[xorcist]

While it is great that we have real scientific research made available to the common man, as too much is locked up in journals and whatnot, it would be a mistake to dumb it down for the ordinary man.

There are many talented journalists around the world who is much better suited for this task, and there is no shortage of popular science everywhere from web sites to TV documentaries. These science journalists are dependent on research being available, and meta-analyses such as the IPCC report are very suitable to them.

IPCC has the dual purpose of also being an input to international environment negotiations, so they do tend to make their material more accessible than others, but it has so far managed to stay foremost a scientific organisation.

[londons_explore]

There's no reason multiple reports can't be created for different target audiences.

[gmueckl]

Yes, there is a reason: the time of all the authors involved in creating these reports is a scarce resource. Reaching consensus on the final text of one report within the body of authors is already a tedious and lengthy process. Having them go through all that for another, separate text will just keep them from doing more of the research that actually matters.