They even put up some anticipatory defense:
"Climate change 'sceptics' will no doubt desperately seize on these corrections and falsely allege that it undermines the whole report, but the public and policy-makers should not be fooled by such claims," [Bob Ward, of the London School of Economics] said...First, why is skeptics in quotation marks? All scientists are supposed to be skeptics. Skepticism is a real, important and legitimate part of science.
We've posted plenty in the past on this blog about the problems with the anthropogenic theory of global warming, which they're now calling climate change because the warming part isn't panning out. So, let me not attack the tripe, er, inaccuracies of the IPCC's report and go after the science instead.
Any scientist will tell you science isn't done by consensus. If it were, then racial superiority of whites would be scientific fact and eugenics programs going strong, because the scientific consensus in the early 1900s said that was truth.
Science is based on repeatable results. Does your theory accurately model what happens in the real world? If you've designed an experiment, are your results repeatable? If the answer is yes, your theory is one we'll use until we come up with something more accurate.
The theory that global climate change is driven by human activity has a couple of glaring scientific flaws. It consistently does not accurately model what's happening in the real world, which is huge. It's not that the errors are minor and the theory needs some adjusting to the mathematical models. The climate doesn't behave at all like they predict it should. That means the theory has real, structural problems. Normally, without the support of a fanatical movement of true believers and a political mandate, that would be sufficient to scrap a theory. The second problem is that the data the theory is based on is bad information collected improperly. Again, that should be enough to scrap the theory and try again.
Many politicians and scientists have a lot of reputation and money riding on this theory being correct. Combined with a fanatical following raised from childhood to be true believers, this theory won't die even though the science is demonstrably bad. Normally we'd call this junk science. All the backing this theory gets is standing in the way of doing real science and figuring out what's really going on and what we can actually do, if anything to achieve a more desirable outcome.
One truth about climate is whether human-driven or not, it always changes. Climate change is not a problem, it's a constant part of Earth's history.
It's time to drop the hysterics and do real science. We do need to be good stewards of our planet, and at this point the IPCC and anthropogenic theory of global warming are just getting in the way by absorbing resources (scientific, political and financial) that could be applied to understanding and solving real problems.