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 The second is that its not peer reviewed.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.