IPCC:
There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas. Elsewhere there is overall low confidence because of inconsistent projections of drought changes.

ie Who knows?

So the people who have demonised climate-change sceptics as ‘climate change deniers’ or ‘flat-earthers’ are now telling us, in a coy and roundabout kind of way, that actually no one has a clue how the climate will turn out.”

Love it.

“For years, the scientific and political establishment has claimed that there is a ‘consensus’ that ‘the science is settled’ and that man-made global warming is beyond challenge.

But now the organisation at the very heart of this claim has sidled out a tacit admission that this is untrue — while trying to conceal that this is not in fact the mother and father of U-turns.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC as it is known, is the body which has driven man-made global warming theory for more than 20 years…..

What’s changed is that they know the game is now up. For even though carbon dioxide levels have been increasing, there has been no increase in global temperature for the past decade or so.

And that destroys the entire theory of man-made global warming, which is that carbon emissions inevitably and inexorably drive up temperature.

So the people who have demonised climate-change sceptics as ‘climate change deniers’ or ‘flat-earthers’ are now telling us, in a coy and roundabout kind of way, that actually no one has a clue how the climate will turn out.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2064081/Hurrah-Philip-Wind-power-ruinous-folly-age.html#ixzz1eKwylxnA

“Last week, even Richard Black, a BBC proselytiser for man-made warming, was gloomily having to reveal the conclusion of a new IPCC report: that, over the next few decades, “climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variabilty”. In plain English, that means the great scare story is over. What a shame. But at what a price.”

Most of all, the “catastrophic” word has all but disappeared. We seem to be left with rising sea levels as the sole source of threatened future catastrophe.

“Anthropogenic” seems to have been put on hold for 20-30 years, and “climate change” has now been radically redefined to mean:

“A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”

Then “global warming” has become decidedly fuzzy. The next decades might get warmer or cooler, and that may depend more on natural internal processes than any persistent anthropogenic contribution.

The age when “most of the observed warming” was very likely (95% probability) human-caused has now drawn to an end. It’s over!

As you say, “MSM – ARE YOU LISTENING?” Here’s hoping that investigative, unbiased journalism is not quite dead in New Zealand.

No point Richard. As you know the report is altered to fit the Summary AFTER the authors and peer reviewers have finished with it. The thing to look for is whether the reviewers’ comments have been addressed (rather than ignored) and whether the final report is significantly different to the second draught.