Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.
snip snip
There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.

Okay, I have now read through the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" which, I presume is more than the pro-AGW advocates here have done since nobody seemed to be able to post a link to it when requested to do so.

Quote:

The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.
snip snip
There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.

I thought that was pretty straight forward .
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf

The IPCC involves numerous experts in the preparation of its reports. However, chapter authors are frequently asked to summarize current controversies and disputes in which they themselves are professionally involved, which invites bias. Related to this is the problem that chapter authors may tend to favor their own published work by presenting it in a
prominent or flattering light. Nonetheless the resulting reports tend to be reasonably comprehensive and informative.

I believe the IPCC, however, has yet to recognize a single scientific theory, no matter how peer reviewed it might be, that contradicts the preferred doctrine or suggestion of imminent global disaster if IPCC recommendations are not implemented.

A more compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the scientific community itself. Consequently it is useful to have independent experts read the underlying report and produce a summary of the most pertinent elements of the report.

And that is what I have been trying to mostly read--summaries offered by indpendent experts that are mostly ignored, disputed, and/or are invisible to the IPCC.

Except that isn't what he is saying. If you read the IPCC you would know that he couldn't possibly be saying what you are. He is saying the authors include the conflicting data but have the opportunity to put their data in a flattering light. But even with the flattering light, the science is still included and quite fair.

I believe the IPCC, however, has yet to recognize a single scientific theory, no matter how peer reviewed it might be, that contradicts the preferred doctrine or suggestion of imminent global disaster if IPCC recommendations are not implemented.

Nonetheless the resulting reports tend to be reasonably comprehensive and informative. Some research that contradicts the hypothesis of greenhouse gas-induced warming is under-represented, and some controversies are treated in a one-sided way, but the reports still merit close attention.

When I wrote the first statement you quoted here, I had not yet learned the the Summary for Policymakers was an entirely different document from the full IPCC report and was not done by the same people who wrote the IPCC report(s). In other words I had never made a distinction between information cited from these two documents.