I suggest the same report (still not formally approved), but then the summary for policy makers, SPM. In my opinion chapter 9 is too technical

I agree that IPCC is the best collection of pro-AGW articles and science.

If you want selective critique from a scientific view, then I would consult Judith Currys homepage "ClimateETC". In short, she believes that the uncertainties are not adequatly adressed nor the natural variations (ENSO etc etc). There are several interesting articles to be found here. Often very sharp comments on articles creating a buzz among proAGW-followers without any real foundation for it. Judith Curry is not a "skeptic" but rather a Lukewarmer, resting her conclusions on science, nothing else. That´s why I respect her. (No hidden "cause" here).

If you want peer-review articles dismissing any significant attribution to man, read for instance this one:

Beenstock, M., Reingewertz, Y., and Paldor, N.: Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming, Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 173-188, doi:10.5194/esd-3-173-2012, 2012.

You will not find it in any IPCC-reports or the like. (Ask yourself why.)

If you want pure skeptical views (some would say "denier") than you may check out the NIPCC report: http://nipccreport.org/

Heavy criticism of IPCC, which is correct in many ways, but the report don´t really come up with strong alternatives in my view. NIPCC is pointing to a recovery from the little iceage as the reason for the current warming trend (until 1997 that is). But there is little concrete evidence for this view. (Meaning: It could well be natural variations but we know too little to really know)

Jan

I frequent the site of Judith Curry but am not too impressed. It is good that she voices a moderating sound but does not present new insights herself (anymore)