IPCC Report Issues Summary Report

I am aware of the fact that a thread like this could generate some debate, but since the focus of this site is so much on a potential clean energy solution, I think it would be appropriate today to throw the floor open to people who want to discuss the just-released summary of research findings on climate change from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Some of the key items in the report which cites over 9,000 separate publications are:

  • It is ‘extremely likely’ (95 per cent certain) that human activity — primarily burning of fossil fuels — is responsible for global warming.
  • It is projected that global temperatures will rise between 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C by the end of this century.
  • Global temperatures rose 0.85 C between 1880 and 2012
  • There has been no significant rise in air temperatures measured for 15 years — but that is unlikely to last.
  • Sea levels are expected to rise a further 10-32 inches (26-82 centimeters) by the end of the century.

Despite the acknowledgement of a ‘pause’ in global warming, this report stresses the situation is urgent, and I am sure there will be no let up from most policymakers in the drive to cut carbon emissions. Perhaps this will eventually lead to a greater enthusiasm for LENR technology solutions.

Below is the link to the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ document that was released today. The full report will be published next week.


This is an open thread for discussion of the report. Feel free to say what you think, but please be respectful in your comments.

  • Torbjörn
  • Daniel Maris

    My view is the precautionary one. We should try and avoid doing anything that will take us outside the established parameters under which we evolved. That absolves you of having to declare on the causality.

    • Buck

      My view is also precautionary. There is nothing which absolves us from the responsibility for the conduct of our individual or collective lives. And accountability is part of responsibility.

      If our choices and actions take us outside of the inspired evolutionary framework within which we evolved, then we are accountable for our choices and responsible for correcting our errors.

      This freedom of choice and the responsive correction honors our desire to bring positive meaning into this evolutionary framework before we inevitably pass.

  • ecatworld


    Because of problems we have been having with comments, I have decided to move the comments over the the Disqus system for the time being. It is a stable system with the features and functionality that we need. I am not sure what happened with the old system — I suspect a conflict with the new theme I imported.

    I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused. I notice that we have lost the most recent comments under this article. I thought we would get them all transferred over.

    I hope this system will meet our need for now without the frustration we have been experiencing.

    Frank Acland

    • Redford

      New system is fine except a good deal of my reply to replies have been lost :-/

    • Buck


  • Buck


    I regret the challenges you have faced. It is no easy thing to sit across from someone you should be able to trust and then have to come to live with the understanding that your trust was misplaced.

    I wish you well.


    Because of the problems we have been having with comments recently, I am going to move the comments over to the Disqus system for the time being so we can have the functionality in comments that we need.

    Any comments in the WordPress system following this post are likely to be lost when the transfer is complete. We should be moved over within a few hours. All the comments previous to this one should transfer over.

    I am sorry for any inconvenience this may cause — but its the best decision I can think of for the time being.

    Frank Acland

  • Buck


    I think a little reminder of C02 concentrations over the last 650,000 years graphed with concurrent temperatures tells more of a story than small jumps of a few hundred to a few thousand years. It is presented in the link below.

    It shows that you can actually work the chart to create a downtrend if you pick the right end points over short time periods. The graph below also establishes a clear picture of the consequence of Humanity’s use of Fossil Fuels over the last several hundred years.

    I happen to agree with the presenter’s sentiment: the information raises an ethical and moral decision regarding our collective responsibility towards our children and our children’s children.

    LINK>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkDK2mZlOo

  • Christina

    No, Buck, I don’t conclude that at all. (My “yes” was for the reply to it’s being hubris to say global warming requires we all get a global warming tax because the 1% elite think we should, etc.)

    I am saying that if we leave everyone to have children, when the poor people acquire enough food, shelter, clothing, and the “toys” we have, they’ll automatically have less children and we can fill the world and then worry about overpopulation, but that by that time we’ll have the tech to feed, house, and clothe that many people.

    Please note that we are already in a “mating ruck,” but that we are not having children because of it. God has always required that those having sex give him the option of making children. If you don’t want children, abstain when the woman is fertile. If people can’t do that, check the women’s thyroid. Oh, not by the normal doctors, they’ll say the women are all right; that’s what they’ve been taught. Sometimes, the T-4 won’t become T-3 in the cells because of the thyroid not doing its job right. That’s why many women complain they can’t tell where their cycle is. Well, this thyroid problem causes a host of other problems that your doctor is treating one by one because unbeknownst to most doctors, it benefits the drug companies. T-3 is cheap; somewhat dangerous, but cheap. Drug companies can make no money off it, so they’d rather sell you the drugs–by the way, they’re dangerous too, but that is downplayed.

    I admittedly am a little bitter about this because for most of my life I was so exhausted I may as well have been carrying 2 – 3 gravities because of my thyroid. We need a new way to educate doctors. Drugs are not the end-all and be-all and hormonal treatments are not the boogeyman doctors think they are. Doctors should be educated in hormonal, drug, and the use of plant and mineral derivatives to treat disease or irregular hormones.

  • Omega Z


    “1850 after little ice age…”
    A Trend of gradual warming would follow. A normal outcome of exiting a cold phase. As to literature I read in the 70’s/early 80’s, this would amount to a 2`C to 3`C gain in average temps.

    As to some other literature I’ve read the last few years, The Average world temps are still within a normal historical range & would need to increase by another 2+`C to go outside that range. This would still fall in the mid-range of their numbers.

    Previous CO2 levels in the low to mid 200’s was also considered to be on the unusually Low end of the historical scale & had it dropped lower would have put Plant life at risk of being unsustainable. Or in fact, most life at risk of dying out.

    I don’t believe CO2 has the drastic effect they propose, BUT, If it does & they want to reduce levels to pre-industrial levels, Then this would obviously lead us to another little Ice Age.
    Apparently, they have Not studied their history. During the Little Ice Age, there were massive crop failures leading to famines & all the diseases that follow.

    I have grown wise to the political ways in my old age.
    In Poles, the best way to get the response you want is how you word it.
    You can con people into saying they want something tho they really don’t.
    We will give this to you FREE. Means we’re going to raise your taxes. Exemptions for the author of said plan.
    When the Public complains about something, Hijack it, put your own twist to it & make things worse.

  • Christina


  • Buck


    so you conceive that the ultimate expression of the essence of the Eternal’s gifts is to virtually destroy the entire global ecosystem. save for edible foodstuffs, for the purpose of 90 Billion people. The highest expression is to go into some sort of permanent mating rut, oblivious to the consequences to the web of creation and life.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Anonymole…..So your argument is even though climate change caused by man is real, there is nothing we can do about it? I disagree. Some studies show livestock creates 20% or more of global warming. Proper ranching techniques are available to drastically reduce the percentage, are these techniques being taught, no, because the will to do something is absent. We should increase the price of coal drastically, to encourage the closing or conversion of coal power plants that are not critically important to keep open. I am sure many others here have other solutions.

  • Jim


    But it’s only 500,000 per year, and there’s no “real proof”, so, burn, baby, burn…

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    MikeP…. You asked for “reference to 300 climate scientists”, these are just the IPCC scientists, if you want to nitpick some more I can get many more references.


  • Christina

    Global warming may just be a normal phenomenon for this part of Sol 3’s life.

    Did you all know that a report came out in the 90’s that said this planet can support 90 billion–no typo, it’s a “b”– people. It was scientifically researched and written by a Catholic organization. Please note that it was Catholics who first brought you science in the middle ages and also later. The Catholic Church doesn’t believe in any sort of “magic.” It believes that science tells us the way God made the world. Some individual Catholics, well….

    I believe that if certain people didn’t have the global warming cudgel to use, they couldn’t propagate the abortion/birth control industries because they would not have their purported reason for the need to killing child.

    Of course, the press never told you about that Catholic report that that many people can live on Earth.

    As we can now farm in buildings, and are presently using only 6% of the Earth’s surface to live on, why not?

    Ah, but don’t discount the oceans, who knows what we can live in with lenr?

  • You are right except on one point… in 10 years consumption of oil and cola will drop suddenly when LENR will generalize, and in 20 years oil and coal will be as funny as horsecart and barbecue.

  • on skyfal.fr a guy explain that a friend is trying to publish a non totally orthodox paper on climate, challenging some point… hex explain that all scientist he asked advices, said nothing about the content of the paper but advise him not to publish, because it will be bad for him, or for climatology interest…

    one old skeptic I’ve met explained that he could not ask student to make a thesis on his questions, because it would ruin their career…

    this is like LENR an example of science community having decided what IS true before checking the facts, and punishing, terrorizing the dissenters, justifying the ostracization of dissenters by the fact that they are a minority… and they are a minority because few people accept to ruin their life just for truth, and some choose their interest not even feeling they lie.

    that is the science horror we observe on LENR.
    Climategate make me understand what happened in LENR… or was it the opposite ?