Although I have respect for the intelligence of the panel in appreciating the science and understanding the gravity of the situation facing us, I have to express some disappointment in not seeing the severity and the seriousness of this issue matched by the measures that need to be taken.
I get no sense from any of the panellists that there is a dispute about the science. Anyone can disagree about the science of climate change if they wish.
I would then ask if anyone disagrees with the notion of setting our national targets based upon that science—I'm seeing no disagreement—or do we choose to use another metric, another measure, by which we set national targets, a measure not based on science? I would love to hear a reason for us to use something other than science to do that.