It's not a surprise that such a report [sic: read resolution] is lacking in science.
In context, his statement is referring to the Green New Deal itself, not the IPCC Special Report. In my comment, I mention that the resolution cites the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. The fact that that the Green New Deal does cite the IPCC report means that it is not utterly lacking in science (i.e. as opposed to citing nothing). While United States legislation does not have requirements for rigor, my question is about traits pertaining specifically to the special report.
With regard to the IPCC Special Report, I mention its page length:
It does include science. The whole resolution is premised on the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C which is over 600 pages in full length. I was just curious about an omission of a detail.
My implicit assumption was that the longer the length of a peer reviewed IPCC report the higher its credibility. I am not referring to the Green New Deal; I know united states resolutions do not have any research standard.
That said, given the following comment, I am now questioning the assumption of length in relation to credibility:
Why is the length of that report relevant?
This comment is what lead me to ask...
Does the length of a peer reviewed scientific report, in this case the IPCC Special Report, imply in any way that it is more credible or thorough in its results?