Not exact matches
He
said: «I think the
IPCC report is an important report and I've
issued a statement
about that in which, on behalf of myself and my family, I've
said how grateful we are both to the
IPCC and of course to Channel 4 and Dispatches who originally broke this story.»
Of course when the guy
says «stopping emissions on a dime» he was NOT talking
about 2012 when he gave the talk nor in 2018 today... but at anytime into the future once it hits 2C already — the
issue is Feedbacks and NOT the
IPCC graph as referenced as a defense attorney like attempt to manipulate the Jury through spin and ignoring the WHOLE OF THE EVIDENCE and it; s context in the Real World (ie the whole talk in and of itself).
As for «strategies that are win - win whether or not CO2 turns out to be a problem of the magnitude suggested by the
IPCC» that is essentially
saying that we should forget
about policies which specifically address AGW as a distinct
issue which presents its own set of problems and just do stuff which the skeptics want to do anyway.
He
said, «The
IPCC and the
issue of climate change is not
about the weather next year or the next five years; it's
about the long - term climate change that we are engendering.»
Its supplemental online interview of the late
IPCC scientist Dr Stephen Schneider quoted his opinion
about the Global Climate Coalition as being «a coalition of liars and spin doctors to reposition the debate onto the
issue of uncertainty, way beyond [what] the scientific community agreed with» (he probably meant to
say it was the Western Fuels Association, out to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact», an error I note at item 17 here).
In
saying that
IPCC reports
issued over the past 20 years had «created an ever - broader informed consensus
about the connection between human activities and global warming,» the Committee linked those reports to potential violent conflict and wars that could result should extreme climate change occur.
Needless to
say this has been deeply disturbing to an «ordinary Joe» (with 5 grandchildren) who has made an effort to understand the science and the politics that underlie the climate change «debate», especially since my country has become such an important player in the fossil fuel business with its tarsands and pipeline industries that affect us all, so I've tried to find out more
about Judith Curry's recent contributions to the debate, not so much the hair - splitting, angels on the head of a pin, esoteric dissections of graphs and stats that I see here on your website but the ethical stance that you take on the larger
issue of «killing» the
IPCC and all it represents.