The true cost of Climate Change and Global Warming is in the countless hours that sane people need to expend in exposing the lie of it all and uncovering it's true socialist 'wealth redistribution' and Global Government agenda.

Curmudgeon
The IPCC involved in a conspiracy to ‘hide’ their reports? Such a lame excuse, but typical. FAR has always been accessible, despite your protestations to the contrary. Alas, a distraction.

I assume (not a good idea) you understand why reports from the IPCC are released every few years - not least because of extra data, better analyses, improved techniques, superior technology, etc. Indeed, IPCC reports released since FAR reflect these improvements. In other words, it would be puerile for anyone to base an argument on outdated reports – this seems to be what you are in fact doing.

It would be far more reasonable to critique something like this:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5-3.html

Give it a go.

Rich2, if you really want something factual, the judge in the Xstrata casein 2007 said the following:
“ Finally, the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Summary for Policymakers was released on 2 February 2007

It relevantly concluded that is very likely that human-induced GHGs are causing global warming, and that most of the observed increases in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century are very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human-caused) GHG concentrations.

However, a close examination of the global mean temperature chart (Fig SPM-3), which was said to support that view, reveals that the last 106 years had 3 periods of cooling (1900-1910, 1944-1976, 1998-2006) and 2 periods of warming (1910-1944, 1976-1998) and that temperatures rose only 0.5°C from 1900 to 2006. The largest temperature change in the 20th century was a 0.75°C rise between 1976 and 1998,

But the fact that very similar rises have previously occurred (1852-1878, 0.65°C and 1910-1944, 0.65°C) was not specifically mentioned or causally explained in the Summary. Also not mentioned or causally explained is the fact that temperatures have actually fallen 0.05°C over the last 8 years.”

How much notice should be taken of the IPCC and its “very likely”. What an unscientific and meaningless assertion, particularly in view of the Judge’s comments.

This is not the first or only time the IPCC has been shown to engage in misleading conduct and statements.

bonmot, of course, will attempt to mislead you into taking the IPCC at its word. I am starting to doubt that bonmot is honestly mistaken in the nonsence he puts forward. He may be an AGW fraud pusher.

For others who wish to understand where Leo is coming from, the full story is here:

http://www.envlaw.com.au/newlands.html

Interesting saga - you can make up your own minds.

It’s worth noting that the Xstrata Case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and the original finding by the President of the Tribunal (Leo's 'judge') was overturned.

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2007/QCA07-338.pdf

The Court’s conclusion from para 56 to 68 is particularly fascinating.

I would add:
This is not the first or only time Leo has been shown to engage in misleading conduct and statements. In fact, this is what I have come to expect of him.

Bonmot - the 2007 report you can't do much with as its only just under four years old. Even the IPCC can't get it completely wrong in that time frame, although you want to read up on some of the arguments they have about warming patterns. Also you don't use the report so much as compare what it says with what happened. Global temperatures are about where they were or a bit below the 2007 mark.

The 2007 report is admittedly more sophisticated but still uses the same assumptions, including a key assumption concerning the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which proved completely wrong in 1990.

In any case, as you can now see forecasts and forecasting systems have to be properly assessed, and not simply endorsed by other scientists. Leave it with you.

Cheers

Bring on AR5, presumably with improved everything the Inter Academy Council suggested and with which the IPCC endorsed.

http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml