the right way. I hope this multiple redundancy guarantee that this recordreaches the hand of those who need it. Ah! I wasabout to talk about the Carbon Crisis. Let me explain a little about whatpreceded this crisis. Since the 1970s, it began to emerge early indicationsthat the climate was being changed by human action. For many years, thisanthropomorphic climate change was attributed to human carbon emissions, aresult of burning fossil fuels and deforestation by fires. It was created agroup of researchers, then called IPCC, which was responsible for collectingall data from climate research to corroborate with the thesis of the "anthropomorphicglobal warming", and to produce from these data a periodic reports that shouldserve as a guide to governments and other institutions in a decision makingposition. At the beginning, everything seemed to indicate that human emissionsof carbon dioxide were actually altering the Earth's climate. The problem beganwhen global average temperatures stopped rising in accordance with thetheoretical model. However, it took some years before the public began to takenotice of this trend. Coincidentally or not, in this time an incident occurredwhich damaged the IPCC image and provided ammunition for critics of globalwarming, the so-called skeptics. It was discovered that one of the researchersselected the data so that it fit the theory, discarding the rest. It is commonpractice among researchers to discard data that detract too much from theexpected average (due to measurement errors), but in this case, the dischargewas clearly a forced curve fitting. This provided wood for the fire fromcritics, who began to suspect other jobs. Faults were detected in the data collectionand selection, faulty methodology, and political and economic interests in bothfactions. But the sensationalist and unskilled technical press failed toclearly identify what was really happening. A part of the press continued tosystematically disseminate the global warming thesis with no change, as ifnothing had happened. Another part (the most notorious) gave focus to critics, givingto public the idea that there was not a global warming at all.In the midst of this war of facts,lies and accusations, a few groups of serious climatologists began to filterthe signal from the noise. It seemed clear that there was some sort of climatedisruption, something that could not simply be explained by natural variations.The problem was to define if the trend was heating, cooling or strong oscillationsbetween these two extremes. It was easy to see from the data (those correctlycollected) that there was a strong correlation between human activity andclimate extremes, but not only in the direction of warming. It was also easy tosee that these disturbances appeared more intensely in more densely populatedand industrialized areas. It was very difficult to filter this disturbanceamong the various natural phenomena such as El Nino and solar cycle, but asmore data were collected more the correlation began to be clear, not toward awarm, but definitely a natural cycle disturbance. This disruption could nolonger be exclusively attributed to human carbon emissions, but the set of allactivities that somehow caused their impact. Soon it was proved thatdeforestation was more severe than burning fossil fuels, even when this deforestationwas aimed at planting sugar