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 and in the face of all that pressure and those attacks, i think to some extent the ipcc has actually withdrawn a bit, and they've been more guarded, more conservative, more reticent in what they're willing to conclude than they really should be given the evidence.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

this impact was partly because of the role of the ipcc.ether thousands of researchers to compile the best science. but remember, it stands not for international, but the intergovernmental panel on climate change. each ipcc report has a section called the summary for policymakers. and before that is published, government representatives and scientists get in a room and go over it word by word until everyone can agree. the intended benefit is that when politicians later turn up at big climate summits, no—one can come into the negotiations and say, actually, i don't think burning coal releases emissions, because they've already agreed on the science. when governments had acknowledged a 1.5 degree temperature rise meant lower risk, activists could use that to try and press them into action. but while 1.5 stuck in people's minds, the science doesn't come with hard limits. it works on probability and risk. you can see that here, risks become higher, or darker, as temperature rises increase, but it's a continuum. 1.6 is more risky than 1.5, less

the comment i wanted to make about the future is not yet written you are involved with the ipcc, they have projections that you, remind us that projections not predictions. >> exactly, i wanted to just speak a little more to the future isit not yet written. one thing that induced the climate despair idea is the future has been decided and there is no wiggle room. you see a certain kind of fatalism. whatat is interesting to me thas oftene on the outskirt. as organizes are scientist that'sal not at all what they say. they were delighted to see the u.n.s r top climate official saidrd according to the report released yesterday or monday that simon skill said it's not too late.e. the ipcc demonstrates it's possible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade in all sectors of the global economy. meaning radical change be in the decade. people think it's impossible and that's why the first essay is called difficult but not impossible. for political reasons we know what to do and how to do it and we have all of the technology and the obstacles have been for a long time political. we ha

s top climate official with regards to the ipcc report released yesterday, monday, that simon steele said it is not too late, the ipcc clearly demonstrates that it is possible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade with rapid and deep emissions reduction across all sectors of the global economy. and that would mean radical change in this decade. and people think it is impossible, it's why the first thing the book is called difficult, not the same is impossible. it is not impossible, it would be incredibly difficult. but entirely for political reasons, we know what to do, we know how to do it, we have all the technology, the obstacles have been for a very long time political. we have to overcome the power, and a politician serving the fossil fuel industry and the status quo. and the failure of the imagination, people think we can't do it, it is too hard, et cetera. we need to go -- stronger than the status quo and the industry. i've been around the climate movement which was pretty much a climate movement. i remember demonstrating around the corner in 1988, talking about ox

the ipcc clearly demonstrates that it is possible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade. across all sectors of the global economy. that would mean a radical change in this decade. people think it is impossible. i sound the same as impossible. it's not impossible would be incredibly difficult. entirely for political reasons we know what too do, we know how to do it. we have all of the technology. the obstacles have been for a very long time political. we have to overcome the power of the fossil fuel in the politicians serving the fossil fuel industry and the status quo. in the imagination of people who think we can't do it. it is too hard et cetera. we need to build movement stronger than these data's quote the fossil fuel industry. i have been around the climateat movement since there was it pretty much a climate movement and member demonstrate on the corner for rainforest action movement in 1988. talk about oxygen in the amazon to maybe longer. the movement has grown incredibly it's global, it's powerful it'sl. influential. the future it looks better because of actavis h

so this particular application is showing the ipcc data - climate report from 2021.alised them on this particular sphere here. j it looks really cool, and we can click into the data, can't we, and find out more. so will we have a look at what's next? so what we have here - is basically what could have happened in the future, . depending on how we react to climate change. and, famously, there are two scenarios. i one is the government target — a 1.5 degree increase. - what you can see here is how the world would look- if there's a 1.5 degree global increase in temperature. - if you go and click. on the 4.5 increase, which is the worst—case scenario, what you can now see _ is a much different scenario, - and it's very clear and very obvious in this globe what the difference looks like. | and, really, the purpose of this| display is to be able to take that raw data and turn it into a message that's really impactful_ and makes people go, "mmm. i understand that - there's a problem now." getting the message over about the climate crisis is a tough gig, and with more and m

the ipcc clearly demonstrates that it is possible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade withrapid and deep emissions reduction across all sector, all of the global economy and would be that would mean radical change in this decade and and people think it's impossible. it's why the first essay in the book is called difficult is not not the same as impossible. it is not impossible would be incredibly difficult, but for political reasons we know to do we know how to do it. we have all the technology, the obstacles have been for a very long time political. we have to overcome the power of the fossil interests, the inertia of the status quo and the politicians serving the fossil fuel industry in the status quo and the failure of the imagination of people who think we can't do it. it's hard, etc. need to build movement stronger than the status quo and the fossil fuel industry. and i've been around the climate movement since was pretty much a climate and i remember demonstrating the corner for rainforest action network 1988, talking about, you know, oxygen in the amazon so maybe lon

but what we have successfully shown as a scientific community is that we have argued ipcc assessmentpes of extreme events will increase, and they have actually increased more rapidly than we predicted, we were conservative. so i would say our collective ability has enough predictions about extreme events becoming more likely and impacts on tipping points. but narrowing it down to specifics and location and time is complicated, and our scientific capabilities, as they advance, will help us pin that down more accurately.— they advance, will help us pin that down more accurately. sobering food for thought. — down more accurately. sobering food for thought, thank _ down more accurately. sobering food for thought, thank you _ down more accurately. sobering food for thought, thank you very - down more accurately. sobering food for thought, thank you very much - down more accurately. sobering food for thought, thank you very much for| for thought, thank you very much for coming on the programme.— for thought, thank you very much for coming on the programme. thanks for havin: me. an appeals

then after and other tenures of the fight when the ipcc says, just like scientist told you in 1956 and 1979, this is what is happening. across the board, republicans and democrats all wanted action to be taken, because everyone have to go outside, even if it is just to get in your car. it is something that unites everybody. the astonishing action done by people and their fossil fuels was just a stand in the way of our opinion. douglas: sometimes environmental and natural disasters wake people up. as we are here this afternoon, our hearts go out to maui, hawaii and 80 dead. it is the largest disaster in history and we can almost feel more of these coming. you can just feel it. the reason we had an epa in 1970 was the santa barbara oil spill. in color, in your living rooms, for the first time, you were seeing in paradise. tar and goo. nixon first minimize it. his first instinct was it was not that big a deal that he listened to his interior secretary, went to the ground in -- who went to the ground in santa barbara and said, do not minimize it. it is bad. plus, we have only been in offic

this particular application is showing the ipcc climate report from 2021.o will we have a look at what is next? this is what could _ look at what is next? this is what could have _ look at what is next? this is what could have happened i look at what is next? this is| what could have happened in look at what is next? this is i what could have happened in the future depending on how we act with climate change. and famously there are two scenarios, one is the government target of 1.5 degrees increase, what you can see here is how the world would look if there is a 1.5 degrees global increase in temperature. if you go in click on the 4.5 increase which is the worst case scenario, what you can now see is a much different scenario. it is very clear and very obvious on this globe what the different looks like. and really the purpose of this display is to be able to take that raw data and deliver a message that is really impactful and make people go oh, i understand there is a problem there.— oh, i understand there is a problem there. getting the message — problem

storage tanks for fuel, for rigs , for vehicles, have them above ground, it's a lot easier to manage an ipcc than it is to manage an underground storage tank. that's the first part. i haven't looked at anything in terms of from an ergonomic standpoint or from another other facility standpoint. but i'll i'll be involved in that as as we move along. if they ask me, okay, great. all right. thank you. mr. boone. you're very welcome. thank you for your. yes, sure, chief, i just want to say thanks, tony, for all the work that you do on behalf of the department and on behalf of the members as you are truly a valued member of our department. and we appreciate that you look out for all of us. so thank you so much, brother. my new york brother, my honor, chief. my honor. thanks again. no public comment. madam secretary. item five, public comment on item six public comment on all matters pertaining to item six below, including public comment on whether to hold item six b in closed session. there is nobody approaching the podium for public comment and there is nobody on our public comment line. i i will

the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change, the ipcc.and i does not attribute the area's burned by wildfires to climate change. whilst wildfires are slightly up in the americas , they are actually down in the rest of the world. and even so, last year, american fires burned less than one fifth of the average burn . back in the 1930. average burn. back in the 1930. well, look , lo and behold, the well, look, lo and behold, the greek government has officially now blamed the recent wildfires on arson or negligence . none of on arson or negligence. none of this is to say that climate change isn't a very real and serious problem. and there are things that human beings can do to help deter its damaging effects on the planet. but the point is, my point is really that we have to treat the issue seriously and not hysterically. being hysterical and propagandistic will do more harm than good to the cause of environmentalism because the pubuc environmentalism because the public will find out that they are sometimes being lied to . are sometimes being

then after and other tenures of the fight when the ipcc says, just like scientist told you in 1956 and9, this is what is happening. across the board, republicans and democrats all wanted action to be taken, because everyone have to go outside, even if it is just to get in your car. it is something that unites everybody. the astonishing action done by people and their fossil fuels was just a stand in the way of our opinion. douglas: sometimes environmental and natural disasters wake people up. as we are here this afternoon, our hearts go out to maui, hawaii and 80 dead. it is the largest disaster in history and we can almost feel more of these coming. you can just feel it. the reason we had an epa in 1970 was the santa barbara oil spill. in color, in your living rooms, for the first time, you were seeing in paradise. tar and goo. nixon first minimize it. his first instinct was it was not that big a deal that he listened to his interior secretary, went to the ground in -- who went to the ground in santa barbara and said, do not minimize it. it is bad. plus, we have only been in office fo

he's saying, can you not join the if you go and read the dots if you go and read working group one, ipccind that there are no exceptional events happening across the world. >> picking cherry picking odd things here and there are just wrong . if you look at the wrong. if you look at the satellite data and antarctica, by the way, is an almost static continent. yes, it's lost the seaice continent. yes, it's lost the sea ice this year. that's absolutely right. but what matters is what the temperature is over the whole of the globe, measured from the satellite . yes. >> and you know that film, it's do you know that film? don't look up . that was if you've ever look up. that was if you've ever seen it that was made for you. don't do movies, jim. >> i do facts . >> i do facts. >> i do facts. >> i do facts. >> i don't think he's got time to see it. look can i just say movies are usually make believe a of them. listen. so brian a lot of them. listen. so brian so was rishi sunak, right then to give these new oil and gas licences because . he was and why licences because. he was and why was he righ