The IPCC starts from a fairly solid base. It looks at the papers produced by climate scientists. It then filters out the ones that don't support the view it wants to put across so it omits the more sceptical ones.

It then acquires nearly half as many more grey publications often by environmentalist organisations. This is supervised by some scientists, and some from the higher echelons of organisations like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife fund. For example, Jennifer Morgan, once WWF chief spokesperson, Kyoto delegation head for Greenpeace formerly of Climate Action Network. Or Richard Moss, WWF vice president.

Sometimes they ignore peer-reviewed literature and use grey literature to make the opposite point - according to Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University.

FInally, all the annoying little bits of truth remaining are smoothed out in a final pass by the politicians.

So, they can rightly claim that their report is based on the work of thousands of climate scientists but the broom has had several new heads and handles since then.

That is a consequence when a group tries to use things to push a political agenda. They may have short term success but pretty soon the facts come home to roost. Facts are stubborn. Alarmists have been caught with their pants down time after time and it seems they no longer have any shame about it. They keep redrawing lines and telling people that they didn't say what we know they said.

There are two elements to the IPCC reports. The first is the physical science basis. That has concluded that the planet is warming and we're responsible.

The second element is, based on that physical evidence, what are the potential impacts. That's a lot harder to judge because it becomes less dependent on solid empirical evidence and more on projections based on limited data or understanding.

But, what do you expect? Are you honestly suggesting that societies need absolute 100% perfect information before decisions about the future can be made? Are you honestly suggesting that the conclusions should not be reviewed, dismissed, or altered as more information becomes available? Are you suggesting that science should know everything right now, or do you accept science as a gradual increase in our knowledge?

The IPCC has and will make mistakes. That is always true of any human endeavor in which we lack a magic crystal ball. The question I have for you is why do you demand a level of absolute precision from an organisation whose conclusions you dislike when you don't demand that same level from anything else? Could it be bias?

Because scientists like to "grandstand" and tout their intelligence and their own findings. The changes (back-tracking) come when they realize they are in error, but want to let us know that they are fallible. The Earth's climate system and its sensitivity to higher CO2 levels is still far too complex for them to be definitive on what is really happening. If the Planet is releasing heat more rapidly (maintaining its own balance) than their theory suggests, then the basic premise of why the IP CC was established will disintegrate and they will be out of a job.

?Discuss the implication on HR policies of 2 of the labor laws or regulations that were implemented in the last 10 years.

IF it is not full of hyping extremists trying to scare the public, then they are backtracking because they realized some errors got thru their process of peer-review. For some reason, claims that match the party line get less scrutiny that those that are in opposition.

Why does your Smart Phone have more computing power than a computers that filled a room had a generation ago?

The answer to your question is that new scientific discoveries are made as time goes by. Here is an example of IPCC backtracking. In 1990, the Medieval Warm Period was not well understood.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_1...

Even though considerable uncertainty still exists about the Medieval Warm Period, more recent science has produced more realistic reconstructions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...

Fact is, the claims are largely fabrications...

If "skeptics" have a scientific leg to stand on, why is there such a flood of "questions" such as this one which bear no resemblance to scientific reality?

not reality

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report-ipcc-to-backtrack-on-claim-that-global-warming-will-destroy-rainforests-1359426

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-un-climate-report-casts-doubt-on-earlier-extinction-predictions-a-960569.html

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/12/ipcc-forced-to-backtrack-on-bogus-claims-that-global-warming-causes-severe-weather.html

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/03/ipcc-backtracks-on-extinctions.html

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/un-panel-climate-change-ipcc-scientist-ice-28654.html

Your interpretation, not reality.

Seriously?

There are plenty of places you can look to find out about Climate Science and the IPCC (the purpose of which is to summarise the work of the world's Climate Scientists). If you're looking at c3headlines, you won't learn anything truly informative and I don't recognise any of your other links as science sources at all: the last one is 'opinion' and the one before just a blog! c3headlines is a known disseminator of anti-science on climate and carbon. (No, I didn't bother to follow them).

Start with a search for 'climate science' and IGNORE any blog or other uneducated opinions from non-science sources.