- Submited:2010-05-29 10:00:01
- File Size:2499465
- File Format:2
- Category:Eva Longoria
- Number of rates:0
- Click on the stars to give your rate
Relates News And Gossip
I didn't know where to find this info then kaboom it was here.
Dag nabbit good stuff you whippersnappers!
-16- hro001I must have misinterpreted your use of the word 'advocacy' and your saying that your due diligence only went back as far as AR4. Apologies.-17-I'm not an expert on Working Group III, but a quick scan of the AR4 Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary doesn't suggest a significantly more frequent mention of trading as compared to taxes. But even if there were an imbalance in the underlying chapters, the reason doesn't have to be exclusively an inherent IPCC bias. There's long been an imbalance between the treatment by IPCC of mitigation and adaptation. To a large extent that reflected the interests of (most) governments, but also that there was (and still is) much less literature on adaptation than on mitigation. In any case, testing the hypothesis and explaining any findings would be an interesting exercise to do!As for the IPCC mantra, it's 'policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive'. The policy relevance is ensured, among other things, by having governments agree on the outlines of the reports.
Very interesting analyses, both Eva's and yours. Having been part of the ADAM project myself, I'd like to add two observations.First, the project was funded by the EU's Research DG (Directorate-General). While expected policy impact was a criterion when evaluating the project proposal, the purpose of the project was to do (policy-relevant) scientific research, not to give policy advice. To ensure policy relevance we always invited representatives of other EU DGs, including those responsible for designing and implementing climate policy. I remember how one of these people, after a series of scientific presentations at an annual meeting of ADAM, compared ADAM with a group of people travelling through space for three years cut off from any contact with earth, trying to come up with a solution to the problems the earth faced when they left. When they returned three years later they presented the perfect solution to the problems of three years ago, but unfortunately it had become irrelevant to the problems of today.Second, ADAM was about both adaptation and mitigation, but for the first two years of the project the EU policy practitioners with whom we interacted had very little interest in adaptation. Then suddenly the political context changed and they became very interested in adaptation. They turned to ADAM to look for any interim results, but found they weren't as policy-relevant as they had hoped. There was no acknowledgement that their previous lack of interest in interacting with the ADAM adaptation researchers could be one of the reasons.I think the lessons from ADAM aren't only about the inherent tensions between scientific research and policy advice, as you and Eva describe them. What struck me was the mismatch in expectations between researchers and stakeholders, and in the notion of ownership of the project. As far as DG Environment was concerned ADAM initially didn't deliver useful results, that is, arguments that could support their policies. Of course, as a scientific project ADAM wasn't designed to do that in the first place, but it was then pushed to move into that direction. In the end it did deliver some policy-relevant results, but this was at the expense of overall project coherence.So while Eva and you make some very good points in your analyses, you should recognise that ADAM was designed and funded as a research project, to run for three years at some distance from day-to.day policy. Policy people in another p
Oct23 You’ve actually created some exceptional points here. I specifically appreciate the best way you’ve been capable to stick so much thought in a relatively short post (comparitively) which creates it an thoughtful publish with your subject. Many people feel, you’ve presented individual in a very quite thorough yet concise manner, that is genuinely useful when somebody wants to obtain the facts without spending too a lot time searching online and sifting out your noise to discover the answers to their questions. It’s my job to get so frustrated with so plentiful while in the outcomes inside major SE’s just because they normally appear to mostly be filled with filler content that oftentimes isn’t extremely sensible. Should you not mind Let me add this post and your webpage to my delicious favorites in order to share it with my family. I appear forward to approaching back in read your future posts also.
I went to City Center at the beginning of January. Pretty much stayed around the area, just to get to know it. It is a pain with a car. But as far as dining, I enjoyed a meal early evening before it became a night club at the restaurant by the Desperate Housewife chick Eva Longoria outside the shopping area. (the crab cake, soups and sauces for steaks and fish were good)At Aria, I dined at Julian Serrano and it was a bunch of small, tapas plates for lunch. I ate many items but remember liking the Spanish Chicken Croquetas and Creamy Risotto. The menu was endless!Another meal was at Jean Georges Steakhouse for dinner, (steaks were very good, and calamari was a great appetizer) Although I think I would have rather gone to Maestro’s.American Fish was excellent, Grilled, Poached or Baked fish, Michael Mina could do no wrong. It was also nice that it wasn’t too busy.I also loved the Lemongrass Thai food for a casual lunch. There were five of us, and we all ordered different items and shared everything. Very tasty. (I think mine was a spicy prawn dish, but everyone’s was great. We let the waitress choose a few too.Overall, each of the restaurants at CityCenter were good. I have dined at a lot (A LOT) of places in Las Vegas and haven’t always enjoyed every dining experience. I couldn’t complain about any of them at the City Center. (oh and I was with a bunch of foodies and they liked all the restaurants too)Happy Dining!I am sorry, I should have added that the art work and fountains are amazing and impressive. If you can, get a little
ochure from a concierge about the art and fountains and wander around to find the various pieces. I went home and looked up info about the artists online, but wished while I was there the
ochures had more info about them. Fountains are also included in the shopping area. It was pretty quiet there. I didn’t get a spa treatment and was annoyed that I wasn’t able to see inside Aria’s spa. (as a guest – you would think) So if you have the time, get a treatment, I hear the place is nice (I personally love Caesar’s and the Mirage).References : Was this answer helpful?
This could not possibly have been more helpful!
I have to demonstrate my personal due to this kind of copy writer exclusively for saving myself coming from this kind of environment. Because of
owsing from the the net and getting guidelines which are certainly not pleasurable, I figured my well being has been over. Living with no techniques to the issues you have resolved through all of your website is a critical scenario, in addition to versions which may have got poorly harmed my own entire profession easily had not discovered the website. Your primary expertise as well as goodness when controlling a lot of stuff ended up being very helpful. I’m not sure what I would have completed easily hadn’t occur after this type of that. I’m also able to at this time stay up for my potential. Thank you much to your particular and wonderful support. My spouse and i won’t think twice to be able to suggest your internet site in order to anybody who requirements recommendations relating to this subject matter.
Great article, thank you again for writing.
-4- and -5-That's why I emphasised that ADAM was a recearsh project, funded by DG Research and to be conducted at some distance from DG Environment, which at the time was responsible for climate policy.Based on earlier studies DG Environment certainly had an idea of the kind of climate policies they wanted to put forward. They were hoping ADAM would provide more justification for their policies. It's not that ADAM argued otherwise, but its focus was more on developing robust methods for multi-stakeholder policy evaluation. As far as DG Environment was concerned, this wasn't relevant.ADAM was set up as a recearsh project by DG Research. It's unclear to me what makes Mark B think it was as a public relations firm helping to sell policies.