Utter bunkum, and reflective of your poor grasp of the matter.
The simple reality is that those fighting against global warming cannot argue the science itself, and instead take cheap shots at aspects of a massive report that is flawed only in reference to Himalayan glacial melts - a section that failed the editing process through human error.
Mr L has seems unable to understand that the process of presenting a report that synthesises thousands of scientific papers is absolutely different from the precise material in any single paper.
From the numerous posts I have seen from Mr L I cannot say that I am surprised.
Just one example from Wayne's reference-
"Yet that may be the IPCC on a good day. Chapter 5, from Working Group 3's report - which I randomly chose to examine next - is far worse. Only 61 of the 260 references relied on in that chapter have their feet firmly planted in peer-reviewed literature – an abysmal 24 percent. Put another way, three-quarters of the material cited there is grey literature. In a chapter devoted to something as tangible as the transportation sector.
What's bizarre is that an examination of the comments submitted by IPCC reviewers following both the first and second draft of Chapter 5 - and the responses to them - suggests that those involved appear to have taken part in a shared hallucination. A great deal of lip service was paid to peer-review, but in practice it was a next to meaningless concept.
When Takayuki Take****a, a researcher associated with the University of Tokyo, suggested that a presentation he'd helped prepare be cited by the IPCC, the chapter authors advised him that "the use of a presentation would not satisfy the requirement for published literature." This is all well and good, but had that standard been applied uniformly the list of references at the end of the chapter would contain closer to 61 entries than 260.
Elsewhere, when Take****a said he considered a statement in the chapter to be "doubtful" and noted that it conflicted with almost "all of the literature I have ever read" on the topic, he was told: "Rejected; text simply quotes the study, and good chance the study is correct."
The full citation for that study looks like this:
MIT, 2004: Coordinated policy measures for reducing the fuel consumption of the U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet. Bandivadekar, A.P. and J.B. Heywood, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment Report LFEE 2004-001, 76 pp.
Despite the fact that it is not peer-reviewed, the chapter authors think there's a "good chance" it's correct – and that's the end of the matter.
This is the celebrated IPCC internal peer review process in action. The reviewers don't get to make their case to a neutral editor who then arbitrates. Instead, the authors are at perfect liberty to ignore comments submitted in good faith by expert reviewers - to decide that the source they've cited is probably right."
shows how flawed the IPCC process is. There are many more examples given in that reference and others linked to it. Together with the leaked East Anglia emails, the lies in Gore's film, etc, etc show there is systemic bias or even fraud in the IPCC summaries.
The process that you describe Sneak'n, is not done in an open and scientific way and therefore, in many cases, the result is just UTTER BUNKUM.