You are reading the 2007 "summary for policy makers" (I'm sure you'll be surprised to discover that the summaries are often at odds with the reports themselves).
Given you demonstrated inability to read an understand entire paragraphs, I sincerely doubt that the summaries are at odds with the reports as often as you believe them to be. I find it more likely that are motivated to see disagreements where there are none.
Here's a link to the latest report (pdf): https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...
It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"
I put that last bit in bold so you can see they are indeed talking about "the sum total of all anthropogenic factors".
Did you finish reading the paragraph? Apparently not. The next line says:
The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3).
Then did you look at the graph? Apparently not. The graph shows total anthropogenic warming as higher than observed warming.
It's clear you've never read the consensus report (couldn't even find it!) yet you have the gall to say I'm an ass?
What else should I call someone who takes a single sentence out of context and tries to use it to prove the exact opposite of what his source says? You are categorically, 100% wrong. The source you chose to support your argument explicitly and in plain english says that I am right and you are wrong. Then they put a graph next to it to reinforce that fact, and somehow you manage to miss both? You're wasting my time, jackass.
Why can't we just have a normal conversation about this?
Because you choose to act like an ass? Your only source explicitly says you're wrong, so why are you wasting my time?
Most of the predicted heating comes from climate sensitivity estimates, not CO2 directly. And the climate sensitivity estimates keep getting lower. Example: http://link.springer.com/artic...
Here's a tip: If you want to provide evidence of a trend, you need more than 1 data point.
Same here, this is a claim of a different trend with exactly one data point.
In other words, the latest research suggests even less warming than what the "muted" IPCC report predicts.
Personally, I wouldn't use a blog post that speculates about what a not-yet-released report might say as evidence for my case.
Obviously you have not done your research here either, although I can understand why a person might think that at first glance. They were behind that "97% agree" study that was quoted by Obama. Unfortunately it a was really really bad study. I like to think that even people who disagree will call out really really bad science when they see it, but apparently not. Integrity of science be damned.
The problem is that people like you who apparently wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass, keep claiming that good science is bad and bad science is good, then you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having no integrity...
That is one very long bitch-fest with a lot of argument by anecdote. The author is clearly angry and ranting, but frankly, I didn't see any point where he quantified the impact of his findings. The approach seems to be to throw accusation after accusation and then claim that the study must be garbage because of the number of accusations thrown at it. Additionally, when the author immediately makes the accusation of fraud whenever he discovers an error, it only serve to discredit his position and demonstrate a strong bias. I strongly suspect the reason why the author has gotten very little response from the journal is that he failed to show that the errors that he discovered were material to the results. Almost 12,000 papers were categorised, if 20 of them were categorised or improperly included then that's an error rate of 0.16%, which is an acceptable margin of error for most endeavours. Lastly, the author of that rant seems to engage in the same kind of selective reading and selective reasoning that you demonstrate here as well. The paper explicitly says that "Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity", and yet much of the linked blog post is ranting about the SkS people talking about comparing and justifying their ratings. I looked at a number of the accusations and what I found was that the sentences were often taken out of context and blatantly wrong accusations made about them, which frankly makes it look like the author is significantly more fraudulent than the fraud he's claiming to have found.
Additionally, you moved the goalposts here, I was talking about the SkS site which you claim is "really, really bad" but to show that you had to link to a site criticising a paper produced by some of the people at SkS. A study and their entire site are not the same thing at all, which just makes this seem like a smear attempt, an ad hominem, if you will. Dick moves like this are why you don't get respect, you just come off as an asshat who's trying to "win" at any cost.