> the latest IPCC Synthesis Report.<p>As an art project, this is fascinating, but seeing this report is concerning to me in a different way.<p>Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but performing a text search of either the executive summary, or the longer (not the unavailable full report) doesn't even mention the word nuclear once, but wind/solar/fossil-fuels all appear dozens of times. To me this is absolutely pants-on-head bonkers as nuclear is the key to the future regardless of whether or not you're fearful of climate change. At the very least, there's some serious people out there who strongly advocate nuclear as a solution to climate change and you'd think this merits a mention at the least, even if just to refute this as a potential avenue for research.<p>The only mention of nuclear that I can see appears in one chart of potential impacts of mitigation efforts by 2030 where nuclear is ranked low. But given the capital investment required for nuclear power and the deliberate recent unwinding of nuclear power plants by certain anti-nuclear groups, this timeframe seems designed to give a particular answer.<p>I am concerned that the handful of well-intentioned legislators out there that might actually try and read this kind of report are having impactful information and arguments hidden from them by ideologues and lobbyists.