header.html

An official website of the European Union How do you know?      
European Commission logo

handle.jsp

cover
Critical reviews of publishedwork can foster scientific debates and advance research. In this spirit,we provide a rejoinder to a review(Rosen, 2015) of our original article “Making or breaking climate targets—the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy” (Kriegler et al., 2015a) and the wider results of the AMPERE project. We have a substantial disagreement with the content of the review, and feel that it is plagued by a number ofmis- conceptions about the nature of the AMPERE study and the integrated assessmentmodeling approach employed by it.We therefore see this rejoinder as an opportunity to clarify thesemisconceptions and advance the debate by providing a clearer understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and ultimately the value of integrated assessment.
2015-11-25
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
JRC97179
0040-1625,   
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162515002206,    https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC97179,   
10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.011,   
NameCountryCityType
Datasets
IDTitlePublic URL
Dataset collections
IDAcronymTitlePublic URL
Scripts / source codes
DescriptionPublic URL
Additional supporting files
File nameDescriptionFile type 

footer.html