I am surprised the BBC is giving is a skeptic of catastrophic human induced global warming a platform. Perhaps when an actual climate researcher like John Christy starts calling for everyone to back down from the hyperbole, acknowledge the political contamination of research, and essentially get back to experimental testing of hypothesis, even the house organ of the British left begins to realize that globalwarmist alarmism has no basis in the fact.
The quick bio from the BBC: "John R Christy is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, US. He has contributed to all four major IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007." It sounds like the teacher is calling on the class to behave.
No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance: The IPCC is a framework around which hundreds of scientists and other participants are organised to mine the panoply of climate change literature to produce a synthesis of the most important and relevant findings. These findings are published every few years to help policymakers keep tabs on where the participants chosen for the IPCC believe the Earth's climate has been, where it is going, and what might be done to adapt to and/or even adjust the predicted outcome.
While most participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note: * This is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way). * Scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead. …
Don't misunderstand me. Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2's radiation properties. However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.