I have read a summary of this report and still question its conclusion that the (undisputed) warming over the past hundred years is necessarily caused by human activity. There is still no plausible explanation to the questions I raised earlier on this site:
1. Why was there just as large an increase in temperature (0.5 C) between 1910-1943, when human carbon emissions were only 1/4 of what they are today?
2. Why did the temperature stay constant for 40 years thereafter, even though by then human carbon emissions had doubled?
3. Why was the 0.5 C increase since 1980 no faster than the 1910-1943 increase, even though human carbon emissions are now 4 times greater than they were then?
The summary has NO plausible explanation for these perfectly straightforward questions, nor have several climatologists (including one who teaches a university course on the subject) that I have personally questioned. "harumph, harumph... mumble, mumble... it's complicated... but the vast majority of climatologists agree..."
P.S. Lie about something this important?
Wasn't the Gulf of Tonkin resolution based on misinformation?
Wasn't Saddam's 'weapons of mass destruction' based on misinformation?
I think one only has to look at the timing of some of these sexual revelations to see that they are politically motivated. Why, for example, did NBC sit on the Trump "grabbing" tape for 11 years, only to release it a few weeks before the election? Because NBC suddenly saw the light and became a champion against the sexual abuse of women? Of course not; they wanted to sink Trump politically. NBC's motivation was the same as that of Dan Rather at CBS, when he released the phony National Guard memos (aka Rathergate) shortly before the 2004 election in an attempt to sink Bush.
A lib-biased newsman named Rather,
Well-known for his bluster and blather,
Made a dreadful mistake;
The memos were fake.
He's no wiser, but sadder, I gather.