Warming: the offensive against skeptics

[Alain b]

Martin Durkin

Here is the "great" Director and director of WAG TV
He calls himself a Marxist and is part of Libertarian movements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dur ... irector%29

A little historiography of it: One day he made a documentary about the environmentalists the modern day Nazi traitors conspiring against the poor of the planet. Another of his documentaries claimed that breast implants were actually beneficial, because in addition to making our women more plump and desirable, well they prevented breast cancer!
Here is another disturbing fact about this documentary maker: "the program makers" distorted by selective editing "the views of the interviewees and" misled "them about the" content and purpose of the programs when they agreed to take part. "" Channel 4 has had to apologize publicly to the people interviewed. Some of the interviewees attacked their own position they are defending! Absolutely wonderful the talent of Durkin!
And again: "After the series was broadcast, I discovered that the assistant producer and several of its interviewees worked for a right-wing libertarian magazine."
What to do with this documentarist who produces very popular and shocking misinformation? The re-engage of course. It is popular and that is enough.
It's pure and hard disinformation ... but the damage is done. This documentary appeared and a few thousand, if not millions of people watched it. The end justifies the means for some. What a shame for the triumph of truth!

http://www.lobbywatch.org/p2temp2.asp?a ... age=1&op=2

[Christophe]

The titles of the characters here are those given by the film itself, you will see that even this, for some, is only part of the truth (sometimes deliberately oriented Titles for more impact.)

Good list, but could we have their links (family, relationship, financing ...) with the manufacturers of GHGs? I bet it's the same "pattern" as with studies on mobile phones: those funded by manufacturers "prove" the harmlessness of cellphones ... the others ... guess ...

[Christophe]

It is not my intention to bring the water to the mill
.Car of skeptics that they have right or wrong, it is more than
time that our civilization makes counted that it destroyed
its environment and that of other creatures.

It is not only the destruction of the environment that must be taken into account but also the incredible insolence (towards future generations) of the plundering of fossil fuels which we are all witnesses (but also "responsible"). ) ...

In the kind of article: we refuse to be responsible and to face the reality, there is the one:

Environment and ecology: Why do not we do anything?

Based on the work of Cohen, it is possible to determine the existence of certain psychological processes transposed to climate change. First of all, we must expect general rejection when the problem is of such a scope and nature that society has no cultural mechanism to accept it. Primo Levi, trying to explain the fact that many Jews in Europe may have refused to admit the threat of extermination, quoted an old German adage: "Things whose existence seems morally impossible cannot exist . "

In the case of climate change, we are intellectually capable of accepting the obvious, while experiencing the worst difficulties in accepting our responsibility for such a crime.

[Alain b]

Good list, but could we have their links (family, relationship, financing ...) with the manufacturers of GHGs? I bet it's the same "pattern" as with studies on mobile phones: those funded by manufacturers "prove" the harmlessness of cellphones ... the others ... guess ...

Of course!! Same diagram, and the result will prove it clearly!

About Tim BALL

Ball chairs the NRSP (Natural Resources Stewardship Project) committee
You will notice in passing that another speaker of the film Ian Clarck is also part of this Committee under the chairmanship of Ball

http://www.nrsp.com/NRSP-SAC.html

On another page dedicated to NRSP, other names of speakers Dr. Fred Singer, USA, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, USA

http://www.nrsp.com/people.html

In a general way, you can forge your own opinion on the NRSP by quietly visiting their site which link leads to the homepage.

http://www.nrsp.com/default.html

From click to click, you will probably end up on the "support" page where Money is welcome. So to denounce so-called the lie of the Warming, but to be paid for it seems to be a very lucrative business, especially when one knows the substance of the gifts that can realize the big lobbies Pétroliers and others.

"The NRSP has been exposed to being controlled by energy industry lobbyists".

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ip_Project

Ball is part of a group of Skeptics gathered under (FOS) Friends of Science
Still an association subject to the generous endowment of anonymous benefactors.

"" FoS: We are funded through membership fees ($ 25 / yr) and individual donations "

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... of_Science


Two of NRSP's Directors Work for HPG (High Park Group) Lobbies

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... Park_Group

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Tim Ball who saves Humanity admits to being paid by HPG for his interventions

At 4:48 we learn the significance of the "to my knowledge" qualifier.
TB: The High Park Group brought me in and out of my room.
Q: You did not get paid for those speeches?
TB: Oh I get paid of course.
Q: Did you ever look into where the conference got their money from?
TB: I do not know.
Q: You got paid yesterday to speak?
TB: Yes.
Q: But you do not know who paid you?
TB: The High Park Group paid me. I do not know who paid them.
Q: Which is a public relations group?
TB: I have no idea where they get their money from. ... I make a point of not trying to find out who's paying me. I do not care.
It is more obvious than High Park that Kyoto is being damaging to their interests and that ball is only paid for by global anthropogenic warming. So he is gaining from his denial, both in money and attention.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/07 ... _by_to.php

Finally, I could continue for a long time on Tim Ball, since this character who says he is one of the first Climate Scientist seems to be very active on behalf of lobbies.
Outside, he who calls himself the first climatologist in Canada, and having personally conducted no research in this field, is none other than a historian of Geography.

But Ball can not even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever to vaguely in the field. It is being granted by the university as a doctor of philosophy, not the most prestigious "doctor of science" that Ball claims in these articles

http://timethief.wordpress.com/2007/02/ ... othy-ball/

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/person ... hp?id=1164

SO: My conclusion is that TIM BALL's words are for me not very objective and without any real "Humanitarian" basis -> NON CREDIBLE

[pirate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2D8jOzG7NM

[Alain b]

Quite that Pirate, I had already used it on my site, and in the same style
http://culte-de-la-nature.skynetblogs.b ... s-le-futur

NIR SHAVIV

Nir Shaviv is a well-known young scientist, apparently conducting his research independently and working extensively with Jan Veizer. Both are skeptical about CO2's involvement in Global Warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv

Shaviv's Blog

http://sciencebits.com/

Summary on Shaviv's position

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... 8763c6&k=0

This study is controversial, but everyone stands on their positions

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3419975.stm

If one analyzes Shaviv's theory, one realizes that it does not completely deny the influence of greenhouse gases, which for him are secondary, the main cause being attributed to the solar radiations in proportions 2 / 3 (Sun) 1 / 3 (greenhouse effect)

According to the common perception, the temperature over the 20th century has been warming, and it is mostly anthropogenic in origin, with greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver. Others, usually called "skeptics", challenge this view and instead claim that the temperature variations are all part of natural variability. As I try to demonstrate below, the truth is probably somewhere in between, with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. Following empirical evidence I describe below, about 2 / 3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.

So we see here that Shaviv, is himself in a position that is neither alarmist (only responsible: CO2), nor Skeptical (100% natural cause).
It is a most honorable scientist who makes his hypothesis and sticks to it.
In my opinion, he seems to me independent of the lobbies, which is all to his credit.

Only, my Cartesian Spirit tells me that even though his study is worthy of interest, it is largely based on the observations of the past, which even if according to the studies ice cores from the polar regions can tell us everything what happened in the past, however, can never reveal the context.
Moreover, never in the past, man has realized such emissions of gas, nor proceeded to the current deforestation, in other words, never the man has had such an influence on its environment (all fields confused), that it is inconceivable for me to establish any parallelism with what was and what is.
Our action of the last century is a first, which of course makes the analysis very complex.

Furthermore, Shaviv, unlike the Skeptics, is also convinced that we must separate ourselves from fossil fuels. (So he does not deny the impact on the environment therefore, Human impact)

The two primary reasons why fossil fuels are poor, and many of the fossil fuel reserves are controlled by unpleasant governments.

Thus, I am very much in favor, and always have been, using less fossil fuels and keeping the environment clean, but we should do things for the right reasons, not the wrong ones (and I do not see Kyoto addressing the right reasons). Am therefore therefore...,,,,............................ Which which which which which which which which which which which which which.

Parallel to this research on shaviv, I also came across another study by his colleague Jan Veizer, who is still sending another idea, the screwed circle of water vapor

http://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/archives ... 1200h.html

In very simplified:

Among the greenhouse gases, there is a very important one that influences the Warming, the water vapor.

Trees absorb CO2 and release water Increased Humidity Increased Heat.

Increased CO2  Increased humidity Increased heat.

As CO2 is in abundance, the trees can no longer absorb everything, which suggests that the massive planting of trees would lead to increased moisture and therefore heat.

Since Humidity can not be controlled, Veizer advocates the reduction of all greenhouse gases.

So in summary:

The warmer it gets because of all the GHGs, the more photosynthesis and moisture will be released into the air. The more humid the atmosphere, the hotter it will be. Endless circle.

And to complicate everything:

Recall that another study recently published in Nature showed that after a critical threshold, trees no longer convert CO2 oxygen, but expire much carbon. Just to complicate things a little more ...

Like what, there exists a whole series of studies, all more different than the others, and all, even if scientifically correct, remain hypotheses

So, my conclusion about Shaviv, surely a true scientist independent of lobbies, but a Hypothesis that is probably worth another.

And to quote Shaviv himself:

In fact, there is no substantial evidence that they are CO2 and other GHGs are the primary cause for the warming, and not some other mechanism.

And I would add that there is also no irrefutable evidence that proves that his theory is the most appropriate.

[Christophe]

In the same genre:

The 7 July 2007 concert by Al Gore against global warming at risk

The concert that former US Vice President Al Gore plans to hold in Washington to draw attention to global warming is being threatened by his political opponents, parliamentary sources said on Wednesday.

A Republican Senator, James Inhofe, who sees global warming as a mere "hoax", is opposed to "any event held on Capitol Hill that is either highly partisan or politically controversial, and the concert proposed by Gore is both, "according to spokesperson Marc Morano.

[Christophe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2D8jOzG7NM

Even better: https://www.econologie.com/radio.html

[Christophe]

In fact, there is no substantial evidence that they are CO2 and other GHGs are the primary cause for the warming, and not some other mechanism.

This man does not know a priori the mass extinction of the Permian primed by releases of volcanic CO2 and this is said to be scientific?

[Alain b]

Interesting this link Christophe!
This adds to the argument that it is always possible and easy to question a scientific study.
Objectivity consists precisely in not citing one and relying on that one, in order to derive a so-called irrefutable truth.
It is generally the process of the Skeptics, with the help of some studies, often without real counter-analysis, they put in doubt the sum of a consequent and objective work that is that of the IPCC

So let's continue

Lord Lawson of Blaby

Lord Lawson (Former Minister of Finance sousThatcher is certainly the biggest mistake of this film in terms of credibility.
This is not a scientist, surely used to convince the very "Distinguished" British aristocracy.

He was given more time than Nir Shaviv, which is from the point of view of argumentation the major weakness of debate.

Its membership in the big energy lobbies is flagrant

How retired from active politics is the President of the British Institute of Energy Economics and a member of the International Advisory Board of Total.

http://www.speakers-uk.com/profile.phtm ... d=1&sid=18

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Lawson

So Lawson is (or has been?) President of the British Institute of Energy Economics (BIEE)

http://www.biee.org/

What is particularly interesting is to visit the "Sponsors" page of this organization



By researching a little more what represents the IBEE, we realize that this organization (non-profit, but or all at a price, data welcome), is part of an even larger organization IAEE is the International equivalent of the International Association of Energy Economics

http://www.iaee.org/fr/affiliates/uk.aspx?ID=29

Digging deeper and deeper into this group's lectures, and reviewing 2001's Houston Houston Texas (American Oil Pros)

http://www.iaee.org/documents/1stProgramFinal.pdf

At a glance, you may see a cadre where support members and IAEE members are mentioned



Or this framework with the sponsors of the event



I do not think I need to go further with Lord Lawson, you will understand that this character is not at all important in the Scientific debate addressed by the Film and in my opinion, Durkin's big mistake concerning this choice.