the NIPCC essentially called the ipcc 'frauds'.

 

So IF you weren't, you would be willing to prove you weren't.

 

 But like mikey mann, he went after the one challenging him to try and 'silence' him, but when that didn't work, when told to produce his 'evidence' so that the 'accusation' of being a fraud could be decided, he refused. 

 

 Now why was that?  Why wouldn't the ipcc openly ask for peer reviews of those critical of the ipccs conclusions?  Why hasn't the ipcc openly invited the NIPCC critics of them to a very public debate on the ipccs' 'facts/evidence/conclusions'. 

 We know the answer don't we, one of just doesn't want to be 'honest' about it.

 

 Ok, bertie..   thanks for playing...  and by the way, since you want to get rid of fossil fuels so bad, you do know that a very high % of the things you need to live on are the result of fossil fuels.   So how much of those things have YOU gotten rid of to save the planet?   

 

 Years ago, a bunch of folks like you living in the SW of America were demanding folks stop using fossil fuels.  So I told them to turn off their AC units FIRST..  and prove to us that they did if they really cared about the planet.  Won't be surprised to know how fast many of them shut up when they realized/had to admit what they were doing to the planet, and wouldn't give up voluntarily.   Go figure.