{"id":21297,"date":"2013-12-27T19:40:39","date_gmt":"2013-12-27T18:40:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it\/?p=21297"},"modified":"2021-09-28T18:42:33","modified_gmt":"2021-09-28T16:42:33","slug":"retribuzioni","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/2013\/12\/27\/retribuzioni\/","title":{"rendered":"Retribuzioni"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\nTrovo questa tabella<\/a> nella rassegna di fine anno di The Scientist<\/em>, ma dubito che la media europea dello stipendio lordo valga per i dottorandi e i post-doc italiani.<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

In ottobre, la Commissione per l’energia e i cambiamenti climatici del Parlamento inglese aveva chiesto a chiunque ne avesse voglia di recensire la sintesi e del vol. 1 – The Physical Science Basis<\/a> – del V Rapporto IPCC. La Commissione sperava di ottenere risposte alle seguenti domande:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. How robust are the conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report? Have the IPCC adequately addresses criticisms of previous reports? How much scope is there to question of the report\u2019s conclusions?<\/em><\/li>\n
  2. To what extent does AR5 reflect the range of views among climate scientists?<\/em><\/li>\n
  3. Can any of the areas of the science now be considered settled as a result of AR5\u2019s publication, if so which?\u00a0 What areas need further effort to reduce the levels of uncertainty?<\/em><\/li>\n
  4. How effective is AR5 and the summary for policymakers in conveying\u00a0 what is meant by uncertainty in scientific terms ? Would a focus on risk rather than uncertainty be useful?<\/em><\/li>\n
  5. Does the AR5 address the reliability of climate models?<\/em><\/li>\n
  6. Has AR5 sufficiently explained the reasons behind the widely reported hiatus in the global surface temperature record?<\/em><\/li>\n
  7. Do the AR5 Physical Science Basis report\u2019s conclusions strengthen or weaken the economic case for action to prevent dangerous climate change?<\/em><\/li>\n
  8. What implications do the IPCC\u2019s conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report have for policy making both nationally and internationally?<\/em><\/li>\n
  9. Is the IPCC process an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge? Or has it focussed on providing a justification for political commitment?<\/em><\/li>\n
  10. To what extent did political intervention influence the final conclusions of the AR5 Physical Science Basis summary?<\/em><\/li>\n
  11. Is the rate at which the UK Government intends to cut CO2 emissions appropriate in light of the findings of the IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis report?<\/em><\/li>\n
  12. What relevance do the IPCC\u2019s conclusions have in respect of the review of the fourth Carbon Budget?<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Se ne deduce che gli 11 parlamentari hanno rifilato ad altri un lavoro per il quale sono retribuiti: leggere i documenti preparati su richiesta del loro governo.
    \nSui     50 tra enti e persone<\/a> che hanno riposto all’appello, una met\u00e0 risponde alle domande. L’altra ripete le proprie tesi:
    \n– Richard Lindzen, ex MIT, finanziato da Big Coal
    \n– Roger Pielke Sr. e Alan Gadian, furenti di non presi in considerazione
    \n– Philip Richens, habitu\u00e9 dei blog neghisti
    \n– i bigoilisti Friends of Science, Scottish Climate and Energy Forum,\u00a0John McLean, Nicholas Lewis, Barry Brill, Madhav Khandekar, Neil Hutton, Christopher Monckton terzo Visconte di Brenchley che ricicla\u00a0    grafici taroccati<\/a>, alcuni autori del Non IPCC Report,
    \n– Donna Laframboise, propalatrice di bufale. Per una selezione di queste qui, rif. il delizioso\u00a0    lagomorfo\u00a0<\/a>
    \n– Michael J. Kelly, che non ha letto le domande
    \n– Rob Fenton, Alex Henney (due commenti), Conor MacMenemie, Robin Genier, David Holland, Jonathan Drake, Marcel Crok, Paul Matthews, Pierre Darriulat,\u00a0Susan Morrow,     usual nutters<\/a>\u00a0e variamente complottisti. L’ultima \u00e8 un’insegnante in pensione, con il dono della sintesi<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    The IPCC is 100% AGW lobbyists\/scientists<\/em>
    \nThere are many other climate groups\/ scientists that are 100% the opposite.\u00a0THey\u00a0are 100% AGW sceptics<\/em>
    \nThe supposed AGW consensus is a fallacy<\/em>
    \nA true outlook on future\u00a0climate cannot be achieved until the reports incorporate both sides of the debate<\/em>
    \nYou must recognise that the IPCC is 100% biased and committed to\u00a0AGW science\u00a0alone and pays little to no attention to natural variability<\/em>
    \nTHe\u00a0100% reliance on computer climate simulations is worrying..\u00a0THey\u00a0are beta products\u00a0untrialled\u00a0and unproven<\/em>
    \nTHe\u00a0IPCC research is selected and chosen with an affirmative position ONLY!!<\/em>
    \nYou need to\u00a0incorportae\u00a0some of the oppositions science to get a balance of the true body of knowledge of climate science<\/em>
    \nThe climate journals are controlled by AGW\u00a0protaganists\u00a0and alternative science is squashed or hidden is so called sub standard journals<\/em>
    \nTHank\u00a0goodness this input\/submission\u00a0 is a start to governments thinking about the alternative views\u00a0of many climate scientists who are not AGW advocates<\/em>
    \nIf the UK met office wants to lead world climate research .\u00a0THey\u00a0will not shun and demoralise alternative research.!.\u00a0Emply\u00a0some AGW\u00a0skeptics\u00a0on an\u00a0 equal basis!!<\/em>
    \nClimate models should NOT be the main source of climate prediction this early in their development.<\/em><\/p>\n

    *<\/p>\n

    Per chi se li fosse persi, da Real Climate<\/a>\u00a0c’\u00e8 l’intervento di Gavin Schmidt all’AGU, da Climalteranti<\/a> c’\u00e8 quello di Jim Hansen, riassunto ma in italiano.<\/p>\n

    \u00a0***<\/p>\n

    La bombolina<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Prosegue la diatriba sulla cella a fusione fredda di Yoshiaki Arata in versione Francesco Celani.\u00a0Mario Massa l’ha ricostruita <\/a>–\u00a0all’incirca – e misurato\u00a0una\u00a0pressione di oltre 60 bar, il che darebbe torto a Camillo, mentre confermerebbe il risultato di Celani e la previsione di Giancarlo De Marchis.<\/p>\n

    Ancora al condizionale per varie incongruenze, comunque niente rispetto alle “molte migliaia di atmosfere” dichiarate da Celani e al\u00a0COP 1,8<\/a>\u00a0di Arata. Da Natale se ne discute da Camillo, dove Hermano Tobia ritira fuori\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0John Bockris,\u00a0premio Ig Nobel 1997\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

    per i grandi successi conseguiti con fusione fredda, trasmutazione di vili elementi in oro ed incinerazione elettrochimica dei rifiuti domestici<\/em><\/p>\n

    e oggi interviene Ugo Bardi<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    A mio parere, invece, se uno volesse veramente studiare questi fenomeni l\u2019incudine a diamante potrebbe essere un\u2019area interessante che non mi risulta venga esplorata in questo campo.<\/em><\/p>\n

    Non gli risulta?!?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Trovo questa tabella nella rassegna di fine anno di The Scientist, ma dubito che la media europea dello stipendio lordo valga per i dottorandi e i post-doc italiani. * In ottobre, la Commissione per l’energia e i cambiamenti climatici del Parlamento inglese aveva chiesto a chiunque ne avesse voglia di recensire la sintesi e del… Continua a leggere Retribuzioni<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,10],"tags":[836,2757,2852,3414,3489,3601,6577,7368],"class_list":["post-21297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bufala","category-clima","tag-bigoilisti","tag-francesco-celani","tag-fusione-fredda","tag-idrogeno","tag-incudine-a-diamante","tag-ipcc-report","tag-stipendi-ricercatori","tag-yoshiaki-arata","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21297","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21297"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21297\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41987,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21297\/revisions\/41987"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}