I will not argue with you over this, only point out that the majority here do not seem to agree that the report is "shoddy", "rushed", or "badly reviewed", and

I will not argue with you over this, only point out that the majority here do not seem to agree that the report is "shoddy", "rushed", or "badly reviewed", and labeling it as such does not make it so. If the most "glaring" error that the AGW "skeptics" could find after sifting through a 3,000 page report with a fine-toothed comb is a difference between "prone to flooding" and "below sea level" -- and if that error was primarily the result of faulty government data, rather than primarily the result of faulty research methods -- then that's actually indicative of a really fucking solid report. The strategy among the "skeptics" here seems to be to find minor errors in this report, and then try to use those minor errors to cast a shadow over the rest of the report. What they don't want anybody to notice is that they aren't actually arguing with any of the conclusions of the report. Well, fortunately, people are noticing this, and calling them out for using this ridiculous tactic. So, go ahead and keep attacking it on those grounds, but you're not likely to convince many people here. The only thing that's being accomplished is to make the "skeptic" view look more and more absurd.