News from Copenhagen: Denmark rife with CO2 fraud

Gosh, who could have predicting this? Oh, wait, haven’t we we heard this same thing months before in Britain? See this WUWT story.

From

The Copenhagen Post

Tuesday, 01 December 2009 10:08 DN News

http://www-nlpir.nist.gov/projects/tv2006/pastdata/topics/examples.from.outside.the.collection/factory_smokestack1.jpgScams in many countries are subject to investigation by authorities

Authorities in several countries investigate VAT tax fraud stemming from the Danish CO2 quota register

Denmark is the centre of a comprehensive tax scam involving CO2 quotas, in which the cheats exploit a so-called ‘VAT carrousel’, reports Ekstra Bladet newspaper.

Police and authorities in several European countries are investigating scams worth billions of kroner, which all originate in the Danish quota register. The CO2 quotas are traded in other EU countries.

Denmark’s quota register, which the Energy Agency within the Climate and Energy Ministry administers, is the largest in the world in terms of personal quota registrations. It is much easier to register here than in other countries, where it can take up to three months to be approved.

Ekstra Bladet reporters have found examples of people using false addresses and companies that are in liquidation, which haven’t been removed from the register.

One of the cases, which stems from the Danish register, involves fraud of more than 8 billion kroner. This case, in which nine people have been arrested, is being investigated in England.

The market for CO2 trade has exploded in recent years and is worth an estimated 675 billion kroner globally.

Full story here

Advertisements

78 thoughts on “News from Copenhagen: Denmark rife with CO2 fraud

  1. Tip of the iceberg – er – shall we say. Global estimates of black-economy activity are around 10% of the white-economy figures. So if total carbon trading is around 675B, this rule of thumb suggests that there’s another 60B waiting for an eager sleuth or three to investigate. Wear body armour – mafioso tend to be extensively weaponised.

  2. After reading the damning indictment of all the activities revealed in Lord Monckton’s summary discussion of Climategate, this latest apparent act of fraud is just the icing on the cake.

  3. Why is it these articles always show an exhaust stack or cooling tower emitting a big plume? CO2 is invisible. The caption for the photo should correctly identify the plume of greenhouse gas being emitted as … Wait for it … Water vapor 🙂

  4. Thank You Richard Nixon for giving us Watergate. You helped us with giving us the perfect name for the climate conspiracy, Climategate.

  5. After reading the lengthy indictment of all the activities revealed in Lord Monckton’s summary discussion of Climategate, as well as that earlier piece of that scam in the UK, this latest apparent act of fraud is just the icing on the cake.
    Fraud begets fraud begets fraud … and so on.

  6. “Richard (22:39:42) :
    Jones has gone!
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8389727.stm
    I know the headline says stepped down, which is resignation in effect, the story states he’s stepped asside while an investigation is carried out. He’s still there.
    From the article: “Professor Jones said: “The first thing to point out is that this refers to one diagram – not a scientific paper.
    “The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”
    No disrespect to him however, I believe he’s missing the issue in contention. It’s not just the word “trick”, it is *EVERYTHING* else, data, loss of data, recreation of data, altering of data, making data up etc etc, which brings in to question the practices at the CRU. If it was just *ONLY* the word “trick” which was the issue discovered then I am sure there would be no contention at all.

  7. Crime under the cover of C02.
    Something tells me that since Climate Change is based on a hoax, the ratio will be inverted. 9 Black trades for every White one.
    Shut it down before it gets started. A stitch in time saves 9.

  8. Over at realclimate, a comment, by one George Ortega suggests:
    [blockquote]An unapologetically draconian Climate Change Misinformation Act (CCMA) [which] would make it illegal for media corporations and large organizations to deny […] the reality and seriousness of global warming.
    […]
    In order to attack the bill, its opponents would need to show that global warming is not happening, that it is not caused by humans, that it does not represent a serious threat to civilization as we know it, and that it does not need to be strongly and quickly addressed. […]

    [Response: I can’t support this […]. Your intentions are good, but you are proposing an Orwellian system that is quite frightening. This is exactly the kind of thing that the crazies out there would like to believe that mainstream scientists and environmentalists (not the same thing, by the way) want. Please don’t help stoke their deluded fantasies!–eric]

    “Your intentions are good”! “Deluded fantasies”!
    This, it seems, is what comes from using terms such as “denial.”

  9. Richard (22:39:42) : Please distinguish yourself from me. Methinks since you are the newcomer put an initial after your name to distinguish yourself. 🙂 – Richard

  10. Thank You Richard Nixon for giving us Watergate. You helped us with giving us the perfect name for the climate conspiracy, Climategate.
    Yes, because it’s a phrase that’s never been overused to describe scandals! Come on now. How about Climatefraud? Or Climatebollocks? Enough with the -gates!

  11. I strongly doubt that there are any “authorities” that can truthfully and correctly “investigate” these sorts of issues.

  12. This is perfect timing for the Copenhagen talks. The EU is riddled with corruption anyway, so no real surprise here.
    Time to end the AGW con and to break up the un-democratic EU.
    Surprised to see the headline on the front cover of the Express this morning:-
    THE BIG CLIMATE CHANGE ‘FRAUD’
    We are not to blame says top scientist…
    It’s a con to raise tax
    The Express is normally a pro-AGW newspaper, so this is a real surprise – a change of heart, or CYA???

  13. Anyone in the know, please tell me who, when, and in which article, named this fiasco “Climategate.”

  14. Please don’t fall into the semantic trap that the AGW people placed in the Climate Realists way. AGW (Mann made global warming) is the subject, not climate change or global warming.
    Nobody believes that it’s no warmer than it was during the LIA, that’s global warming. During my 80+ years, it warmed up during the 30’s and 40’s, it cooled durlng the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, and warmed up since then; thats climate change.

  15. I suspect Anthony and the Team are too busy in coming days & weeks to finalize the surface station summary. But that’s all right.

  16. In the Daily express article mentioned above by Dave Johnson (22:19:00) we have this:
    quote But Vicky Pope, head of Met Office Climate Change Advice, said: “We are seeing changes in climate on a timescale we have not seen before.
    “There clearly are natural variations. But the only way we can explain these trends is when we include both man-made and natural changes to the climate.
    “We have also seen declines in summer sea ice over the past 30 years, glaciers retreating for 150 years, changing rainfall patterns and increases in subsurface and surface ocean temperatures.” unquote
    Now that’s a clever trick — that nice man Tamino (you should visit his blog and ask questions, he answered mine very promptly) calculated the CO2 forcing for the period 1910 to 1940, .25 watts/m^2, and 1970 to 2000, 2 watts/m^2.
    So, Dr Pope, what made the glaciers retreat between 1850 and 1910? Surely the human CO2 forcing between those dates was vanishingly small. I see that you are an expert in climate modelling, so perhaps you could explain? What exactly was the anthropogenic climate forcing at that time? If it helps, the average annual human CO2 load was less than a gigatonne.
    It can’t have been CO2. So what was it?
    JF

  17. At 5.65 kroner to the dollar, that’s $120 billion (an underestimate?) invested in sham, fiat, worthless carbon credits, a false comodity attractive to scam artists.
    That bubble is going to burst soon, Madoff-style, as all that money disappears in a poof.
    Let’s hope it never becomes $trillions and “too big to fail”.

  18. Leon (22:55:13) :
    “Why is it these articles always show an exhaust stack or cooling tower emitting a big plume? CO2 is invisible. The caption for the photo should correctly identify the plume of greenhouse gas being emitted as … Wait for it … Water vapor” 🙂
    Hey now come off it, give these guys some credit where it’s due! At least it is real without being shot against a sunset that provides great light & dark contrasts, then run through a sepia filter to make it look even more dark & sinister with all that “pollution”. Even the most naive person would question it after a while if those little tricks were left out! :-))

  19. No great surprise, criminals have been using VAT carousel frauds for years. Mobile phones were a classic example.

  20. It is interesting to see that the MSM ( those that are reporting on climategate) talk only about the email files, data is not in there vocabulary, which is a good indication of there intelligence,
    Will the politicians admit they cost us billions of dollars chasing a shadow?

  21. Exactly as predicted!
    Now watch for the utterly ruthless Russian and Chinese gangs and the Cosa Nostra to move in although they may have a bit of a battle to outdo the big banks and every shady finance and carbon trading outfit in existence thats getting in on the scam.
    And this is what the totally naive and ignorant politicians, bureaucrats and the Environmental and Global Warming shills for the Big Banks have given us, criminals and fraud on a huge scale.

  22. There is a fundamental law of economics:
    Bad money drives out good.
    It came about from the observation that, when gold coin circulates, folks hold onto the ones with the most gold in them (best reputation, no shaved edges) and the adulterated coinage comes to dominate the circulation and trade.
    That law of economics is just as valid today (even if a bit less easy to observe).
    And here we have a system where folks can create “carbon money” out of nothing but fantasies and fabrication. So what is the inevitable result?
    Bad money drives out good.
    Who knew…
    Avoid bad money scams of all sorts. They are doomed to failure. The only question is “how fast?”.

  23. Let me see they created a market that deals in an invisible gas and they are surprised there is corruption!

  24. UN halts funds to China wind farms
    December 1 2009
    The United Nations body in charge of managing carbon trading has suspended approvals for dozens of Chinese wind farms amid questions over the country’s use of industrial policy to obtain money under the scheme.
    China has been by far the biggest beneficiary of the so-called Clean Development Mechanism, a carbon trading system designed to direct funds from wealthy countries to developing nations to cut greenhouse gases. China has earned 153m carbon credits, worth more than $1bn and making up almost half of the total issued under the UN-run programme in the past five years, according to a Financial Times analysis. The credits are currently trading at about $10-$15 each.
    Industrial countries can meet part of their commitments under the 1997 Kyoto protocol to battle global warming by financing projects that mitigate emissions in developing nations. Projects only qualify for credits if the applicants prove they would not have been built anyway, a condition known as “additionality”. The controversy over Chinese wind farms and other CDM projects will intensify calls for the system to be overhauled at the UN’s Copenhagen conference, which opens on Monday.
    China-based consultants said the CDM’s board in Bonn began refusing approval for Chinese wind power projects in the middle of 2009, over concerns Beijing had deliberately lowered subsidies to make them eligible for funding. “The board now suddenly says the projects are not additional, whereas in the past they found no fault with additionality,” said Yang Zhiliang, general manager of Accord Global Environment Technology, one of China’s leading CDM consultants. “They are blaming the Chinese government and its decision to lower subsidies.”
    Ms Yang said Beijing had other aims, such as limiting overcapacity in the wind turbine sector, in setting subsidies. “The Chinese government wouldn’t adjust subsidies just to bag CDM money,” she said.
    Industry officials said the CDM board had refused approval for about 50 wind power projects. Doubts over whether CDM funding will be available in the future has also prompted power companies to stall new wind power investments. Lex de Jonge, head of the UN board, confirmed that “a handful of [Chinese] projects” had been suspended but declined to give reasons. Michael Wara, of Stanford University, said there were considerable problems in China with the CDM’s rules.
    With the emphasis that Beijing is now placing on both smaller hydro-electric projects and wind power, the government would have supported at least some of the projects receiving money under the CDM scheme anyway.
    “It is hard to believe that there is additionality in many of the energy projects in China right now,” he said.
    Chinese government officials quoted in the local media defended the CDM process as an effective mechanism for helping developed countries cut emissions and the only one that gave poorer nations a role. Chen Hongbo, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said although the system needed reform, it should be maintained. “I think that after 2012 [when Kyoto expires], the CDM cannot stop immediately,” he said

  25. Yay COP15…. now all the world leaders cover need to cover their eyes so that we can play “Rent and Seek!”

  26. Whenever government distorts free markets, organised crime finds a foothold. Al Capone would be dancing in his grave.

  27. Daphne,
    “Since we don’t use VAT (value added tax) in the U.S., ”
    Indeed you don’t. And I believe that is the reason why the US authorities cannot record how much of a US built automobile was made outside the US – so they assume that is is all made in the US. Because the whole value is assumed to be US domestic product, the GDP figures are artificially skewed upwards.
    VAT would resolve this problem, because each stage of the manufacturing process would have to record its inputs and outputs in order to calculate “value added” for taxation.

  28. “Leon (22:55:13) :
    Why is it these articles always show an exhaust stack or cooling tower emitting a big plume? CO2 is invisible. The caption for the photo should correctly identify the plume of greenhouse gas being emitted as … Wait for it … Water vapor :-)”
    Water vapour is invisible. What you see in all this AGW BS propaganda is….steam!

  29. I always thought that VAT carousel frauds involved export and reimport – I, struggling to see how this works with gaseous CO2 or are we using CO2 proxies here?

  30. Not surprising news….
    Carbon trading is such an artificial unworkable solution anyway
    (whatever one’s feelings about the efficacy of CO2 reduction in the first place)
    The “No Goldilocks Solution”,
    as we have seen in the EU where the problem with carbon prices is they
    are either too low and so cheap and meaningless as in recession times,
    or too high to lead to any reduction at other times, when evasive
    action for example involves paying off third world emitters (who
    according to a recent Economist article can simply be set up to rake
    in cash ie would not be emitting otherwise), or tree planting
    exercises of dubious effect, which may in any case be fast growing
    non-native trees which changes local ecosystems.
    An artificial market will always be an artificial market.
    Understanding Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
    – and why it doesn’t work
    http://ceolas.net/#cce5x
    Basic Idea
    Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal
    Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading —
    Companies: Business Stability + Cost
    In Conclusion

  31. Vincent (02:46:56) :
    ‘Whenever government distorts free markets, organised crime finds a foothold. Al Capone would be dancing in his grave.’
    Time to declare CO2 a nonpollutant.

  32. Moonbatiot just spent three days in Canada with the screeching bovinian hag Liz May, an American ex-pat lawyer who heads our serially unelectable Green Party. I’d promise to write something political for Liz too, if it were the only available means to get her to shut up.

  33. One small quibble with Wayne Findley’s estimate – I would argue that there is $675 billion worth of fraud in this industry right now.

  34. Thanks Bill, I just emailed this to Michael Ashley, cc the UNSW comms office
    “Dear Prof Ashley,
    Sorry to add to what must have been a bad week.
    I just reread your insufferably pompous and, as the CRU emails show, utterly worthless review of Ian Plimer’s book. When I read the review I formed a poor view of Plimer’s work. It now turns out that you and your “peers” have vilified him and his like, you have stifled good science, given nourishment to bad science, and should now hang your heads in shame – at least send the man an apology, for God’s sake. Or would that be to concede some ground that you may later need in court?
    Sincerely,
    T.S.Forrester-Paton
    Cc
    WattsupWithThat
    Andrew Bolt
    And many more

  35. This from today’s Wall Street Journal
    “….Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change “consensus.”
    To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.0027% of Exxon’s 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you’d hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.
    Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world’s leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week’s disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, or CRU.
    But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists’ follow-the-money methods right back at them.
    Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents leaked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.
    Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
    Thus, the European Commission’s most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that’s not counting funds from the EU’s member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA’s climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA’s, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. American states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal…”
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html

  36. Climate change is not a scam, anthropogenic climate change however is a scam.
    Please distinguish between the two when talking.

  37. Climate change is not a scam, anthropogenic climate change however is a scam.
    Please distinguish between the two when talking.

  38. Be careful Jones has not gone he’s just been suspended ( probably on full pay) whilst Climategate is investigated. I don’t see the University of East Anglia admitting the fraud so it’s possible that Jones would be reinstated if there’s a white wash.

  39. The pace at which this scam is unraveling is simply amazing. People are finally starting to realize what this perversion of science is really about, money.
    Anthony, you deserve a world of thanks for your efforts.

  40. Moonbot is over the top with his attacks on Canada and Australia. This is what you get when you don’t agree with the Moombot!. Go suck on an banger Moonbot. Do you some good to swallow some more pork!

  41. Mann made global warming. It is going to 20 degrees tonight. I could use some heat.
    Also one reason Big Oil seems to go with the flow is because they pass the taxes to the customer. It doesn’t lower their profit.

  42. Well I never would have believed that some heavy-handed, intrusive government regulation would encourage illegal activity. Next thing we know, somebody will allege bureaucratic corruption!
    I thought all government employees and people concerned about the environment were as pure as angels. Next thing we know, somebody will allege that scientists altered their findings in order to further an activist agenda.
    It’s as if all you deniers think politicians, bureaucrats and scientists are no better than anybody else.

  43. OT … This is for Spenc BC
    Moonbot and National Geo tell us Alberta’s tar sands are a travesty … here they are compared to the world’s large cities…see here.
    http://ocl3.shawwebspace.ca/
    Short version is thus: Alberta’s tar sand are so huge (not) .. they don’t even stretch as far as downtown LA to Disneyland. ☺ Anyway…see the website I made a few months ago. Or one slide here:
    http://photoshare.shaw.ca/image/9/b/9/176482/tarssandsoverlaat101-0.jpg?rev=0
    Yeah there are other eco factors too, but in perspective, Moonbot’s trashing and National Geographic’s trashing are really unwarranted.
    And yes, Lizzie is an extreme eco-weenie lawyer who probably cannot get elected in Canada’s greenest riding. L is for Lizzie. ☺
    Cheers!
    Clive

  44. Tonyb2 (05:51:31) :
    “Be careful Jones has not gone he’s just been suspended ( probably on full pay) whilst Climategate is investigated. I don’t see the University of East Anglia admitting the fraud so it’s possible that Jones would be reinstated if there’s a white wash.”
    Tonyb2, 5 will get you 10 there will be! I’m sure of it. Whats the betting that Jones et al will come up smelling of roses, & I expect they will be found to have “done nothing wrong” etc, which we have all heard before here in the UK of late. If Lord Rees is going to be the investigator that would be like putting an MP in charge of assessing the MP’s expenses fiasco! Remember when Noo Labour investigated the “blame/compensation culture” allegedly initiated by lawers looking for a fast buck in the UK, when first in power, they put ex-lawyers in charge of it. They found no evidence of a blamecompensation culture existed, that’s why we have had all those ambulance chasing adverts on tv ever since. “Have you had an accident & it wasn’t your fault? Well, you may be eligable for compensation!” Cut to picture of someone writnig a cheque with lots of noughts after the primary figure. “We here at Dooum, Screwum & Fleeceum can help!”. If I importuned for work like that I would be struck off! Of course the longer they leave such an investigation the more time they get to concoct a storyline to explain all those emails. Plausible deniability folks, Hide the decline. 🙂
    Just a thought, should we all start & end our posts with that little gem as I suggested it might become a standing joke before too long, I think I will in any case! There is nothing like rubbing a little salt into a wound.

  45. Dave Johnson (22:19:00) :
    Just when you think it can’t get any better! And there is a headline on the CRU fraud in a major UK paper today http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

    HOME > NEWS / SHOWBIZ > UK NEWS > Climate change ‘fraud’
    This is the directory path of the Express story printed today. Hmmm. All the world’s a stage, or just this artifact-filled corner that is s’posed to be ours?? Itza virtual confusion. Hi Ma!

  46. “Richard (23:27:49) :
    Richard (22:39:42) : Please distinguish yourself from me. Methinks since you are the newcomer put an initial after your name to distinguish yourself. 🙂 – Richard”
    I suggest you both put your proper surname on the blog to avoid confusion.

  47. Leon (22:55:13) :
    Why is it these articles always show an exhaust stack or cooling tower emitting a big plume? CO2 is invisible. The caption for the photo should correctly identify the plume of greenhouse gas being emitted as … Wait for it … Water vapor 🙂

    Everyone knows CO2 is colorless and at all but very high concentrations, is odorless… Or do they?

  48. bill (04:09:26) : Even more of a horror story http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147
    I dont place much faith in Plimer. And that he quotes a paper that claims the Sun is similar in composition to a meteorite, as alleged, is appalling.
    But Michael Ashley’s conclusions (that AGW is not an unproven hypothesis) do not follow from his criticisms of Plimer.
    That AGW is an unproven hypothesis can be concluded from the evidence provided in its favour (and the lack of it), and the reasons and logic it uses to argue its case. Well summed up here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/30/the-climate-science-isnt-settled/

  49. Vincent (02:54:12) :
    Daphne,
    “Since we don’t use VAT (value added tax) in the U.S., ”
    Indeed you don’t. And I believe that is the reason why the US authorities cannot record how much of a US built automobile was made outside the US – so they assume that is is all made in the US. Because the whole value is assumed to be US domestic product, the GDP figures are artificially skewed upwards.
    Ummm no. On the Expenditure side measurement of GDP we have:
    GDP = C + I + G + (X – M)
    C = Consumption expenditure (households)
    I = Investment Expenditure (businesses)
    G = Government expenditure (self explanatory)
    (X – M) = eXports less iMports
    So yes, the last part of the equation subtracts imports from the GDP measure. That’s not to say the data isn’t “value-added” of course… and there is always the discrepancy issue between different measures of GDP (income-side versus expenditure-side, for example).

  50. The Danes are leading the CarbonCare movement in many ways:

    Supercrematorium to save CO2
    KR News, 27 November 2009
    http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/47629-supercrematorium-to-save-co2.html
    Dead bodies to be transported four at a time in giant hearse to save on costs as they are driven to communal crematorium
    A new plan to build one super crematorium in Ringsted to replace seven smaller ones in the Zealand region will reduce carbon emissions and save on money, but relatives are concerned by the plan to transport up to four bodies together to the facility.
    Environmental authorities will introduce a requirement from the start of 2011 that all crematoriums must have mercury filters, and the cost of installing them has proven more expensive than some dioceses can afford, reports DR News.

  51. RichardJ (07:07:28) : Richard (23:27:49) : Happy to oblige..
    Many thanks RichardJ
    Chris Schoneveld (10:02:32) : I suggest you both put your proper surname on the blog to avoid confusion
    I use it on Nature sometime (Dawson) but I am known as just Richard here. Would be more confusing now if I changed it.

  52. Talking about nature, I made a number of comments here:
    http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091202/full/462551a.html
    But I have grave doubts they will be published
    One of them in reply to:
    Eric Rignot, University of California, Irvine
    “Given the overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change, we should deal less and less with climate sceptics. Otherwise we should also deal with folks who think Elvis Presley is still alive, that Earth is less than 6,000 years old and that we cannot possibly have descended from monkeys.”

    From memory:
    “I thank you Eric Rignot for clubbing me those that believe the Earth is less than 6,000 years old. I couldnt care less about beliefs about Elvis Presley, which seems to greatly concern you. But if you had even the rudimentary knowledge about evolution, you would know that we are NOT descended from monkeys. (I resisted the temptation to say I couldnt vouch for him). We are descended from a common ancestor to monkeys far back in history and even further back to crocodiles.
    I am NOT a sceptic of climate change. Climate change was invented by mother nature long before Al Gore invented the AGW hypothesis.”
    In a previous one I strongly objected to the editor of Nature using the ad hominem label of “Denier” to people who did not believe that the AGW hypothesis was gospel, here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

Comments are closed.