Well the major problem with the IPCC is their mandate is not to find out if Co2 is harming the planet.
It has already decided without scientifically confirmed evidence, that it is. Their mandate is to prevent it's rise by different means.
The IPCC is an U.N. generated council which means it is political not unbiased science.
The IPCC has collected the scientific data on climate change and publish this so that it would be easily available to everyone. The report analyzes what changes global warming is making in the Earth and the factors that are contributing to global warming. The IPCC report is based upon science and does not contain personal opinions about what action should be taken.
The Report for Policymakers is a summary for those who are in a position to make policy and laws and they should certainly heed the scientific evidence that action needs to be taken. The report does not recommend specific action but it is well within the rights of scientist to speak as citizens about what should be done. Actually it would be rather bad for them to say, "Yes, we need to take immediate action to correct this problem", and then not be willing to share with politicians what action needs to be taken. You think politicians would think that upon their own?
You're conflating the statement "This is a problem, something should be done to solve it." with the statement "Here are the specific steps that should be taken to solve the problem that we have identified as important." The former is what the IPCC says. The latter is what you think the IPCC says, but since you lack the objectivity to analyze this for yourself, you can't tell you are wrong.
Again, you should take note that only the crazies are agreeing with you. I suppose if someone is paying you to torque the crazies up, that's fine (in fact, it kinda makes sense). But if I were you, I wouldn't want only the crazies on my side in a debate about science and public policy. YMMV
edit: I tried to put the IPCC statement into more plain terms for you. But even that wasn't simple enough. I kinda spaced out you really only repost things others have produced, never analysis you have done on your own so you wouldn;t be able to see the relevance of my more simplistic wording to the goals of the IPCC. I apologize.
Here's a test for you. The goal of the IPCC is to determine whether the impacts of CO2-driven climate change will be significant enough to warrant action. As a sidebar to that they also evaluate whether different strategies for dealing with climate change would be effective from societal and scientific perspectives. They do not advocate specific policies. Go through the IPCC's AR4 and see if you can find specific policy options that the IPCC states should be implemented. I doubt you will find anything like that. They may discuss policy options and their possible effect and impact, pointing out things that are, or are not, expected to be helpful, but they do not say things like "This should be implemented immediately." Now the head of the IPCC may make public statements like "We need to reduce carbon emissions" but that is such a broad brush statement it really can't be taken as a sensible policy, it's a strategy for dealing with climate change. The goal is minimizing the effects of climate change on ecosystems and civilization. Policy are the specific actions taken as part of a strategy to achieve the goal. The IPCC shows that the goal is important and provides evidence that different strategies and tactics are effective (or not) ways to achieve that goal, but they do not endorse specific strategies or tactics (unless you would consider showing that some specific method is unsound from a scientific perspective as somehow taking an activist role in that policy).
This kind of cuts back to how conservatives really are befuddled by the difference between goals, strategy, and tactics, and in this you are really no different than the rest. Again, I'm sorry if this is "over your pay grade" as they say, tell your handlers you need simpler material from now on, ok?
It started out as an interesting question, I'll admit, but I think I thought it through faster than you did. Where did this come from? Can you forward me the e-mail from the think-tank distro list you are working off of this time? What is it, $5 per question they give you?
Climate science does not depend in the slightest on the IPCC. Most of the basics of climate science were worked out well before IPCC was even created, and LONG LONG before you began washing your befogged brain with recycled fossil fuel industry funded anti-science lies.
Saying that we should not be dumping our excrement into the commons is policy we can all accept.
The IPCC just lacks intelligence and common sense . They are corrupt .
yes
Why does it have to be policy neutral.
It would be surprising if they admitted they were mostly a bunch political hack representatives of autocratic countries, the majority which are anti-western, antisemitic, and anti-free market. Why people would want North Korea and Iran to have a say on our economic decisions, let alone the long list of slightly better countries, never ceases to amaze me. Some people are really really stupid and I have to conclude they are also self loathing. These are the same people that say they have science on their side and they expect you to take them seriously. They are imbeciles and they think they are geniuses.
The IPCC describes itself on its website as: "The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive." http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.UR0MmvK_Oeo
I'm not sure if it can be argued, but the main thrust for such a statement and a goal of the large reports produced by the IPCC is to give credibility to not only the scientific robustness but also the strong air of objectivity. In other words, the IPCC wants to be seen as an advisory body not an advocacy group.
Rajenda Pachauri, the head of the IPCC since 2002, has repeated on many occasions his own political views on how to handle the climate change issue through CO2 emissions reductions.
This is no different from the previous IPCC chief, Sir Robert Watson. You might say, well that's an individual's own personal opinion. Here is one of his quotes: "When I was chairing the IPCC we were all very optimistic that we'd have a global agreement to limit emissions, though we knew it would be difficult. But we were hopeful that emissions would not go up at the tremendous rate they are rising now." http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/02/ipcc-warming-warning
Notice the words "we were all". Who do you think this refers to? Do you think the IPCC is fully objective in its reports? What about its Summary for Policymakers? What about its leaders?
No. The IPCC is full of agenda-driven environmental activists.
Good Point! Their goal is to condone the UN's carbon taxing and regulating actions. "Global agreement to limit emissions," says it all.
