All of the AR5 findings are based on published peer reviewed research. Working backward from the AR5 report deadlines, there is a deadline for appearance of th

All of the AR5 findings are based on published peer reviewed research. Working backward from the AR5 report deadlines, there is a deadline for appearance of the research in order to be potentially included in the final consensus report. In this sense, it is all open. I think the issue in this case is that you can't take a graph from such a paper, or from a draft report, and interpret it in the absence of its context. This is a complex topic and there is a reason why they get the experts in a room to argue it out. In particular, lay people tend to be myopic. With every piece of information, they tend not to ask, "is this true?"' or "does this fit with other related physics and phenomena I know in depth?" They just cut right to the end, and ask, "does this favor or disfavor my prior conceptions about climate change?" To make a crude analogy, lay people tend to treat this like sports and not like science. So, that's why you let the process work and look at the final result. Unless you're a domain expert, you won't know how to interpret the arguments that lead up to the result. I know several contributors to the AR5 research, and slightly know a couple of people in the IPCC working group.