And some of the watermelon tyrant-wannabes let it out

It is the growing belief among advocate-scientists that international law must set limits on how much carbon dioxide each person on the planet can emit.

Most Americans would see a massive reduction in their daily output: You drive to the grocery store once for every seven times you go now.

Or, you could take your kid to school once a week instead of every day.

As part of this new world order, industrialized nations such as the United States that have already so damaged the planet would be forced to pay the rest of the world for those damages.

In explaining the US role during the past two decades, Donald repeatedly refers to "criminal conduct" and describes our behavior as "morally corrupt."

And ultimately, he says with glee, international law will catch up with us and make us pay for our unconscionable crimes.
Ok, try telling me this is about 'science'; this is about power and control: THEIR power and control over everyone else. Over every damned thing in our lives, and our lives themselves.

I'm going to excerpt the last part of the article:
Still, Donald acknowledges without any sense of shock or irony that the climate-change predictions of the advocate-scientists so far have not panned out very well.

"People think that science is certain," he says with a hint of derision.

"We can't know what is going to happen. There will always be scientific uncertainty."

It is a moral matter, not a scientific one, Donald says, that requires us to take such drastic action now, even though the proof of actual damage remains hard to come by.

He is asked whether there is anything unethical revealed in the recent e-mails where fellow advocate-scientists discussed manipulating data and suppressing information that undermined their lucrative global-warming beliefs.

"On that I am agnostic," Donald says.

As far as he is concerned, he says with rising anger about the general indifference about climate change, the global-warming debate "will determine who lives and who dies."
Oh, what a moral titan he is! He's 'agnostic' about fraud, about concealment and destruction of data, but "we have to act NOW even if there's no proof!" he says.

One more of the corrupt watermelons and 'scientists' who demand we hand control of everything over to THEM. Because THEY are the moral ones who know the Truth that we're not smart enough to believe in.
The e-mails, which were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia last month, have been seized upon by sceptics as proof that experts are spinning data to prove thetheory that humans are to blame for rising temperatures.

The scientific community was aghast at the fallout, which fuelled many people's doubts about the phenomenon and how much man is responsible.
Hey, guess what? If so many of the scientific community hadn't been in collusion to hide data and destroy data and destroy anyone who questioned their Holy Truth, you wouldn't have to worry about this fallout: you brought it on yourselves. And now, when you have to face questions and the facts of how you twisted things, you insult and belittle and lie and spin and yet still demand that you be respected as 'scientists'. And the 'moral ones' trying to save us all.
'There are also people who want to cast doubt on the science therefore it's not surprising that some people are not convinced. Therefore, we have to redouble our efforts, the scientific community has to redouble its efforts to persuade people.

'Frankly, it would be irresponsible for me to pretend anything other than what the scientists are telling me so I don't disagree that there's a long way to go to absolutely convince people of this but I think it's important that we do.'
Note the implication: 'the scientists' tell him this, everyone else is just a deluded doubter
Lord Lawson, the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, yesterday said Mr Miliband should be 'ashamed' for trying to stifle debate on the issue.

But Mr Miliband hit back, accusing the peer of 'spreading doubt' despite a scientific consensus and insisting the Government could not just to stick its head in the sand.
Ah yes, the 'consensus' that's supposed to convince us; "Ignore the thousands of scientists who say this is crap, or say it is unproven; ONLY pay attention to the consensus we tell you of." Uh huh.

As a side note, anyone else find it ironic that the Governor of CA is busy cheering and breaking bottles to christen a ship that, if his idiotic greenie friends have their way, would never be allowed to fly? Or only for government-approved purposes and people?