As far as I can tell the IPCC is a political body that receives data and conclusions concerning bits and pieces of the climate picture; such as findings regarding solar output or findings concerning the effect of co2 on solar radiation retention. This political panel uses the information submitted by scientists to form conclusions on climate, how it will affect humans, and what needs to be done to reverse any adverse affects. The IPCC is biased from the beginning, in their approach, by assuming something is wrong with climate and we must fix it. This gives me trepidations about having a panel of a few politicians sift through the mountain of data submitted by scientists in order to make conclusions about what is causing a change in the weather from what we saw a few decades ago(The earth is many thousands of decades old). I am then supposed to trust that this panel has considered all submitted data for the report are you nuts!!! The other thing that worries me is the lack of credentials of panelists provided on the IPCC website. So as far as i can tell AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming), as you see it, sir, is based on the IPCC reports which so far as I can tell are written by politicians. These politicians can use the information provided any way they see fit, they could make honest mistakes leading to the wrong conclusions or they could manufacture conclusions or they could just be right. The very existence of the IPCC to me ruins the argument of a consensus and of the peer review process. I mean come on Stalin and Hitler both were both peer reviewed and had reached a consensus among their political parties to commit mass genocide. I personally think science should be done by scientists not politicians. I personally don't think humans are causing a rampant heating of the planet, but that does not mean I won't keep an open mind.