[wombatmobile]

Regardless of the process, if the aim of the IPCC's messaging is to change behaviour, its efforts are misdirected.

IPCC talks about the plight of the planet, by describing opaque physics and biodynamics processes, as if ordinary people will join the dots, make quantitative scientific appraisals, and selflessly decide to make sacrifices to save the planet.

Most people don't think about the whole planet, or thermodynamics, or the future of humanity. They think about their hip pockets, themselves, and raising kids on a budget.

Renewables are cheaper!

Save money heating and cooling your house with solar energy!

Drive an electric car and save money on fuel and services!

Those are the messages IPCC should be putting out. Everybody loves a bargain. The promise of renewables, once we get over the develop and build cost humps, is infinite bargains. Sell that vista. It's easier than selling science.

[SiempreViernes]

Just like for jQuery, it seems people have forgotten the original reason for which it was created: the IPCC exists to provide to policymakers the scientific evidence of climate change with ironclad credibility, and do this in a context where climate change denial was becoming republican policy.

As a result of the review process that ensures all credible criticism is heard it makes very conservative predictions, but at least you have to either accept them as conservative or just outright deny reality.

[AuthorizedCust]

Scientific predictions do not align with a political flavor just because you slapped the same label on both.

[AstralStorm]

IPCC is meant to sell to policy makers, not individuals.

Even there, they fail at it. The economic gains of big deployment are not mentioned.

The "bargain" of an electric car costs at least 3x more than a gasoline or diesel version.

Solar panels and wind turbines have limitations. They're good to build, regardless. Electric vehicles have lower range and require changes in infrastructure to work. Still with it.

Now for adapting agriculture, which is still required, that is a pure cost.

[wombatmobile]

JFK did it like this

https://www.inc.com/carmine-gallo/inspire-any-audience-with-...

[andromeduck]

This is Elon's Patten too but afew overlapping goals/narratives, new ones distracting from the last.

[imtringued]

>The "bargain" of an electric car costs at least 3x more than a gasoline or diesel version.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/274927/new-vehicle-avera...

Around 36k is spent on the average car in the USA.

The ID.3 is cheaper than that without subsidy (it is almost on parity with the regular Golf with subsidy) and if you were to 3x that average you would arrive in luxury car territory. You would get a Model X.

The ID.3 will also save you around $800 in maintenance and fuel (in Germany at least) per year.

[sokoloff]

Around $36K is spent on the average new car in the US. If your primary goal is to own a car as cheaply as possible with still great reliability, buying a 5-year old used Camry/Accord/CR-V/Prius (which will overwhelmingly not be pure electric) is a better choice than any new electric.

[xorcist]

While it is great that we have real scientific research made available to the common man, as too much is locked up in journals and whatnot, it would be a mistake to dumb it down for the ordinary man.

There are many talented journalists around the world who is much better suited for this task, and there is no shortage of popular science everywhere from web sites to TV documentaries. These science journalists are dependent on research being available, and meta-analyses such as the IPCC report are very suitable to them.

IPCC has the dual purpose of also being an input to international environment negotiations, so they do tend to make their material more accessible than others, but it has so far managed to stay foremost a scientific organisation.

[londons_explore]

There's no reason multiple reports can't be created for different target audiences.

[gmueckl]

Yes, there is a reason: the time of all the authors involved in creating these reports is a scarce resource. Reaching consensus on the final text of one report within the body of authors is already a tedious and lengthy process. Having them go through all that for another, separate text will just keep them from doing more of the research that actually matters.