The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.

Interference with communications of science to the public has been greater during the current administration than at any time in my career.

We have to, in the next ten years, begin to decrease the rate of carbon dioxide emissions and then flatten it out. If that doesn't happen in ten years, we're going to be passing certain tipping points. If the ice sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? You can't tie a rope around an ice sheet.

Some Democrats deserve to be criticized.

The question is not whether to close the parks, but how to accomplish this goal.

Adding CO2 to the air is like throwing another blanket on the bed.

Injection of environmental and political perspectives in midstream of the science discussion cannot help the process of inquiry. I believe that persons with relevant scientific expertise should concentrate, with pride, on cool objective analysis, providing information to the public and decision-makers when it is found, but leaving the moral implications for later common consideration, or at most for summary inferential discussion.