Climate change

I just read a www.newscientist.com article about sceptisism towards climate change. It was fascinating to read that the sceptics were merely 'sceptics', or 'some people say', or 'some scientists'. This while printing the names of people who were not sceptical. I wonder why this is. Is it because the credentials of 'some scientists' will not survive me googling them?
They did print the name of one sceptic whose outlandish idea must clearly have been bought and paid for. By whom? Yes, that's the real question.

It is clear when reading even scientific articles from the USA that even the most obvious of hard evidence can not break through the media storm of that country. A country where myth appears to be truth and truth can never be absolute. Lost in their own bad education which clearly didn't include the scientific method they learn latin instead. A dead language. And Darwin is optional.

Living here in the north is living with climate change already. I have but to look out of the window to see evidence of it. So while it's bleedingly obvious for some of us the worlds greatest polluter will not accept it.
And the reason for that is pretty obvious too; It costs money to fix. Alot of money, and if the poor americans have to take some of the money away from their wars they'd probably bore to death long before climate change takes them. Well good riddance anyway.

What is bad about this is that their opinion is leaking over here. SUVs are the fastest rising car market here. A type of cars the government will hopefully soon ban as they emit massive amounts of pollution compared to regular cars.

Today the Kyoto protocol is enacted. And though it is crtitisized for not being enough it is a start and a good one. It will reduce pollution.
It will also reallocate wealth, from the west to the third world; about god damned time too.

And so I say to all you happy polluters: I'll piss on your graves, it's a promise.

b