Erika Johnsen at HotAir has a good summary of the whole PR exercise that is the latest IPCC report
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finally did their big reveal on Sunday of the already-leaked third installment of their four-part climate-change report jointly composed by every big-wig climate scientist, progressive economist, and globalist politician they can scrape together, and surprise: It includes just about every type of dire warning and urgent recommendation we’ve been hearing for decades on decades now. Nutshell version: The world is only a matter of years away from all-consuming calamity, but if every country could just bite the bullet and immediately commit to aggressively decelerating their own domestic economies in concert with global standards, things just might work out for humanity. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/14/united-nations-its-not-too-late-to-save-the-planet-but-only-if-everybody-immediately-does-everything-we-tell-them-to/
Whilst to some extent there are reasons for hope, the language is still coated with the kind of repeated alarmist fantasies wheeled out from time immemorial only instead of existing in chicken entrails they exist in computer models programmed by those paid by the prophesy – presumably the more ‘alarming’ the report the higher the fee. This from the beeb report…
“Driven by a global increase in population and economic activity, global surface temperature increases will be between 3.7C and 4.8C in 2100 if no new action is taken.”
Since coming out of the LIA over a hundred years ago we have warmed by roughly~1C and in the past ~30yrs the rate is 0.35C (roughly +1.2C/century) whilst CO2 emissions continued to rise. This is in contrast to low end computer predictions of 1.5C per century, so to warm to the rate of 3.7-4.8C per century is the same as a politician repeatedly barking on about ‘green shoots of recovery in the middle of an economic recession – or running around telling everyone the sky is falling. The failure of the models is evident as shown in Dr Roy Spencer’s chart (above) and the failure of logic is that it is not unprecedented or alarming. Lord Monckton of Brenchley points to the ‘global warming’ trend from 1663 to 1762
The rate of warming was 0.9 Cº, and that rate occurred over 100 years rather than the 124 years 1880-2013 covered by Lovejoy’s statement that 0.9 Cº was a “huge” temperature increase. And it was entirely natural warming. As Professor Lovejoy might put it, it is 99.9% certain that we were not to blame.
Hubert Lamb said in 1958 [my emphasis]
We in Britain do not (most of us) live near the climactic margins of our type of civilisation.The changes of the figures in the climactic tables from one period to another do not look very impressive . Nevertheless, they are significant in various respects, affecting for instance the geographical limits of cod and herring and birds and the thriving of crop plants and trees. With some of these the response to climactic shifts is very quick. The winter climate in Finland in the 1930s was no severer than that of Denmark in the last century. The winter climate of London in 1780-1820 was about the same as that of the Rhineland in our times. The summer climate of southern England (as far north as the line from the Fens to Hereford) in the early Middle Ages was similar to that of the Paris-Touraine region of northern France nowadays : between 1930 and 1949 our summer climate again approached this level (and I believe peach trees and other southern varieties did well accordingly) but since 1950 the figures in summer, as in winter, are back to late nineteenth century standards. We do not know whether the latest turn in our climactic fortunes, since the optimum years of the 1930s, marks the beginning of a serious downward trend or whether it is merely another wobble – one more of the semi-regular oscillations on a time scale of 20 to 60 years. There have been other striking ‘ameliorations’ before – even during the Little Ice Age : the mild periods around the 1630s, 1730s, 1770s and 1840s must have been quite impressive. 
Adding the 1990s to the above we have a further striking ‘amelioration’ – that coincided during a time of rising CO2 levels. We now appear to be heading into a period of global cooling, although to what degree is uncertain. The problem with believing CO2 is the controlling factor in climate clouds the mind to having any degree of perspective. If CO2 controls the climate you can ignore all the other factors, something which time and again has bitten the Met Office hard in the ass. It means you ignore the ocean oscillations and the Jetstream, which you later rely on as a get out clause for your failed predictions/projections – which everyone else not deluded with CO2 mania already knew. I repeat a quote by Hubert Lamb from a previous post [again my emphasis]
The great period of warming, at least in the northern hemisphere, was during the first 40 years of the 20th century (especially the first and fourth decades), but in the 1950s and 1960s when the CO2 was increasing more rapidly than ever before the prevailing temperatures were falling. Callendar himself was worried by this discrepancy and contacted both me and Professor Gordon Manley about it. There seem, in fact, to have been a number of shorter runs of sometimes up to 50 years with either rising or falling temperatures often setting in suddenly, and with no clear correspondence to changes in the atmospheric CO2 content. We also see that account must be taken of psychological reactions—even in the influential research community—to the variations towards greater or less warmth as and when they occur. [...] in spite of the sharp turn towards warming after 1987-8, and the undeniably very warm years 1989-91 and 1995, one must feel uneasy about the confidence with which global warming has been publicised as the verdict of science in official pronouncements from many quarters.The erratic course of the changes experienced through the 20th century surely suggests that there are processes at work which are still not adequately understood and possibly even some influences that have not yet been identified.
Probably the key message we should be taking, one that is well lost in the race to throw more money on ‘limiting’ carbon emissions, providing vast subsidies for unreliable renewable and preparation for a warmer, drier Mediterranean climate in Northern Europe that never came, is believing the ‘amelioration’ would continue and basing our lives on that assumption. In April it is often warm and sunny, so a visitor to these Isles may be fooled into leaving the jacket at home, whilst those of us with more experience rarely leave the home without it to hand. Lamb makes an interesting observation that lies at the heart of how we should base our future planning for our changing climate;
I have always thought it a misfortune that the general introduction of plumbing into British homes coincided with the quite unusual run of mild winters between 1896 and 1936. And possibly some of the modern glass architecture and the hill-top sites with an open south-west aspect which became so desirable a few years ago seem less to be recommended in the 1950s. 
 HH Lamb - The Changing Climate (Routledge Revivals): Selected Papers Note – the paper was ‘The changing climate, past and present; which appeared in Weather, October 1958, Vol 145, pp. 299-318