in 1546679 20130116 045955 Larry Jaques wrote:
On 15 Jan 2013 22:35:26 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy
Climategate, bull****.

There are none so blind...

Indeed.
From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
(I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf
Gauging the Global Greenhouse
The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will deliver
its next assessment of the physical science of climate change in
September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster greenhouse gas
mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather extremes and sea-
level rise won�t be barn burners. Past reports have already answered the
big questions: The world is warming, humans are behind most of that, and
climate is sensitive enough to greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.

And, of course, you didn't read the article where the IPCC copped to
fast footwork (and bogus "scientists") on a whole lot of its work.
Thee IPCC is a completely -political- entity who has been overrun by
alarmists. With every new report on them, their credibility shrinks
and shrinks, yet they're still -the- main focus for you "believers".
Unreal!

I'm sorry that you've selectively choosen -not- to read the truth in
print, but I do hold hope out for you. You'll come around sooner or
later. (Enjoy the egg.

Still in denial then?