In the real world in relation to climate change it doesn't matter a jot about who said what; climate change is happening.
The film Chasing Ice, through time lapse photography shows huge reductions in the size of glaciers in Greenland, Iceland, Alaska, Montana, and I understand they have now placed equipment in the sub Antarctic region.
Towards the end of the film there is the comment that of 1,400 glaciers in the Yukon area, 4 have increased in size, 300 have died, the balance have been retreating or have remained about the same in size.
Old expedition photos taken in the Himalayas going back to 1922 of glaciers have been compared to photos taken in the last few years. The glaciers there are in retreat also.

The mass of the ice sheet in the Arctic area has been breaking down in an exponential manner. Those pesky computer models suggest that there will be ice free days in 2075; whereas, observation and measurement suggest there will be ice free days within the next couple of years.

A recently published paper (2014) by Lance Lesack in relation to the McKenkie River wrote about average temperatures having risen to 3.2 C degrees for Spring and 5.2 C degrees in Winter. Once again there is comment about rapid melting.

After all the difficulties experienced in the USA, a further cold snap has been forecast for the immediate future; presumably via the Polar Vortex. It makes sense when taking into account how sea breezes and katabatic winds develop; except jet streams operate at a higher level.

Clearly, it is warmth and melt water that is causing the break down of glaciers and ice sheets.

The IPCC Report talks about the need to take mitigating action.

imajulianutte, Tyndall in the late 1850s showed a relationship between CO2 and warming. Though, I gather that a relationship had already been established prior to Tyndal. Figure 3 from site below shows a relationship between CO2 and warming. Current data in relation to CO2 shows that it has reached 405 ppm, though you would probably realize that it does fluctuate.
Last night I was watching a clip where Plimer was saying that there had not been a relationship between CO2 and temperature for millions of years. The British Antarctic Survey shows a definite relationship; a 800,000 year time frame is probably enough time to show a trend.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php

But, as noted in my last post, observations and up to date data show climate change is happening.

There has been an association of drought and the Syrian civil war. There has always been drought except the impacts have been increasing. Displaced farmers through drought from 2006 moved to cities and felt they got a raw deal, it has been seen to be a factor in stirring up trouble. Extreme weather can have an impact on serious conflict.
Bread basket areas in the USA, Britian etc have been impacted and while there may, or may not be an association with climate change; it demonstrates impacts of extreme weather experienced lately.

Two factors happening now, may not bode well for the future,some sun spot activity has been noted recently. The sun spot activity had been in a dormant period and as a result our climate should have been cooling, instead the climate had been warming. The other factor is that an El Nino event appears as though it is imminent. El Nino is cyclic and there has been some activity in the Pacific showing an El Nino event will be occurring later in the year.

The point of my post was that that the IPCC now conceded that adaptation was important. I didn't say that it had abandoned mitigation. Indeed, I said that it hadn't (that's what 'No' in my post meant). So I didn't mischievously construe anything.

I'm not at all full bottle on algae farming, but am reading. The forms of mitigation that have been proposed so far will do nothing discernible to reduce temperature, which is what this whole AGW scare is about, and I am still waiting to see (i) that there is a strong link between carbon dioxide accumulations and global temperature, since there hasn't been any obvious link for the best part of two decades, and (ii) that more warming is actually bad for living things in general.

Don,
How can AGW IPCC science be taken seriously if ocean algae plant matter proliferated by nutrients dumped by humans and natural algae is not included in the science?

"The point of my post was that that the IPCC now conceded that adaptation was important."

"Conceded"? Do I "concede" 2+2 =4, or is it just Blind Freddy fact? All we can do in the face of the already built-in projected warming is to cope. That the IPCC indicates what it is, precisely, that must be coped with and planned for by policy-makers is not a "concession", it's a fact.

Such spurious nuances of language are used as weapons and that the doubters take every such opportunity is what makes them deniers. To base an article on a turn of language and on the opinion of others doing the same (Lilico) is vacuous. I'm with jeremy on this and his other points.

Luciferase, a couple of things I have noted about climate change deniers is that they try and ignore what is happening at present; and they try to keep making comments about the past. Or, often they try and present completely wrong information; Bolt with his article on Tuvalu, and Bellamy has been trying to argue that glaciers have been increasing in size.
The article that I posted in relation to the British Antarctic Survey shows a clear relationship between CO2 and temperature. Judging by the references used the article was published prior to Heartlands, IPA etc getting worried about the impact science was having on their mining activities and profits.
Yet, having posted an article about the relationship between CO2 and temperature; Don continues to write "...and I am still waiting to see (i) that there is a strong link between carbon dioxide accumulations and global temperature...." What references do you use Don? The relationship between CO2 and temperature was sorted out in the Nineteenth Century and continually recognized since (except by deniers).

Deniers pretend that nothing man does industrially has any impact on the planet; deforestation a climate change determinant is a huge matter in the Amazon (droughts 2005, 2010); the Indonesians are taking out forests to grow palm oil plantations, and burning the residues creating peat fires that can continue for long periods.
JF Aus is right about algae problems, but warming and nutrients need to be in place for it to become an issue. JF Aus puts the cart before the horse. Acidification caused through CO2 and H2O mixing to create a weak acid is another matter. These are matters that are also happening not merely academic. Climate scientists either going out in the field or processing data obtained arguably are not involved in academic studies.