Originally Posted by Longhornmaniac8

WG3 was written specifically to look at the impacts and mitigation strategies. Public policy is a massive part of that, so of course it has guidance to that end. It's also not remotely the same thing as WG1, which is the Physical Science Basis. Go look at the thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed citations in WG1 and see how many of them have political guidance. The answer will be close to, if not, zero.

There is a functional difference between science and policy. The IPCC doesn't hide from that at all. It's why they compile three different reports. One that describes the current scientific understanding of climate change, and contains over 5,000 peer-reviewed citations of scientific papers, one that discusses impacts and vulnerabilities, and one that discusses mitigation. It's an exceptionally comprehensive document that synthesizes existing knowledge on the topic across a wide range of disciplines, ranging from the physical sciences to social sciences and public policy. Necessarily, there will be discussions of appropriate methods for dealing with the impacts of climate change. That isn't led by physical scientists, it's led by social scientists/policymakers.

What you're saying is a strawman, because climate scientists, that is, climatologists, atmospheric scientists, physicists, etc. are not the ones preparing WG3. They may be tangentially involved, but it's as a function of their research in their academic discipline.

I'm fine with nuclear as a stopgap, but fundamentally it suffers from the same issues that fossil fuels do. The emphasis needs to transition away from non-renewables.