Here you go jack wagon:<quoted text>
A total BS post, all you deniers are empty vessels. It's like trying to communicate with stone age man, he still has to invent the wheel and writes his hunting exploits on cave walls. Your posts are no different, always in denial trying to find loop holes with circular arguments about research grants and the "maybe's" but NO SCIENCE! I have news for you deniers all science is done by research grants whether it's private or government. No sane person would offer money for a doomsday message wtf is wrong with you people apart from being clueless!
The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science: This week, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report. Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCCs past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.
Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).
So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCCs Summary for Policymakers identifies eight reasons for concern which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports findings.
OF course you wont take the time to read the whole report because it goes completely against your agenda.Wacko bird.