Piers Forster

Isn’t that his point though? That the science is being skewed?

Why is there no reference in the SPM to population displacement and conflict?

I agree. But how do you communicate the fact that many climate sci’s are secretly saying to themselves “What if climate impacts are going to be much worse, much faster, than we previously thought?”

Agree, need to get better a communicating risk all round. High impact low probability events are important to report. We rely a lot on expert judgement here, as literature so varied

Absolutely. Doesn’t do any good to include stuff in SPM that’s not well-grounded. Also, his conspiracy theory about scientists removing text because of cowing to political pressure is just wacko, and undermines the credibility of the IPCC.

“Absolutely. Doesn’t do any good to include stuff in SPM that’s not well-grounded.” Does that include 100s of billions of tonnes of NETs? Far from “well-grounded”. Conspiracy of various ruses & dodgy discounting abound in the mitigation realm. Including a conspiracy of silence!

There’s no evidence-based guarantee for speculative negative emission technologies (NETs) sucking 100s of billions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere in the future. Yet NETs at such scale are ubiquitous in 2°C scenarios, with virtual silence from most in the science community?

As long as IPCC continues to use the fantasy of negative emissions, its conclusions are invalid. This omission creates unrealistic expectations about what temperature we can achieve, and lets countries off the hook to make dramatic reductions. So much for impartial science.