The IPCC assessment reports[1] are really well researched and comprehensive reports of the current science, including measures of confidence in plain language. They aren't hard to read, and there's any number of summaries available, including on Wikipedia[2]. It's a great place to start (and, for most non-climate-scientists, end) your research.
If you (general 'you', not you specifically, parent) want to dismiss an aggregate report of almost all climate scientists across the planet who research this stuff day in and day out as political theater, then I suggest your view of reality may be skewed by some other factor. Science provides us with data as near to facts as it's possible to get; it's up to us how to interpret those facts.
"Science provides us with data as near to facts as it's possible to get; it's up to us how to interpret those facts."
What is your definition of the word "science" in this sentence? Seems an odd use of the word. "Science" does not provide us with data. Particular people and institutions provide us with data. Furthermore when it comes to climatology, the data is hardly clear cut. All the results and predictions you read about in the paper are based on, as the article says "elaborate statistical techniques." When I hear that, my alarm bells go off. Using "elaborate statistical techniques" one can prove pretty much whatever one wants to prove.
I disagree with your use of "prove" when you wrote
Using "elaborate statistical techniques" one can prove pretty much whatever one wants to prove.
One may be able to massage data and create a nice looking chart to give an incorrect impression to unsuspecting people. This does not constitute a proof and it certainly won't pass muster with others who look at the same data and do their own statistical analyses.
I agree that my words were poorly phrased. I wanted to communicate that the IPCC report is really the best information we have, and an incredible amount of effort went into ensuring the information in the report is solid.
> one can prove pretty much whatever one wants to prove
Yes, but everyone knows this and this has been gone over again and again and everyone who studies this stuff and understands the science agrees with the report. This isn't a couple yahoos with a copy of SimEarth, this is almost every single climate scientist on the planet.
If you (general 'you', not you specifically, parent) want to dismiss an aggregate report of almost all climate scientists across the planet who research this stuff day in and day out as political theater, then I suggest your view of reality may be skewed by some other factor. Science provides us with data as near to facts as it's possible to get; it's up to us how to interpret those facts.
[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report