I read over the articles and they were interesting but had terrible flaws in them. The first article was OK and to its credit did cite some decent sources but the overall theme was skeptical science. Not science, skeptical science. Now I'm all for you waving your rejectionist flag at every big issue but please keep it to yourself. discrediting man-made effects on the environment, and particularly CO2, is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS. What you're telling me is that 97 percent of scientists have it wrong and 97 percent are way too biased, not the three percent of skeptics who have an attitude of not believing anything the system puts out. Your argument may have a couple sources but mine has thousands, and they aren't all outdated from the early 2000s. I'm sorry but I'm not a skeptic and won't flail my arms screaming controversy whenever the scientific community comes to a consensus. You can enjoy doing so but I'll stick with the 97 percent of scientists who back my point.