Andy,
In general, I would agree with your comment - to check the original report -, but with the thousands of pages of the full IPCC reports, its is too time consuming. Knowing that the Summary for Policymakers is politically motivated and often contains claims contradicting with the contents of technical reports, I find independent summaries made by not just "someone" but independent climate scientists with earlier IPCC connections like Dr. Pielke helpful.

I know personally only a few people with engineering background who are true believers in the CO2-related CAGW hypothesis. All of them are characterized by a blind faith in IPCC authority and findings, refusing to look at any other data sources or critical commentaries. I would think that after having a look at CO2/temperature relationship records and El Nino/temperature upswing correlation, any person with analytical mindset would realize that arguments supporting the "climate control knob" functionality of CO2 at current atmospheric concentrations are weak. We should be grateful that scientists like Dr. Ole Humlum are willing to apply their efforts to analyzing and aggregating public sources of globally available climate data on the monthly basis, offering a wealth of consolidated reports for those willing to learn to understand at least some of the climate trends and processes:

www.climate4you.com/.../Climate4you_August_2021.pdf

A good starting point for the open-minded would be the video recording of US Senate Climate Change Hearing of March 2013 where Dr. Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology, presented the facts why CO2 cannot have caused the current mild global warming.

www.youtube.com/watch

Andy,
In general, I would agree with your comment - to check the original report -, but with the thousands of pages of the full IPCC reports, its is too time consuming. Knowing that the Summary for Policymakers is politically motivated and often contains claims contradicting with the contents of technical reports, I find independent summaries made by not just "someone" but independent climate scientists with earlier IPCC connections like Dr. Pielke helpful.

I know personally only a few people with engineering background who are true believers in the CO2-related CAGW hypothesis. All of them are characterized by a blind faith in IPCC authority and findings, refusing to look at any other data sources or critical commentaries. I would think that after having a look at CO2/temperature relationship records and El Nino/temperature upswing correlation, any person with analytical mindset would realize that arguments supporting the "climate control knob" functionality of CO2 at current atmospheric concentrations are weak. We should be grateful that scientists like Dr. Ole Humlum are willing to apply their efforts to analyzing and aggregating public sources of globally available climate data on the monthly basis, offering a wealth of consolidated reports for those willing to learn to understand at least some of the climate trends and processes:

www.climate4you.com/.../Climate4you_August_2021.pdf

A good starting point for the open-minded would be the video recording of US Senate Climate Change Hearing of March 2013 where Dr. Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology, presented the facts why CO2 cannot have caused the current mild global warming.

www.youtube.com/watch