Peter Newnam points us to Memorandum submitted by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (CRU 26).
"This cause of environmental protection had from the start natural allies in the EU Commission, United Nation and World Bank. CRU, working for the UK government and hence the IPCC, was expected to support the hypothesis of man-made, dangerous warming caused by carbon dioxide, a hypothesis it had helped to formulate in the late 1980s and which became "true" in international law with the adoption of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change."
That's an interesting concept: the truth of anthropogenic global warming was enshrined in international law. In the United States, the EPA has decided that carbon dioxide is dangerous to human health. Once these statements about the natural world become enshrined in the law, any opposition to the statements becomes opposition to the law. Opposition to a law is not, in itself, a crime. But the opposer now finds himself being compared to someone who is making excuses for not obeying the law. Oil companies were placed in that position by the international laws, and automobile companies are in that position with respect to our EPA.
I'm not complaining: the truth is coming out in the end.