The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (“IPCC’s”) Seventh Assessment Report (“AR7”) is behind schedule due to disagreements among member countries. The disagreement is led by a coalition including Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India and Kenya.
AR7 was supposed to be finished in time for the UN’s second Global Stocktake of “greenhouse gas emissions” scheduled to conclude at COP33 in 2028, but has been delayed to late 2029, with uncertain prospects.
UNEP warns that the IPCC trust fund may run out before AR7 is finished. Slovak climate alarmist scientist propagandist Jozef Pecho describes this as a “slow-motion erosion of the institution.”
And he sees the erosion of the IPCC’s timeline as threatening the ability of “science” to inform political accountability and decision-making in Europe about the so-called looming climate catastrophe. Pecho relies on IPCC reports to work on European climate impacts, and so he considers the delay a direct attack on the work his entire field does.
Shame.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
IPCC Troubles: The Latest from Bangkok
The following is an article by Robert Bradley Jr. with an introduction from Climate Realism. Bradley’s article was originally published on 28 April 2026 by Master Resource.
Introduction
Evidence is mounting that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (IPCC) is failing or at least flailing about. The most recent indicator of this is the ongoing inability of the IPCC’s science committee to come to an agreement on the scope and timing of the next Assessment Report.
With little or no notice from the mainstream corporate media, but to the consternation of the environmental press, the 64th meeting of the science body of the IPCC concluded in Bangkok in late March, with no agreement concerning when the first section, the key science section, of the 7th Assessment Report will be produced.
As detailed by environmental and climate outlets such as Carbon Brief and SDG Knowledge Hub, the meeting of 330 delegates representing more than 100 countries failed to agree on a variety of issues, including the scope and work plan for the report and, most importantly, the deadline for its production.
According to reports, this is the fifth consecutive meeting where no progress has been made concerning the timing of the report, as well as what groups are responsible for producing what sections of the report. As detailed in this guest post by Robert Bradley, Jr., founder and CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, who recently presented at the 16th International Conference on Climate Change, researchers who depend on the IPCC reports to support and drive the narrative that humans are causing catastrophic climate change are aghast at the lack of progress and the seeming ongoing deconstruction of the IPCC, the supposed authoritative body on climate change matters, as an institution.
Guest Essay By Robert Bradley Jr.
“This is the fifth consecutive failed attempt…. UNEP warns the IPCC trust fund may run out before AR7 is even finished. What we are watching is … a slow-motion erosion of the institution that translates climate science into political accountability — and it is happening at the moment that science is most needed.” – Jozef Pecho, IPCC climate scientist (below)
There is trouble in IPCC-land where the next (Seventh) assessment, due out in late 2029 (COP34), is behind schedule with uncertain prospects.[1] Chalk up another setback to the Big Problem of trying to control the climate via anti-CO2 policies.
Climate modeller Jozef Pecho, advertising himself as “predicting floods, protecting lives,” is concerned that the IPCC research-and-publication process is in trouble. “As a climate scientist whose work depends on IPCC assessments,” he reported, “I find what’s happening in Bangkok hard to watch.” He is referring to the just-concluded Sixty-fourth Session of the IPCC (IPCC-64) in Bangkok, Thailand (24-27 March 2026).
Pecho continues:
For the fifth time in a row, member countries failed to agree on a publication timeline for the Seventh Assessment Report (AR7). The IPCC Chair Jim Skea called the 64th session “frustrating and disappointing” with “minimal outcomes.” Carbon Brief’s reporting is essential reading.
The disagreement is framed as procedural. It isn’t. Most countries want AR7 finished in time for the second Global Stocktake at COP33 – exactly what the IPCC was built to do: feed authoritative science into political checkpoints. A coalition including Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India and Kenya wants the timeline pushed later. The practical effect is the same as if you delayed a medical diagnosis until after the surgery: the science arrives, but it can no longer guide the decision.
Continuing:
This is the fifth consecutive failed attempt. Saudi Arabia has also blocked the recording of delegate names in official meeting reports. Three previous session reports remain unapproved over transparency disputes. UNEP [United Nations Environmental Programme] warns the IPCC trust fund may run out before AR7 is even finished.
What we are watching is not a calendar dispute. It is a slow-motion erosion of the institution that translates climate science into political accountability — and it is happening at the moment that science is most needed.
Pecho ended:
I rely on AR6 chapters every week for my work on European climate impacts. The thought that AR7 might land after the political decisions it was meant to inform is not an abstraction. It is a direct attack on the value of the work my entire field does.
The next IPCC session is in Addis Ababa in October 2026. There is still time. But pretending this is normal is part of the problem.
Comment
Forcing scientific consensus to fit a political narrative is now in big trouble. Climategate back in 2009 lifted the curtain on IPCC-insider scientists cheating to help “the cause” (a Michael Mann term). Sound science in the voluminous body of the report just dies with the politicised Summary for Policymakers being as alarmist as it can be. The whole IPCC process, begun in 1988 with the First Assessment released in 1990, was never intended to find carbon dioxide (CO2) and other manmade greenhouse gases innocent.
The comments on Pecho’s post were brutal. “All suggests a final collapse of the house of cards. For good, I’d say,” said one. “It’s amazing this scam has gone on for so long,” said another. And:
Jozef, I almost totally agree with your statement: “As a climate scientist whose work depends on IPCC assessments, I find what’s happening in Bangkok hard to watch.” The climate science and models used by the IPCC and their apocalyptic CO2/GHG effect are comical.
Another called out the base case RCP8.5, which “… was so far away from reality that people just stopped talking about it and moved on because it was an embarrassment. Actual science would have reviewed the model, identified why it failed and been taken seriously as it improved on the model. Instead, it was quietly dismissed and the next version with the most alarming and catastrophic predictions takes the stage. People realise this isn’t and never has been science, it is propaganda dressed up as science in order to take advantage of perceived authority. Which is why fewer and fewer people are paying attention to it.”
[Related: Climate Science’s Biggest Shift In Decades: IPCC’s RCP8.5 Is Officially Dead, Climate Change Dispatch, 29 April 2026]
I added: “Time to end the charade and to apologise for trying to force a ‘consensus’ for what Michael ‘Climategate’ Mann called ‘the cause’.”
But when will the Deep Ecologists and authoritarians-in-their-head show some humility toward climate models and climate control? Respect consumers and taxpayers? Value freedom over open-ended Statism?
Notes:
[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greenlighted the next round of analysis: “… the IPCC will produce the three Working Group contributions to the Seventh Assessment Report, namely the Working Group I report on the Physical Science Basis, the Working Group II report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and the Working Group III report on Mitigation of Climate Change.”
About the Author
Robert Bradley Jr. is the founder and CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, a senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research (“AIER”) and a fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London. He is the author of eight books on energy history and public policy. His current book project is ‘Energy and Leviathan: A Political Economy Primer’. His website, ‘Political Capitalism’, is dedicated to his multi-volume history of the rise and fall of Enron.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News