humans produce CO2 or that its concentration has increased in the atmosphere). This begins with the IPCC claim that Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. [Most?] It goes on to the estimates of the total net feedbacks, especially that of clouds, which IPCC models estimate is strongly positive, conceding, however, that "cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty" . Then there is the IPCC estimate that only 7% of the warming seen since 1750 was caused by solar forcing, conceding, however, that its "level of scientific understanding of natural (solar) forcing is low" Then there is the claim that "paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years". [Hmmm...break out the broken hockey-shticks.] Then there was the silly forecast that "for the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected..." (which hasn't happened over at least the first decade). [Oops!] Most hilarious were the tables listing trends in "extreme weather events", where the 66% "likelihood" of a specific trend in the past with a 51% "likelihood" of some (unquantified) "human contribution" (based on "expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies") is parlayed into a greater than 90% "likelihood" that the trend will increase in the future. [Ouch!] This stuff is all a prelude to the forecasts (or projections) of "global average surface