IPCC AR5 WG1? Been sifting through, not going to read 375 or so MB of data.
What I see is a tendency to cherrypick and pose the wrong questions.
Looking for all evidence that is supporting the hypothesis and disregarding, or explaining away, often using a huge amount of data/words/graphs, that which is inconsistent. This is typical of poor science.
Using graphs deliberately designed to underscore the already taken position. I remember my reaction to the hockey sticks first time I saw them — “HIGHLY unlikely”. But went along since I always thought we should replace fossils with something better. Until I had had enough with the silliness.
I did spend many years at the university. But my experience comes mainly from fifty years of observation, over five continents. I would say 0.8 degree heating and a 190 mm sea rise over 100 years sounds right. The current sea rise of 3 mm per year may also be right, and we should be prepared for sea level rise, by not building on the beach (there you have the real problem — we are not preparing ourselves for change). But the alarmism has no solid foundation. 2.4–4.8 degrees this century? Several meters of sea level rise? Really. More hockey sticks.
We should always be vigilant, of course.
And you really should stop calling those who disagree “sceptics” and “deniers” if you want to help your cause, and stop pretending that those terms has anything to do with science (well sceptic sometimes has — in a positive sense). Using straw man and ad hominem the same, just don’t do it (I don’t). And not everyone will be impressed by your saying you’ve read Feynman (one n on the end).
That the NAS and others who should know better go along with the “consensus” gibberish is what makes me really worry about the general perception and acceptance of science in the future. You are giving Trumpists the upper hand, as we have seen by now.