Ummmm, no. The report in question is actually the composition of around 13 people, most of whom represent governments, political parties, and NGOs. The full report might contain more scientific bona fides, but this report is a political document "summarizing" the larger one, which hasn't even been fully developed yet (don't summaries usually come after the document to be summarized? I guess not if you already know what it's going to say...). And remember, the last one of these "summaries" actually made claims not established by the full document, and some even contradicted by it (Steve Milloy at www.junkscience.com did yeoman's work exposing this). So forgive those of us who aren't immediately falling to our knees and worshiping this particular iteration.
And as for the ad hominem of the "funding" question, for every dollar available to a scientist from an oil company, there are a hundred from a government or NGO who want the opposite conclusion. The dirty little secret here is that environmentalist organizations are spending lots of money on this "science," but no one seems to be interested in tracking that money. I wonder why not?
You should be aware that Steve Milloy is a shill for the tobacco as well as the energy companies. See Steven J. Milloy - SourceWatch. (This is a left-wing wiki, but you have to admit that conservative web sites aren't going to go out of their way to share this information.)
The energy companies do not do much direct funding of actual scientific research on global warming. What they spend money on is public relations campaigns, often quite subtle and very effective. Yes, environmental groups are fighting hard on the other side. It is an interesting question as to where they get their money. But I warrant is isn't from polluters and manufacturers of poisonous, addictive products.