The IPCC’s 64th Plenary Session took place in Bangkok, Thailand, from March 24–27, 2026, at the UNESCAP headquarters. Nearly 300 delegates from member governments and observers attended to advance the Seventh Assessment Report (AR7) cycle, discuss the 2026 workplan for the three Working Groups, and review the organization’s Principles and Procedures.

The session wrapped up without a firm decision on the timeline for the AR7 reports (the three Working Group contributions plus Synthesis Report). Governments remained divided: some pushed for a schedule aligned with UNFCCC milestones like the 2028 Global Stocktake, while others (notably including positions from countries like Saudi Arabia and India in related discussions) advocated considering delays. Independent coverage described the meeting as “frustrating and disappointing,” with a “deadlock” on the timeline and “persistent divergence of views.” This lack of agreement at this stage of the cycle appears unprecedented according to observers.

Additional flashpoints included:

Review of IPCC procedures: Discussions on governance rules were contentious and largely deferred to a future session.

Funding concerns: IPCC Chair Jim Skea warned of a budget shortfall. Contributions have declined (notably with reduced or altered U.S. involvement under the current administration), and without fresh funding or significant cost cuts, the Trust Fund could run out by 2028—before AR7 completion. This has been linked in reporting to broader shifts in U.S. climate policy priorities.

This isn’t the first IPCC plenary with friction—government approval of Summaries for Policymakers has long involved line-by-line negotiations that can dilute or emphasize certain findings. The funding gap and U.S. policy shift add practical pressure. Critics argue it underscores how the IPCC operates at the science-policy interface, where “best available science” inevitably collides with economic, developmental, and sovereignty priorities of 195+ member governments.

The next major session is slated for Addis Ababa in October 2026. In the meantime, author work continues, but the Bangkok outcome leaves the overall AR7 roadmap uncertain.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

IPCC Troubles: The Latest from Bangkok

From Master Resource

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 (COP 34), 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 modeler 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 (March 24-27, 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 Program] 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 politicized 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 realize 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.

I added: “Time to end the charade and to apologize 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?

—————-

[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.”