Haven't you heard about the consensus. (Before claiming that science is not consensus, that is a different issue, and a way to avoid the point, that the vast majority of scientists disagree with you.)
How can you tell if its a political document rather than a science. First sign is it came from a political organization. The second is that its not peer reviewed.
Oh yeah, there are problems in how the final language of the report is written, which every county pushing their special interests into the language. Don't change the fact that the scientists signed off on the document.
Try reading some of the citations in the report. See how well they match suggested claims in the report.
That's a howler, because I *have* read some of the citations of the report, and it seems very well written to me. If you a referring to some particular controversy in some paragraph (or sentence) of AR5, then you should (1) provide a citation, and (2) admit that the report is larger than one paragraph or sentence.
Yea i know several scientists that where involved with the last IPCC report and vowed never again.
I know of complaints from scientists about how the science gets watered down, and a rosey sheen is painted onto some parts of the problem. Doesn't change the central point that I was making: we can and must move to a carbon neutral economy. Quibbling over semantics won't change that at all.
Who is buying all this oil and coal?
The value of all the proven reserves will plummet if the market for oil and coal decreases. That is the source of the disinformation campaign.
We cannot do without coal/oil in 2014, but with the correct incentives, we can change our infrastructure to do with a *lot* less, and emerging markets can skip the coal trap all-together.
According the IPCC AR5 WG3, sustained movements away from carbon over 90 years will do the trick. You can still drive your car, and so can your children.
There is a lot of detail to get into for why we should be introducing economic incentives now -- you can read all about it in the 1700 page report, and 10k references.
AGW is easy to solve compared to the little lies we tell ourselves about what is moral, in order to protect our little empires.
If you are a conservative, you may enjoy this 20thC history of economics. The analysis leaves out a few important details (like the role of the OPEC crisis, and Nixon's price and wage controls, as causal factors in stagflation), but I think the general idea is pretty accurate. But no one theory of economics can claim to describe the economy, so it's important to realize that you are looking at a point of view that has blind spots, even if it is mostly true.