http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-scientists-accuse-Bush-of-pressure/2007/01/31/1169919370234.html

US scientists felt pressured to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist, a congressional committee has heard.

"Our investigations found high-quality science struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

A survey by the group found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years, for a total of at least 435 incidents.

"Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Grifo said.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?hp

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1697616,00.html

The American space programme's leading climate scientist has accused the White House of trying to gag him after he called last month for urgent cuts in the emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming, writes Ned Temko

---

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18128520-29277,00.html

SOME of Australia's top scientists say they've been gagged from highlighting concerns about climate change because it could reflect badly on government policy.

After a top NASA scientist last month accused the Bush administration of trying to muzzle him, three eminent Australian scientists have told tonight's ABC's Four Corners program they too have been censored.

The Government has received widespread international criticism for refusing, along with the United States, to sign the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"I was told I couldn't say anything that indicated that I disagreed with government policy and I presume that meant Federal Government policy," Dr Pearman said.

He said he was censored "at least half a dozen times" during his final year with CSIRO.

Seriously, am I the only one in the whole of Australia that couldn't give a rats @ss about climate change?

if it is man made ..it IS YOUR ISSUE sprint and if it , the climate , is decimated , you will sure as h-ell know about it.

One issue none of us can dodge or deny.



I do care about climate change.

SUN GETTING HOTTER 

I do often wonder if the man made/natural argument is really relevant. Even if the man made proponents are correct they do say drastic changes today will have little effect on the shorter end of the long term outcomes, however the chance is for more damage even further down the track. I still wonder though if damage to our economy today, before green technologies are mature, is really the best way to go about it? Would it be better to keep ourselves rich today and develop the technology of the future while we can afford to do so?

Climate change aside, getting away from polluting energy sources based on finite resources is a sensible idea, but I'm not about to go out and sell my V8 baby!

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 7:52am:

But those costs wont be realised for a very  very long time, even at the most extreme end of the predictions? Also, will the costs of climate change pan out over a century, centuries, or a decade? because that also is relevant to how much it really will cost.

I do agree that our society has the wealth, but I'm still not convinced that the average citizen has that kind of free wealth, most people are living pretty tight these days.

Pffft...Carbon tax, green tax What a great idea...let's create another industry/level of bureaucracy at great expense with little reward.

Cool, another tax!

Which gets us where exactly?

If environmentalists were really keen to reduce emissions then fission would be a card on the table for base load requirements...but that would conflict with how they raised their revenue for the last 30 years

cheapest ≠ effective

cheapest-effectiveness= expensive