Confusion from Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall (of ex sci.env fame) has been going down in the world, and now writes for TCS. His latest is Things Look Brighter on Planet Earth, a rather confused take on the global dimming/brightening which is rather better reported :-) at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154.

The papers aren't really joint, just coincident. But more importantly, it isn't really about albedo either. If changes this big were due to albedo, ie the changes reflected top-of-atmosphere chnages in fluxes, they would be so enormous as to be readily detectable in the temperature record. They aren't. So they are, more, changes in the distribution of energy within the climate system. As it happens there is a paper in the same issue looking at albedo changes, but thats different.

But the meta-issue above this, which TW attempts to use these for, is: uncertainty, and/or how much should we trust the IPCC reports. TW sez:

As I say above, the first thing I take from this is that we do not, in fact, know everything about this subject yet. The IPCC report is, quite clearly, not the last word on the subject, for if it were, no one would be able to find something to publish on the subject, right?

This is stupid, because its trivially true, and indeed acknowledged by anyone sensible: the IPCC TAR wasn't the last word, which is why thousands of people are currently working on the AR4. But what TW appears to be saying, or trying to imply without actually saying it because its a logical non-sequitur when said out loud is: "and so what is in the IPCC reports is wrong, and/or too uncertain to trust". But TW is so pleased with his vacuous comment that he repeats it at the end of the article.