The main report and the Technical Summary were not touched by the destructive process of the meeting. They remain exactly as the authors wrote them. They make publicly available all the information that was deleted from the SPM. Because of the way it is created, the SPM has to be regarded as partly a political document. It contains nothing that has not been approved by the authors, but it was prevented from giving a complete picture as we see it. The deleted information is needed as a basis for making good climate policy. There is no scientific error in the figures; they were censored for political reasons only. Other countries could not prevent it, but a long succession of countries expressed support for the authors, whose work was treated with such contempt by some delegations.
Could we authors have prevented the censorship? Possibly. The IPCC depends on our long, hard, voluntary labor, and it also garners some authority by using our names as authors. Had we jointly threatened to withdraw our names, we might have had an effect. But at 4:30 am, with authors scattered around the conference room and some not entirely awake, no united front of authors was organized.
I emerged from this process angry at the censorship, pleased about the mentions of ethics, and astonished by the process. I would not have missed it for anything.