I'm kind of losing the plot in the debate on this thread. Are folks saying they disbelieve the implications and conclusions of the recent report ... which is tantamount to saying that the many thousands of scientists (including heretics) who contributed to and peer-reviewed it, and the national governments that signed off on it, are wrong? That would be a bit cheeky, to say the least. Or are we actually disputing the way various sections of the media have chosen to interpret those findings for our benefit? If the latter, the debate seems facile, it doesn't change the underlying facts.
A thoughtful comment about the quality of the report from Tortoise.com:
"The body. The IPCC was established by the UN in 1988, and it’s made up of the world’s leading climate experts. Divided into three working groups and a task force, each group has a chair from a developed country and a chair from a developing country. This latest report was signed off by 234 scientists from 66 countries, and reviewed by representatives of 195 member governments.
The method. A new ‘state of the world’ assessment report is issued every seven years or so. Scientists review and synthesise developments across climate change impacts, adaptation, vulnerability and mitigation. Monday’s assessment report, the IPCC’s sixth, is from the working group on impacts. It relied on more than 14,000 peer-reviewed studies around the world. The process is painstaking: the two drafts of the report received 74,849 comments from experts. Two further reports released in 2022 will deal with climate adaptation, vulnerability and mitigation.
The findings. There were three major takeaways: 1. Humans are “unequivocally” responsible for global warming (obvious to many but the IPCC’s strongest statement yet). 2. Some climate systems, such as continued sea level rise, are irreversible at least for centuries. 3. It is very late, but thankfully not too late, to avoid the worst impacts of climate breakdown.
The tone. In a 42-page summary for policymakers, the Washington Post counted more than 100 uses of the words “high confidence” and nearly a dozen instances of “virtually certain”. The IPCC is seen by some scientists as a conservative organisation – climate change has often outpaced its projections – so terms like these aren’t thrown around flippantly."