the ipcc makes a far more conservative statement. they state an upper bound of about a meter, about 3 feet, and it's once again an example of where the ipcc arguably has been overly conservative. some as myself have argued that partly that's just due to the culture of science. scientists tend to be reticent. we don't like to make strong conclusions that we have to withdraw at some later time. and there's also a component, i believe, due to the pressure, the outside pressure, the critics, a very well-funded and well-organized effort to literally discredit the science of climate change sometimes by attempting to discredit the scientists themselves. i myself have been a victim of that. and in the face of all that pressure and those attacks, i think to some extent the ipcc has actually withdrawn a bit, and they've been more guarded, more conservative, more reticent in what they're willing to conclude than they really should be given the evidence. and arguably, you know, if it is indeed the ipcc's role to advise governments on the potenti

what would be the intersection of ipcc science and the paris agreement?>> well, so i think that the intersection is going to come most directly in this process that i've referred to as the global stock take. so the global stock take the first official -- well, not official, the first sort of proto stock take in 2018 where the assumption of everybody in this association was that the new agreement would start in 2020. the way it was actually written,@possible to start a little -- it's possible to start a little bit before that. but for simplicity, assume it's starting in 2020. there's an initial 2018 stock take which, again, would be before the agreement started, and then 2023 and every five years after that. that is meant to take into account the latest science from the ipcc, and, you know, all sorts of other factors and to then give the world, to give all the countries in the agreement a sense of where the, where the trajectories really need to go. now, this doesn't mean we're going to get there right away. we didn't get there this time right away,al hoe

what will be the intersection of ipcc science and the paris agreement? >> well, so i think that the intersection is going to come most directly in this process that i've referred to as the global stock take. so, the global stock take, the first official -- well, official. not official. the first sort of protostock take in 2018 where the assumption of everybody in this negotiation was that the new agreement would start in 2020. the way it was actually written, it's possible it will start a little bit before that, but let's just -- for simplicity assume it starting in 2020. there's an initial 2018 stock take which, again, would be even before the agreement started, and then 2023 and every 5 years after that. that is meant to take into account the latest science from the ipcc and, you know, all sorts of other factors and to -- then to give the world, give all the countries in the agreement, a sense of where the -- where the trajectories really need to go. this doesn't mean we'll get there right away. we didn't there this time right away, although we made pr

and to do that report you have to -- you have to follow guidelines that the ipcc has developed. those guidelines say what's a good inventory, how do you do this. t the challenge for epa will be continuing to work with other countries to expand the capacity of developing countries to be able to do this well. we have actually spent a great deal of time in china doing this. we've detailed folks working with state to different countries to actually embed people there who can teach this, to get professional expertise there. my job was to explain when i was there at least the job i took on, was to explain to countries that this isn't punishment. this is opportunities here. because if you can't say where your greenhouse gases are coming from, you are not going to be a market for technologies that can address them. you are not going to be able to articulate where your research needs are for all of the research dollars that have just been committed. it's a foundation for them to be able to put their hand up and get the assistance they need as well as develop a plan that just might be con

obviously the police chose someone in the line of their activity and it is automatically reviewed by the ipcc. it is a serious issue and someone independent looks at it and says was this justified. now don't you think there should be independent oversight after a targeted killing to ask what the sufficient evidence was that this person was dangerous, was it the right person in this case, was there sufficient you know collateral damage? instead of it just being done and you coming to the house and saying we have done it there is actually some independent oversight. sorry for the long question. but it would have to be someone from the security committee and why can't you let them do that and then accountable and you know it is there. >> what i have seen is looking at the intelligence around the particular british strike i mentioned and looking around that and that is all for the good and there are other compartments that are strong n. it seems i should not be telling what the investigations are if they want to make those investigations they should. what they can't do is look at current operatio

and to do that report you have to -- you have to follow guidelines that the ipcc has developed. those guidelines say what's a good inventory, how do you do this. the challenge for epa will be continuing to work with other countries to expand the capacity of developing countries to be able to do this well. we have actually spent a great deal of time in china doing this. we've detailed folks working with state to different countries to actually embed people there who can teach this, to get professional expertise there. my job was to explain when i was there at least the job i took on, was to explain to countries that this isn't punishment. this is opportunities here. because if you can't say where your greenhouse gases are coming from, you are not going to be a market for technologies that can address them. you are not going to be able to articulate where your research needs are for all of the research dollars that have just been committed. it's a foundation for them to be able to put their hand up and get the assistance they need as well as develop a plan that just might be consi