At a recent conference, a colleague told one of us that in IPCC discussions, some scientists have been reluctant to make strong claims about the scientific evidence, lest contrarians "attack us". Another said that she'd rather err on the side of conservatism in her estimates, because then she feels more "secure."

Yet again, unscientific claims were being circulated broadly, but the scientists' refutation of them was published where only fellow scientists would see it.

Most people have thought of ... climate change as a problem about the environment that is separate and distinct from problems of human wellbeing.

It's extremely hard to know what the economic consequences of any decision will be. And I'm not a, a, a financial analyst, so I, I generally don't try to make some kind of prediction about that.

Scientists should continue doing what they've always done, which is to understand the Earth as well as they can.

I think it is important for people to understand that there are real serious economic costs and real serious economic damages associated with inaction on climate change.

Scientists are scientists. They're not really in a position to speak clearly on the moral dimensions, and they're not really comfortable doing that.