{"id":13474,"date":"2015-10-16T07:08:35","date_gmt":"2015-10-16T12:08:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/olduvai.ca\/?p=13474"},"modified":"2015-10-16T07:08:55","modified_gmt":"2015-10-16T12:08:55","slug":"13474","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/?p=13474","title":{"rendered":"Duality in climate science"},"content":{"rendered":"<header class=\"entry-header\">\n<h3 class=\"entry-title\"><a href=\"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/duality-in-climate-science\/\" target=\"_blank\">Duality in climate science<\/a><\/h3>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"entry-content\">\n<p>A\u00a0commentary published in Nature Geoscience (online Oct. 2015)<\/p>\n<p><strong>Brief Abstract:<br \/>\n<\/strong>The commentary demonstrates the endemic bias prevalent amongst many of those developing emission scenarios to severely underplay the scale of the 2\u00b0C mitigation challenge. In several important respects the\u00a0modelling\u00a0community is self-censoring its research to conform to the dominant political and economic paradigm. Moreover, there is a widespread reluctance of many within the climate change community to speak out\u00a0against\u00a0unsupported assertions that an evolution of \u2018business as usual\u2019 is compatible with the IPCC\u2019s 2\u00b0C carbon budgets. With specific reference to energy, this analysis concludes that even a slim chance of \u201ckeeping below\u201d a 2\u00b0C rise, now demands a revolution in how we both consume and produce energy. Such a rapid and deep transition will have profound implications for the framing of contemporary society and is far removed from the rhetoric of green growth that increasingly dominates the climate change agenda.<\/p>\n<p><em>DOI:10.1038\/ngeo2559 \u00a0<em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.nature.com\/ngeo\/journal\/vaop\/ncurrent\/full\/ngeo2559.html\">http:\/\/www.nature.com\/ngeo\/journal\/vaop\/ncurrent\/full\/ngeo2559.html<\/a><\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<div>The commentary should also be available to all, including non-subscribers, via\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/rdcu.be\/eoQY\">http:\/\/rdcu.be\/eoQY<\/a>\u00a0(this may not download onto phones, iPads, etc.)<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>An open access and\u00a0<em>pre-edit<\/em>\u00a0pdf is available at:\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/kevinanderson.info\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/For-my-website-On-the-duality-of-climate-scientists-submission-to-Nature-2015.pdf\">On the duality of climate scientists \u2013 pre-edit version of a submission to Nature \u2013 2015<\/a>\u00a0This pre-edit version is also\u00a0copied below.<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>*****<\/p>\n<div>\n<p><strong>On the duality of climate scientists:<br \/>\n<\/strong><em><strong>\u2026 how integrated assessment models are hard-wired to deliver politically palatable outcomes<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p><em><strong>The value of science is undermined when we adopt questionable assumptions and fine-tune our analysis to conform to dominant political and economic sensibilities. The pervasive inclusion of speculative negative emission technologies to deliver politically palatable 2\u00b0C mitigation is but one such example. Society needs scientists to make transparent and reasoned assumptions, however uncomfortable the subsequent conclusions may be for the politics of the day.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>&#8230;click on the above link to read the rest of the article&#8230;<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Duality in climate science A\u00a0commentary published in Nature Geoscience (online Oct. 2015) Brief Abstract: The commentary demonstrates the endemic bias prevalent amongst many of those developing emission scenarios to severely underplay the scale of the 2\u00b0C mitigation challenge. In several important respects the\u00a0modelling\u00a0community is self-censoring its research to conform to the dominant political and economic [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[5243,113,141,2956,1004,6091,264,268,440,705],"class_list":["post-13474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-environment","tag-bias","tag-carbon-emissions","tag-climate-change","tag-climate-science","tag-co2","tag-duality","tag-energy-consumption","tag-energy-production","tag-ipcc","tag-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13474","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13474"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13474\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13476,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13474\/revisions\/13476"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}