Not that anyone is going to read this but........

Lord Monckton’s paper highlights – Sarcasm mine

The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%. Despite being told to stop exaggerating ‘a million times’ by their Mothers.
CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100. If that. What about the impact of water vapour and ‘urban heat island’ effects? What happens if the current solar trend continues for another two or three years? Jeez.
Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly. Which conveniently throws a cloud around the whole issue so it conveniently cannot be disproved. Even if nothing happens
The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500. Yet the AGW crowd accuse us skeptical souls of ‘cherry-picking' the data we use.
The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated. What else is new?
“Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years. Before anyone really signed up to the Kyoto protocols either. Not that the temporary increase which spiked with the 1998 'super El Nino' had much of an anthropogenic component anyway.
Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling. Or anything else that has happened either.
The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%. Tsk, tsk. What a bunch of rascals these politico’s are eh?
It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible. Still fairly true. Although that’s more an assertion about the ‘Weather’ than the ‘Climate’. Too many variables.
Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed. Which the AGW crowd have steadfastly ignored / rubbished.
In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years. Ergo the @75ppm atmospheric CO2 increase more likely to be caused by ‘outgassing’ because of increased solar output than purely human activity. This is why CO2 levels lag global temperature increases and not vice versa.

Of course the various ‘carbon trading’ schemes upon which certain people hope to make their fortunes and paupers of the rest of us peasants depend upon the rigorous implementation of Kyoto and all its associated ‘green’ taxation. All on the back of the IPCC’s report, a report which is proven as full of holes as the proverbial Swiss Cheese. Inconvenient, the truth, isn’t it?

H/T Kate at Small dead animals

Stuff this, I'm off fishing.