Let's look at what some professionals have to say on the subject

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2012/11/18/new-report-examines-risks-of-degree-hotter-world-by-end-of-century

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/forget_kyoto_putting_a_tax_on_carbon_consumption/2590/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=047vmL6Q_4g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html

https://theconversation.com/international-energy-agency-warns-weve-nearly-lost-our-chance-to-limit-warming-4255

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/ocean-warming-and-acidification-deliver-double-blow-to-coral-reefs/

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/ipcc-climate-change-report-is-out-its-warmer-and-were-responsible/

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/comparing-models-to-pilocene-climate-when-co2-was-last-this-high/

I could keep posting links for weeks but I doubt it will make much difference

and an interesting article on the Relativity of Wrong that might be the best take home piece from this

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Onya Valley Guy. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

David

You're fighting the good fight, Valley Guy. The Dunning-Kruger link was great, ending in quotations:

"Confucius: ("Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.")

"Bertrand Russell: ("One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision")

Charles Darwin: ("ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge").

Shakespeare:("The Foole doth thinke he is wise, but the wiseman knowes himselfe to be a Foole.")

In Oz we'd say fools know just enough to be dangerous, and that's what they are, a danger to our descendants.

AR5 is a farrago; case in point; Figure 1.4 as in the draft:

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-models-vs-observations-annotated.png

Figure 1.4 as published:

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-final-models-vs-observations.png

The difference for those commentators who will still believe what their masters tell them about AGW until whatever synapses they have left stop, is that the 'official' published version has simply shaded in the area around the model predictions so that the actual temperature now looks as though it falls within the model error bars.

This is deceit, a lie; if it were published in a company report the directors would be prosecuted. But because the liars at the IPCC do it, it must be right.

And again with the consensus; only a complete, brainwashed believer would still believe there is a consensus about AGW.

This is not about sceptics or science; it's about an ideological position which is misanthropic, left-wing and elitist; and stupid.

cohenite, please indicate the IPCC cover-up in what was finally published. "Figure 1.4 as published" tells me that while some models' variation caught some of the observations of the last 15 years the average temperature rise predicted by all models was somewhat higher than observation.

The the IPCC points towards observaed ocean warming as the reason, which I think this is entirely fair.

Almost the entire focus of the denialists is on average surface air temperature and warming having slowed in this regard, which models did not predict. Therefore they attack modelling. Their focus regarding observed ocean warming is that the IPCC is vague about its connection to surface air temperature.

In reference http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html you will note the imperfect graphical relationship at the detailed level between CO2 and CH4 concentrations and surface air temperature while there is very strong relationship seen at the macro level. It is perfectly reasonable to link the ocean to this fact and assume surface temperatures will ultimately fall into line with the general upward trend in GHG concentrations as, it appears, they always have.

Precisely what mechanism is involved in heat transfer between air and ocean needs further research. The fact it is not clearly resolved is not a weakness of the IPCC report, which is not obliged to prove a mechanism to support its case, but it is applied as a criticism nonetheless.

Meanwhile, we should focus on the fact the oceans are warming (and acidifying) and this is a proxy for an expected surface air temperature rise in the future, and possibly quite rapidly.

"It is perfectly reasonable to link the ocean to this fact and assume surface temperatures will ultimately fall into line with the general upward trend in GHG concentrations as, it appears, they always have."

CO2 NEVER moves before temperature at any time span:

last 25000 years:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

20thC:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-CO2Temp.gif

Since 1998:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-390/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/scale:1000/offset:-280

"we should focus on the fact the oceans are warming"

Where? Not at the surface:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend

Not to 700 meters:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-700m-models-argo.gif

To 2000 meters; the lie with this is shown by this graph showing OHC in Joules with the equivalent temperature increase added:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HeatContentEQ_C-500x322.png

Bear in mind the 2000 level is calculated based on incredibly scant data and is speculative guesswork