That article that we are talking about is PURELY political. Where is the science in that article?
SO in terms of what you say. The article present actually disproves your post completely.
None of these people we are meant to trust did researching disproving the wild claims that Al Gore and Flannery were making back in '07 etc. The question is, if they are climate scientists why aren't they addressing that issue without bias? If this was medical science and a quack was making a wild claim about a treatment option, even the doctors who support that treatment option would come out en masse against the wild claims. This doesn't happen in climate science.
It's because they won't bite the hand that feeds them.
