Well this ought to be fun - BBC challenges climate crisis critics

(snip)
"Climate sceptics" would do society a favour, argues our environment correspondent Richard Black, if they would open their claims to scrutiny that science is biased against them.

Another week, another article written on the science of climate change; another invitation for a barrage of email abuse from the great open prairies of the internet, where ardent catastrophist does battle with equally ardent sceptic and the humble journalist is skewered on the horns of both.
(snip)

(snip)

I may be crazy to ask this given my already bulging inbox, but here goes. If you have evidence of research grants turned down because of a clash with the prevailing consensus, of instances where journals or conference organisers or consensus bodies have rejected "inconvenient" findings, please send it to us; my email address is at the bottom of this article.
(snip)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6196804.stm

We didn't have sceptics of global warming until the idiots on the American right-wing started screaming that it didn't exist.

What pisses me off is that the longer we argue about whether it exists, the less chance we have of actually being able to do something about it. If the scientific establishment is right (and the evidence is overwhelmingly with them) and we do nothing, the planet dies. The longer we piss about trying to prove the case to those who wouldn't believe it if it came with a personal handwritten note in the sky from God, the more likely it will end up being too late. Come to think of it, it may already be too late.

Also, I'm pissed at the US because the rest of the world is fairly united in trying to do something about this and the US, the world's biggest climate change polluter decides they can unilaterally kill the earth.