Witness Protection For Scientists: After Death Threats, Australian Climate Researchers Are Moved To Secure Locations

Surely that can't be true?! How can so many Australians be militant anti-climate change? I thought the U.S. had the most obvious opposition to the issue, and I haven't heard of anyone resorting to violence. I find this article a bit shocking.

Wow, just wow. Being forced into hiding because your job requires you to look at the facts and present them?
Sad.
Newsflash for those people brandishing these threats,
1) the goverments of the world will always find a way to make money off its' citizens
2) just because you cover your eyes and/or ignore what's going on, doesn't mean it's not happening.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

wow the last time this happened, it was the church who was making the death threats. sadly everyone suspected the Spanish inquisition back then. this is a serious problem, we should look into finding whoever made them and bringing them to justice. the police might not be able to do anything but a healthy mob could get things done don'tcha know.

to mars or bust!

Ahh yes... the "I can't prove you wrong, but I can beat you until you're quiet" approach.

Polluting, buying off goverment officials, mooching off other companies credits, shortening the lives of millions... and I'd have gotten away with it too if not you meddling climatologists!

"It should be universally abhorred when scientists are being threatened with actual physical violence simply because some people do not agree with their findings, or even their chosen profession. There's no place for that in a civilized debate."

But this *isn't* a civilized debate, nor is it about science. It's about philosophy, politics and greed. This article paints a picture of scientists as members of some selfless priesthood that is only interested in finding the truth. Yet, if you dangle a $100,000.00 research grant, there will be entire herds of "scientists" stampeding forward with flawed studies that prove the moon is made of "Third Hand Smoke". My God. Any "healthy skepticism" must be on the right side of the political divide, if that "skeptic" wants to keep a job. The public is beginning to notice, and they aren't happy about it.

@Quasimod

You feel obligated to run your Fox News command line even when an article is about innocents suffering the violence of radicals? Do you not have any shame?

let the dipsh#t parade begin, first up Quasifoxmode, here come the rest of the fox news trolls

No police investigation?! "Hate crimes" are never perpetrated by activists...oh no, never! All those nooses and swasticas that were drawn on their own office door or put out on their own front tree by lefty activists? Never happened!

Googling "fake hate crime" is not for us!

Speaking of Inquisitions are you, ghost? Labeling skeptics "deniers" (calling them equivalent of neo-nazi Holocaust deniers) and calling for them to stand trial for crimes against humanity and today calling for them to be tattooed with their beliefs too? That's the Climate Inquisition.

www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-dangers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html

Children of One Earth obey the most famous warmist of all, Dr. Charlie:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmPzLzj-3XY

-=OBEY CLIMATE COPS=- oi52.tinypic.com/wlt4i8.jpg

-=OBEY CLIMATE CRIMINALS=- oi52.tinypic.com/1zqu71i.jpg

@drchuck1, Siromar

First, let me say that I'm in your camp on climate change, though that shouldn't matter for the point I'm making.

There are two ways to address someone who doesn't believe in climate change (and I refuse to use the word "denier", for fear my Jewish German ancestors would disown me).

One, you can give them the facts and point them to the truth.

Or two, you can insult them and their source of facts.

Where the science and facts are on your side, why would you resort to insults? It's particularly troubling here because (1) the article is about using personal attacks in place of science, so at best it's hypocritical, and (2) Quasimod kept a reasonable tone, which is the hallmark of good skepticism. The Quasimods of the world are the ones we should be reaching out to with information! Don't make the rest of us look so desparate that we result to insults! This is a debate we can win if we just maintain debate!

@Paulscrosoft

Surely you can't be serious? I never once mentioned my opinion on the global warming debate. Quasimod did not talk about the issue either. He simply threw a bunch of right-wing sound bites together and blatantly supported violence against scientists since "the public is finally beginning to notice" the conspiracy of academia to steal his money.

Ya, I should not have objected to the copy-and-paste propaganda encouraging violence against those he disagrees with. My bad.

@Siromar

Three things.

One, I'm rereading the posts, and I owe you an apology. You didn't call him names, that was DrChuck. So my bad.

Two, I don't see that he is blatantly supporting violence. I'm sure you don't mean to equate disbelief with advocating violence. I just don't see what you're pointing to though. Can you highlight the blatant part that I'm missing there?

Three, dismissing it as "right-wing sound-bites" is not an argument, though I understand your frustration. That the public takes more time than the science isn't unique to the climate debate, but that shouldn't lower our standards of behavior. I'm honestly just tired of petty bickering, and I can't ask the other side to knock it off if I see it on our side as well (though I don't point to you with that criticism, see point one above).

@paulcrosoft

The guy quotes a paragraph that specifically mentions scientists being threated by violence, and then proceeds to explain that the reaction is justified. How is it not clear?

As far as my language is concerned, I do not think accusing him of watching Fox News or calling his statements right-wing sound bites are THAT insulting. It is counter-productive, yes. But then again, I never sabotaged the debate. It never existed in the first place.

The same group of popsci commenters have made it their job to litter any right-wing hot topics with provocations. The same people jump on every article on evolution, climate change, and any social study that contradict their beliefs with insults and ridicule.

But its almost to be expected when a plan that obviously won't help but a small pittance of CO2 emissions, and cost the people who can least afford it a large amount of their income. Destroying peoples lives for something that will not help (by design) and will only result in the fantastically rich and powerful getting fantastically richer and more powerful, tends to get under some peoples skin.

It's too bad politicians and scientists too have politicized so many issues especially the scientists should be better than mixing their personal politics with science. That's disappointing to be sure. Making the right decisions would be so much easier without it being tied to global political maneuverings.

Solutions, not cap and trade are needed.

I've bought my canoe and I've stocked up on sunblock. Bring it on climate change!!!!

Siromar makes a good point. Death threats? Really? The linked article says "The Australian Federal police said that it was aware of the threats but had yet to receive a complaint." If a police report hasn't been filed are the people claiming "death threats" really that worried? Or are they confident the threats aren't serious but are using them to win sympathy in the media? I tend to believe the latter until further information on the seriousness of the threats comes to light. The tendency of global warmists to exaggerate the magnitude of the supposed "problem" and cook the data is well documented. Death threats are no joke, but if the police aren't involved, how serious is it? How about some investigative reporting instead of parroting the unsubstantiated claims of those with a history of exaggeration?

Exactly the response I expected. Personal attacks, childish name-calling, putting words in my mouth, accusing me of political views I don't subscribe to, and opinions that I don't hold. Even the obligatory mention of Fox News (shudder). Exactly as I said. This so-called "debate" has nothing to do with science.

@quasimod
I think your argument is off-center. Of course people will claim to be what their not to get money. If a scientist is respectable, he will attempt to find the truth. My main point is your comment is out of place in this article. However, humans are naturally biased for or against something.

Oh, and I think that global warming is a natural cycle that has been moderately accelerated by various conditions, some of which have been created by humans.

@quasimod, correct, the "debate has nothing to do with science" is the smartest thing i have heard on this topic in quite awhile, @paulcrosoft...you are correct, name calling is childish, but with their intelligence level it is about all they understand, the truth hurts, too bad, bringing up facts as an arguement does not work with those that ignore the facts to begin with

I concede that my post wasn't particularly well crafted, but I don't think it was out of place. The article is about crazy people threatening scientists. They are the lunatic fringe of a much larger public backlash against scientists who are perceived to be ethically compromised, to have lost their objectivity, and to have become political activists. There are legitimate reasons for people to feel this way. I think a massive loss of public credibility is relevant to this article. I think it's also an important problem that needs to be addressed, and that should alarm the scientific community as a whole.

@Quasimod,

I take issue not with your personal opinions about climate change, but with the argument you present.

"This article paints a picture of scientists as members of some selfless priesthood that is only interested in finding the truth. Yet, if you dangle a $100,000.00 research grant, there will be entire herds of "scientists" stampeding forward with flawed studies that prove the moon is made of "Third Hand Smoke"."

For one, you suggest that since scientists do work due to research grants, the sponsors of the studies have a vested interested in the outcome.

Sort of like... if a tobacco company sponsors a study to see whether tobacco smoke is carcinogenic, right?

My first issue with this argument is that it's not accurate. Just because someone paying for the study has a certain interest, does NOT mean that the study itself arrives at "false" conclusions. At best, the study can be said to be "suspect"--this is what a skeptic would argue.

The second issue I have with your argument is the implication that believers in climate change have vastly more funds than non-believers (or maybe just plain non-supporters-of-intervention) in climate change and that they will financially benefit from reduced carbon emissions and the adoption of green technologies--hence they make the investment of "buying scientists" and paying for studies because it's an investment with a payoff.

I believe this implication to be absolute nonsense. The traditional "polluting" and green-house-gas-emitting industries are some of the most well-established and powerful industries in the world. The car manufacturing industry, the oil industry, energy industry, just to name a few.

Who are the industrial powers benefiting from more expensive manufacturing, more fuel efficient automobiles, and more expensive programs for recycling and reusing materials? The fledgling "green industry"?

If there was a bidding war for who can purchase the most corrupt scientists and publish the most falsified studies, I assure you the powers who oppose any legislation having to do with climate change would easily win.

Therefore the "it's all about greedy scientists and grant dollars" argument holds no ground in my mind... simply because the money isn't on the side of the climate change supporters.

I would have to agree with Lord E. this planet has been in a constant flux from hot to cold. yes this flux maybe worse, and yes it maybe some of it due to us, but i have yet to see all the crazy and wild prediction of what are climate will be like made 10-15 years ago about our climate now i.e. ocean rising, massive storms, draughts floods on biblical scales, famine, etc. Yes we have had some bad storms but still nothing outside of a normal scale.

Sing with me!

*sways hands back and forth*

Who can tax the sunrise?!?
Who can tax the trees?!?
Who can tax you to pay for their solutions - then spend up all the fees?!?

The government!
Oh -- the government can!

*sways hands back and forth*

@Ianredneck,

If by "normal range" you mean "record levels" then... sure... I suppose...

But I'd also suggest that words mean things for a reason--and that you should use the words that mean the things you are saying.

@B.V. yes big storms do happen, sometiems the break records(kinda of why we have them) but its not record breaker after record breaker, like some "cliamte scientists" have claimed would happen by now. I do see the entire midwest in a desert stage, or new ocean front property in Pennsylvania, Nevada, or entire glaciers gone, some are shrinking but i have heard some are actually growing(source unchecked or validated). what i am trying to say is that some of these doom and gloom climatologist have scared a many good people for no reason. Is there issues to be handled about our pollution, sure but don't tell me the world will end unless i drive an electric car or ride a bike, because its not true. I also have huge faith in the healing ability of our planet, if we try to mess with it, it will correct itself, yes it maybe painful to us but we will learn any lessons we are taught from it.

sorry don't see the entire midwest.....etc.

or all the tornadoes

man made climate change is a huge lie and a scam. Yes the world is getting warmer..but so is EVERY planet in the solar system. Even if climate change is real...how are taxes going to help? Don't bother answering, taxes are used to pay off mother nature everyone knows that.
And who will these taxes go to? The world government. Who elects these scumbags? This is beyond fascism. All you who believe everything the scientific community spews at you, all I have to say is LIMITS TO GROWTH. This was proven laughably wrong and so will all theories of man-made global warming.

P.S All Gore is invested highly in the company that’s organizing the carbon-tax system and will make billions off of it. He is a liar. Man-Made global warming is a lie made to control the populations of the world.

@drchuck
these tornados are what we call in the statistics world an "out-lier" meaning it does not show a trend, just a very bad year for tornadoes, This is consistent with all the "tell-tale" signs of global warming, out-liers, but a consistent trend of biblicaly changing weather resulting in the end of man, just a year of bad luck for people in the tornado belt.

@Ianredneck,

I've never heard any credible climate scientist claim the world was going to end... or any of the things you mentioned in your post:

"the entire midwest in a desert stage, or new ocean front property in Pennsylvania, Nevada, or entire glaciers gone"

For one, climate sciences is relatively new...

For two, the effects of average global temperature rising by 3-7 degrees F over 100 years is hardly "the end of the world in a decade"--nobody made that prediction.

So, what you've done is refused to engage climate change science based on actual facts, and instead have built up a strawman argument.

If you, or anyone, is actually interested in the real claims and evidence from climate change supporters, please see this: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/ClimateIndicators_full.pdf

Here are some quick highlights to discredit your "everything is normal" argument:

- Average temperatures have risen across the lower 48 states
since 1901, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years.

-Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the lower 48 states have occurred since 1990 and the last
10 five-year periods have been the warmest five-year periods on record.

-Average global temperatures show a similar trend, and 2000–2009 was the warmest decade on record worldwide. Within the United States, parts of the North, the West, and Alaska have seen temperatures increase the most.

-Average precipitation has increased in the United States
and worldwide. Since 1901, precipitation has increased at an average rate of more than 6 percent per century in the lower 48 states and nearly 2 percent per century worldwide.
However, shifting weather patterns have caused certain areas, such as Hawaii and parts of the Southwest, to experience less precipitation than they used to.

-Eight of the top 10 years for
extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1990. The occurrence of abnormally high annual precipitation totals has also increased.

-The intensity of tropical storms in the Atlantic Ocean,
Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico did not exhibit a strong long-term trend for much of the
20th century, but has risen noticeably over the past 20 years. Six of the 10 most active hurricane seasons have occurred since the mid-1990s. This increase is closely related to variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic.

There are plenty more examples in the link I posted...

@Ianredneck
@Aldrons

There is fool-proof evidence. Not the carbon-dioxide levels Al Gore talks about, but actual temperature record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Industrial revolution happened in the 1800s, coincidence?

Did 25% of the world's coral reef die just for kicks, or is there a reason behind it too?

The glaciers which are growing had some large physical change (ex: Mount St. Helens blew out 6 million m^3 of material on the cold south side).

It's already happening, and even if we cut CO2 production completely now, it would still be getting worse for 100 years. Just to avoid an absolute catastrophe and still have a somewhat decent wildlife diversity in the future, we need to make changes today. And yes, these changes will lower GDP.

@B.V.

Great argument

@me

edit: Mt. St. Helens blew to the North

What I have trouble wrapping my head around is the firmly-held belief that the "other side" is the only one with an agenda.

Do you honestly believe that Fox News is anything other than a propaganda machine manipulated by one man - Roger Ailes? This man has an agenda, in case you didn't know. He created Fox News in order to take the power away from journalists and replace it with something he could control toward his own ends. And he succeeded beyond anyone's expectations.

This distrust of the scientific community has always existed, but the ability for one man to corrupt the entire debate is something else.

I appreciate your skepticism, but try applying it to your "news" sources for a change. As a general rule of thumb, anything you hear on Fox News is more fiction than fact - even the bits they sell you as non-opinion pieces. One can present facts and still mislead.

@ BV: I have no idea where you came up with all that, but it certainly wasn't from the actual content of my post.

@quasimod,

I sure hope you are not talking about my replies to Ianredneck, but about the post in which I quoted you.

If your point wasn't that scientists are being bribed into producing false studies to support climate change... then what is your point?

@B.V.
here my skepticism lies, climate scientist for the past decade have made doomsday predictions. i have seen them and heard them so don't tell me they don't exist. these same people point to the same evidence that you have shown. I do not dispute that things have gotten hotter, and that some storms have gotten worse in some areas. But i have not seen these civlization ending prediction. I.E. drought will turn the midwest grain belt into a desert resulting into the second dust bowl, floods will swamp california and the south east, hurricane will submerge the south atlantic coast, glaciers will melt rising the ocean levels by up to 2-3 feet creating new coastline miles further inland. All of these thing i have heard 10 years ago, all predicted to come true by now or in the next 5-10 years. Very little if any of this has come true. So when i got chicken little running around with climate change papers in there hands i have a harder time believing it.

What i seem to see with very little of my own scientific knowledge is that this climate system is more complex and intricate than any group of well informed people can make predictions about. I also feel that this planet will eventually right itself.

@BSolomon
Yes i do read Fox news, actually there website, but guess whats right next to it...Cnn.com i read an article in one and read it another put the two together and get the truth from between them. Often one reports only half the information so between the two i get the truth. All media, journalism today is biased, its a sad but true fact, trust nothing you see in the news. Hell in some peer reviewed journals you can't get the truth ie"vacinces give you autism" scandal.

To all, the thing that i see ending this 'global warming/cliamte change" will be one big ass vlocano explosion, we haven't seen the large scale volcano eruption, like vesuvious, or the many other large volcanos that create early winters for a long time. and we are due for one.

@Ianredneck,

"here my skepticism lies, climate scientist for the past decade have made doomsday predictions. i have seen them and heard them so don't tell me they don't exist"

Well... I have no reason to believe that you are not hallucinating unless you post sources for what you claim you have heard.

For all I know you heard Sean Hannity on Fox News make the claim that climate change means end of the world in 5 years--I have no idea.

Post the sources, or else admit that you have no actual evidence to suggest climate change scientists have been playing chicken little--and that your belief that they are is not grounded in empirical reality.

@ B.V.: My point was simple and exactly as stated, no need to read anything else into it. People are getting angry at scientists for a lot of unjustified and illogical reasons, but some of that anger IS justified. I didn't say threats and violence were justified, of course not. But you take any random sampling of 1,000 humans, and there's going to be a few nutjobs in there. Now, forget the climate debate specifically, for a moment. A subset of the scientific community have been doing very bad science for all the wrong reasons, since Aristotle was a pup. The rest of the community seems to be perfectly content to ignore it. Hardly a peep. This stuff is used to shape public policy. It effects real people, real bank accounts, real retirement funds. I mentioned "third hand smoke" deliberately, since it's such a good example of this sort of nonsense (no, I don't smoke). The fanatical religious zealotry in that movement would be hard to find anywhere this side of The Enlightenment. Science? Hardly. I'm just saying that scientists should be concerned about all of this, and maybe try to come up with some mechanism to reduce it. Things are getting pretty bad, but pretending that a political activist is just a scientist seems a bit dishonest. That's all I was saying.

@ B.V.
Dr. David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) stated in 2000 that "within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event", and "Children just aren't going to know what snow is"

Here is story done on the IPCC( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about the erroneous predictions about bangledesh and India
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jxWAlO7hpr2AXkrZMWswKyK39gOA

Here's one on glacial melting http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

where are my 50 mil. evironmental refugees?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/16/un-scrubs-50-million-global-warming-refugees-page-website

IPCC Atlantic cooling due to deslinization off, if not wrong
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427131809.htm

pretty sure the artic ice shelf is still around
http://junksciencesidebar.com/2011/05/26/greenies-and-their-spectacularly-wrong-predictions/

If you need more let me know i can get some more.

And actually, the majority of the doomsday theories come frrom newsweek, and cnn, well established liberal media, but like i said i get my news from both side of the table.

@quasimod,

"That's all I was saying."

That's a cop-out. It's like Huckabee saying "Nobody is going to vote for someone who looks like the guy that fired them" and then telling news organizations "I didn't say I was talking about Mitt Romney!"

That kind of doublespeak B.S. has no place on a science website. Have the balls to say what you mean, instead of casting ambiguous clouds of smarmy implications and then replied with "but I didn't say all of those things I implied!"

"A subset of the scientific community have been doing very bad science for all the wrong reasons, since Aristotle was a pup"

1) This statement is based on what evidence?
2) What is the point of this statement if not to suggest that climate science is "bad science" performed by a subset of the scientific community?

In actuality, the "subset" is the majority of the scientific community:

Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.
-http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

To discredit climate science as "bad science" you'd have to argue that 74% of the scientific community is incapable of evaluating scientific evidence.

"The rest of the community seems to be perfectly content to ignore it."

Are you talking about anything in specific? If so, provide evidence for your claims.

you forget about me B.V. :(

@Ianredneck,

David Viner - I'm not sure what "few years" actually means--if anything. Certainly it could mean "a couple of years" or it could mean "a couple of hundred years" since hundreds of years are "few" in the geological timescale... the article from 2000 is mostly full of claims by the media--not by scientists.

Bangladesh - This story is about disagreement in the scientific community about the extent to which effects from climate change will affect a specific geographical area. As the year for the initial prediction is 2050, I don't see how this proves your point or is relevant.

Glacial melting - the original data was not from a peer reviewed journal, and included arithmetic mistakes, and related to a very specific locale/glacier in India.

50 million refugees - http://www.grida.no/general/4700.aspx
"This graphic was originally produced for the Environmental Atlas of the newspaper Le Monde diplomatique."

The findings were not those of UNEP and the UN...

Agulhas Ocean Current Leakage - you cited another study/theory that suggests current models used by the IPCC are not as accurate as they could be. This is not proof of a prediction being wrong, or right, but evidence of scientific debate... and is also irrelevant.

Ice Shelf / Schneider - You cite a blog post, which cites an article impossible to verify, which paraphrases something Schneider said COULD happen without providing the context under which the events could occur.

If you've ever read anything by Schneider, you will remember that he makes very specific statements and outlines specific conditions that need to be met in order for his predictions to occur.

It would be like me saying "If a meteor the size of Texas smashed into the U.S. last year, life as we know it would be over" and then having you quote me as "B.V. said last year life as we know it would be over, but obviously it's not!"

Out of context predictions do not prove your point...

Additionally, none of the things you cited were even close to the events you mentioned in your post:

"drought will turn the midwest grain belt into a desert resulting into the second dust bowl, floods will swamp california and the south east, hurricane will submerge the south atlantic coast"

and

"the entire midwest in a desert stage, or new ocean front property in Pennsylvania, Nevada, or entire glaciers gone"

In fact, the only event that was supposed to have occurred already was the 50 million refugees prediction... which was not even made by a scientific body.

Then, you go on to say,

"And actually, the majority of the doomsday theories come frrom[sic] newsweek, and cnn, well established liberal media"

Bingo! You have to learn to tell the difference between a "scientific claim" made by a body of scientists, and a "story meant to attract readers" from a media company based on a journalists' (mis)interpretation of a scientific study or data.

In fact you will find that overall, scientists seem to think the media's representation of climate change is mostly B.S.:

"Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as “not very” or “not at all” reliable.) Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable."
- http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

So, in the future please make a distinction between "climate scientist" making doomsday predictions, and "media companies" trying to sell papers/magazines/ads on their websites.

@B.V.: I implied none of the fever dreams you've been having. I began, continued, and ended with comments about the article. Remember the article? Before the rabid partisans began working themselves into a religious frenzy? You continue seeing what isn't there, because you're one of them. Chant some slogans or something, I'm done with this waste of time. It smells like YouTube comments around here.

@quasimod,

Are you capable of reading and retaining what you read long enough to type a comment about it?

What in the article has ANYTHING to do with your comments about $100K research grants and the greed of "scientists"?

---

Anybody who would create an online handle synonymous with "false mod" clearly enjoys sodomizing puppies and drinking the blood of babies.

Oh, I never SAID quasimod does those things... I simply said someone who's online handle could be interpreted as "pseudo-mod" obviously does. That's all I said.

I'm just commenting about the article though... If you see something that isn't there in my words, it's only because you have worked yourself up into a religious frenzy or are obviously drunk on baby blood.

*rollseyes*

Yes I agree with some of the others that there is much more to this story than what is being portrayed here.In America carbon credits are a tax loophole that keeps small companies from forming and allows big companies to pollute more than ever.Using the myth of global warming transforms the way we spend money.I would look to the free press if you have such a thing there.It may cost more per issue but you are 95% more likely to get the truth.

@ B.V.: Seek help.

@ B.V.
All those links i refered to may not specifically show that those predictions i said i heard but they show on a whole that many of the doomsday predictions have simply not come true. In the end i have a hard time believe most climatolisgist because of the predictions that never come true.