The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

So the Summary for Policymakers, widely reported as symbolising the consensus of scientists worldwide in the media, was in fact the consensus of bureaucrats? The IPCC editorial board is deliberately misrepresenting the work of hundreds or thousands of contributing scientists? Is this why this guy recently resigned? Scandalous.