"So, when you next hear politicians, media and activists claim that their proclamations are backed up by the IPCC, have some fun with them and insist that they show you where the IPCC says what they say it says. And then sit back and watch them sputter and bluster and do their best to avoid the question".

And what difference will that make? Zilch!

I'd describe climate change as an insidious problem rather than a crisis. If extreme weather is an indicator of long term trends we should take it as warning of potential difficulties ahead. An example is the lack of an autumn break for planting Australia's southern wheatbelt. Not a 'crisis' yet but it could turn out that way.

Another reason to decarbonise sooner rather than later is that one day fossil fuels will run out. Global peak conventional crude oil was in 2006 and global peak gas is about now. When petrol is $3/L and eastern Australia starts importing LNG that penny will drop. Therefore replace fossil fuels as soon as practicable.

The BIG crisis we have, Taswegian, is Overpopulation.
It has given rise to many problems, insidious or otherwise.
Housing, exacerbation of Climate Change , which would have occurred regardless of whether we were here or not, extreme violence amongst them.
ALL caused by TOO MANY PEOPLE.

Technically true Tom, but the UN chief brays of "climate emergency" and the UNFCCC chief carries on about "climate carnage".

The larger points remain. Only grudgingly do UN IPCC reports admit that CO2 emissions are proportional to humans and their GDP growth.

For 30 years, UN has deliberately used the climate smokescreen, as a means to distract from the real issue - EIGHT BILLION humans and growing by EIGHTY MILLION a year.

Well, lets see what actual experts say

-

"‘Hopeless and broken’: why the world’s top climate scientists are in despair"

"So how do the scientists cope with their work being ignored for decades, and living in a world their findings indicate is on a “highway to hell”?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2024/may/08/hopeless-and-broken-why-the-worlds-top-climate-scientists-are-in-despair

-

and obviously not all Canadians are as deep in denial of the science as you, here's one who groks what the CLIMATE scientists are telling him

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/07/un-expert-human-rights-climate-crisis-economy

"Outgoing special rapporteur David Boyd says ‘there’s something wrong with our brains that we can’t understand how grave this is’"

-

which just confirms what behavioral experts say

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329820-200-understand-faulty-thinking-to-tackle-climate-change/

"DANIEL KAHNEMAN is not hopeful. “I am very sorry,” he told me, “but I am deeply pessimistic. I really see no path to success on climate change.”

"Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel prize in economics for his research on the psychological biases that distort rational decision- making. "

"Kahneman’s views are widely shared by cognitive psychologists. As Daniel Gilbert of Harvard University says: “A psychologist could barely dream up a better scenario for paralysis.”

"ALL caused by TOO MANY PEOPLE."

Well if the real problem is overpopulation (hint: that's rubbish) then the problem is already resolved. Hurray.....next problem please.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

(and a gazillion other places discussing what many see as the problem of declining population).

Funnily, no matter which way population is going, there are doomsayers anxious to see it as a problem.

China is already in population decline as are almost all western and advanced countries and those that aren't are only increasing due to immigration.

Its only underdeveloped nations that see fertility rates above replacement. So the solution to their problems is to increase their economic development.

_____________________________________________________________

The author is right that the science as opposed to the politics of the IPCC shows and has shown for some time that the supposed increase in adverse climate events is a myth. The real problem is with the IPCC's so-called "Summary for Policy Makers" (SPM) which purports to summarise the science but instead manipulates the science to suit the needs of the movement and the various governments. The SPM has rarely coincided with the IPCC science, such as it is.