Here’s another part of the interview with Professor Kevin Anderson. It covers some of the same ground as what has already been posted (see below for explanation)- the inadequacy of the Intended Nationally-Determined Contributions (the pledges for Paris), but goes into much more detail on the nature of Bio-energy Carbon Capture and Storage, the problems with the “Integrated Assessment Models”, the problems of reductionism and the limits of human intelligence/governance.
On Monday 23rd November Professor Kevin Anderson did an interview on climate change. I failed to double-check the position of the camera, and so after 20 minutes realised that the framing was off. We started again, covering the same ground (thanks Kevin!). When I looked at the footage I saw that while it was bad, it wasn’t totally unusable, AND Kevin went into interesting detail about a few things that we glossed over more in the second attempt. So, while it is “part three” in terms of what has been put up already, it’s actually “part one”, i.e. first attempt.
marchudson.net 
Re: Anderson’s point about models relying on ‘ Bio-energy Carbon Capture and Storage,’ (found via tweet of @drvox)
http://goo.gl/T8xqmA
Nature 24 Nov. issue
Is the 2 °C world a fantasy?
Countries have pledged to limit global warming to 2 °C, and climate models say that is still possible. But only with heroic — and unlikely — efforts.
excerpt: But take a closer look, some scientists argue, and the 2 °C scenarios that define that path seem so optimistic and detached from current political realities that they verge on the farcical. Although the caveats and uncertainties are all spelled out in the scientific literature, there is concern that the 2 °C modelling effort has distorted the political debate by obscuring the scale of the challenge. In particular, some researchers have questioned the viability of large-scale bioenergy use with carbon capture and storage (CCS), on which many models now rely as a relatively cheap way to provide substantial negative emissions. The entire exercise has opened up a rift in the scientific community, with some people raising ethical questions about whether scientists are bending to the will of politicians and government funders who want to maintain 2 °C as a viable political target.
we’re toast. We just haven’t figured that out yet.
Anderson’s analysis explored in a useful post by Skeptical Science. Excerpt below summarizing Anderson.
The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Anderson.html#.VlciaQKKnX0.twitter … by @AndySkuce via @skepticscience
=========================
excerpt: Dissonance
Anderson’s case, in summary, is that most of us, whether scientists, policy makers or citizens, are suffering from cognitive dissonance. We acknowledge the mathematics of carbon budgets compatible with the 2°C target, yet are unable to face the revolutionary implications of what we need to do to get there. Put simply, our entire way of life for most of us in rich countries—and for an increasing number of rich people in poor countries—has to change radically, starting now.
excerpt: Why then, if you accept Kevin Anderson’s arguments, are so few experts sounding the alarm in the way he does?