The N.Y. Times has early coverage of the latest IPCC report. The bottom line is what Climate Progress–and many others–have been saying for a while:

“We can no longer make the excuse that we need to wait for more science, or the excuse that we need to wait for more technologies and policy knowledge,” said Adil Najam, an author of one chapter…. “To me the big message is that we now have both and we do not need to wait any longer.”

The report also made clear the risks of delay, noting that emissions of greenhouse gases have risen 70 percent since 1970 and could rise an additional 90 percent by 2030 if nothing is done.

We’ll have more on the report when it is formally adopted Friday.

As this round of the IPCC unfolds, developing countries are scurrying to relieve themselves of any major responsibility for historic emissions and consequently, aggressive mitigation policies.

For example, China has requested inserting language that formally recognizes the percentage of emissions for which developed countries are responsible – 95% from the pre-industrial era until 1950, and 77% from 1950 to the start of the milennium.

China is also trying to earn reduction credit for social policies that have unintentionally curbed emissions. In other words, the one-child policy. Elsewhere, efforts to reduce air pollution from factories and cars has slowed emissons growth.

And yet China is poised to pass the U.S. in annual emissions this year or next, so it will need to join emissions-reductions efforts soon after we do, whenever that will be….

Already, there are serious reservations about the final IPCC summary for policymakers to be released Friday (May 4th).

The BBC leads the charge, noting that the economic models used to recommend mitigation policies aim to hold the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 550 parts per million (ppm). However, more recent scientific evidence suggests, and ClimateProgress agrees, that our policies need to keep concentrations much closer to 450 ppm.

We certainly applaud the IPCC and its work, but the reality of the process is that every month devoted to writing and editing is a month that doesn’t account for the most current data. By the time of publication, the final product has, spiraled out of date by two years.

This isn’t the first time. The story should be familiar if you recall the release of the first IPCC report in February, whose potential sea level rise estimate excluded accerated melting on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

And, of course, every government — including ours, China’s and Saudi Arabia’s — must agree on every word, making it all too easy to water down previously strong conclusions. We need a better process if we are going to solve the climate problem.