[.cnI redruM]

You can't trust the IPCC. They are paid to produce models which demonstrate global warming. They are not paid to produce models that accurately effect the state of the climate. They are a part of an industry that pays them for a specific product.

They serve the environmental movement and those who support it's beliefs as a customer. They therefore are expected to produce results that conform to the desires of the environmentalists. If the truth contradicts, what the UN Environmental Programme needs to get more funding and generate more interest, the truth will set them free of their jobs.

[.cnI redruM]

You can't trust the IPCC. They are paid to produce models which demonstrate global warming. They are not paid to produce models that accurately effect the state of the climate. They are a part of an industry that pays them for a specific product.

They serve the environmental movement and those who support it's beliefs as a customer. They therefore are expected to produce results that conform to the desires of the environmentalists. If the truth contradicts, what the UN Environmental Programme needs to get more funding and generate more interest, the truth will set them free of their jobs.

(I meant to ping you as well when I sent this SV. A penny for your thoughts on the scientific objectivity of the IPCC.)

[RightWhale]

They are not paid to produce models that accurately effect the state of the climate.

If they are deliberately skewing their models by introducing spurious factors, there will be an outcry in the scientific community sooner or later. It would be a huge scandal comparable to the N-ray scandal.