I hate to be a bit cynical but I wouldn't expect a committee that has worked so long and hard, with such a strong political leaning toward Warming among the staffers who controlled it, to come up with anything short of a Jeremiad.
As is common in these cases, the baseline is chosen to give a decent increase, but the fact theat Earth has failed to follow the model for the last 21 years seems to have eluded the committee members.
Until there is a real explanation available for the last 22 years of stagnation on the warming front, and not just vague comments about ocean stirring, I won't jump on the AGW bandwagon. I find the model-based science rather dubious, especially as the cheerleaders for AGW regularly tout a symptom such as melting ice as absolute proof AGW is here, only to reverse themselves when the ice rushes back a couple of years late.
We do need to stop using oil, because there's a limited amount of it, and I don't want my grandchildren fighting a war to get the last drops. But dubious science is not the way to do this. We need some serious backbone in the debate, some common-sense and an acceptance that we can build safe nuclear reactors - we have thorium fuel for 5 millennia for those and pollution is much much better than uranium power!