destructive greenhouse gas emissions.
The closed-door debate over everything from nuclear power to the cost of cleaner energy ran into the early morning hours with quibbling over wording. But consensus was eventually reached on a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. network of 2,000 scientists and delegates from more than 120 nations.
"It's all done," said Peter Lukey, a member of the South Africa delegation. "Everything we wanted to see was there and more. The message is: We have to do something now."
Read the complete article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6606763,00.html
Download the IPCC report here: http://www.ipcc.ch/
SJT,
I think that if you re-read my comment you will recognise that I was suggesting that politics and science are interwoven, I gave the funding model as an example. Your quote below refers to the same thing...
"Scientists have to justify every project that is run, and it is all managed using a new model that is very sympathetic to the governments requirements for a lean and mean CSIRO."
I did not now or ever suggest that there is a gravy train for scientists, every piece of evidence points to the contrary and has done for many years now!
Peter
"It is also naive to believe that politics does not drive science. Just look at the funding models in this country and you will see what I mean."
Scientists have to justify every project that is run, and it is all managed using a new model that is very sympathetic to the governments requirements for a lean and mean CSIRO. There is no gravy train by which the scientists just dream up anything they want to give themselves work. Any suggestion that is how it works is just slanderous.
SJT,
Have a look at the millions or indeed billions that has been invested over the past 8-10 years by the Australian and US governments on climate science. I'd say that neither Bush nor Howard were working against scientists rather that they were having an each way bet to ensure that if the political winds changed they could claim some kudos.
Peter
Labor was right, Howard and Bush were wrong. Howard admits he was wrong, at least. They did their best to play down global warming, for as long as they could. That is not demanding a higher degree of certainty, that is actively working against the scientists.
SJT,
Whilst the Bush and Howard governments may have demanded a higher degree of certainty before they would act in the manner that the major green groups have advocated, ultimately the politics has bypassed them and they are now playing catch up.
Which politicians you ask, how about political parties. Labor has advocated stronger measures be taken on AGW for some time now, of course the greens and democrats have always advocated stronger measures.
Politics is not just about who is in power, it also refers to those in opposition and all lobby/advocacy groups.
It is also naive to believe that politics does not drive science. Just look at the funding models in this country and you will see what I mean.