The video Canada doesn't want you to see

[Samurai]

http://canadafreepress.com/2005/cover050705.htm

Kyoto Protocol--Propaganda or Censorship?
by Garth Pritchard, Canadafreepress.com
Saturday, May 7, 2005

Last Thursday, I received a telephone call from Douglas Leahey, Ph.D., representing a group of Canadian scientists under the umbrella of "Friends of Science." It seems that they had been talking to Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun, and he had mentioned to them that they should get in touch with me.

Dr. Leahey began by asking me how they could get a 27-minute documentary on television.

I have 15 years experience of fighting with federal and provincial slush funds for that very thing.

I asked some routine questions at first: Did they have a letter of licence? Had they rolled a camera before they got permission? Had they talked to the big broadcasters? Did they have a "pitch" and a budget?

Then I found out what their documentary was about. The story was incredible: it documented scientists--from Canada--speaking out against the $10-billion scam known as the Kyoto Protocol.

Yes, the very same Kyoto Accord that our government has committed Canada and Canadians to support.

I understood instinctively that getting two scientists to agree at what time the sun is coming up tomorrow is--at best--difficult.

But here were tens of thousands, from around the world, all agreeing on one issue: that there is no scientific evidence of man-made global warming.

The numbers of scientists staggered me--17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two thirds with advanced degrees, are against the Kyoto Agreement. The Heidelberg Appeal--which states that there is no scientific evidence for man-made global warming, has been signed by over 4,000 scientists from around the world since the petition’s inception. I strongly questioned these high numbers, since I’ve had benefit of the Canadian government’s public relations machine on this issue. Dr. Leahey has since sent documentation to back his figures up.

All those scientists were in total agreement: the Kyoto Protocol was complete fiction.

The scientists are so committed to fighting the Kyoto Accord and its misrepresentation of the truth, that they produced a 27-minute documentary and paid for its production with their own money.

You can watch the video, broken up into 5 segments, here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

It's well worth watching IMO. Why won't the Canadian broadcasters allow it to be shown? Because it's a message that calls into question Canada's $10 billion investment in the Kyoto Accords, and might result in the biggest proponents of that scam losing their next elections, should the people discover the truth...

[thehod]

I'm not completely convinced that global warning is entirely the result of mankinds efforts, but from what little I know about the Kyoto Agreement, I'm under the impression it aims to cut atmospheric pollutants, and I cannot see how that ever could be described as a bad idea.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I'm not completely convinced that global warning is entirely the result of mankinds efforts, but from what little I know about the Kyoto Agreement, I'm under the impression it aims to cut atmospheric pollutants, and I cannot see how that ever could be described as a bad idea.

That's because your not a right-wing American and are, y'know.... Sane.




edit: For those curious, this is of course an insanely right-wing site.
ie. The editor doesn't like the current Candian PM, so he compares him with the UN's Secertay General.
ie. Samurai's kinda place.

[Samurai]

I'm not completely convinced that global warning is entirely the result of mankinds efforts, but from what little I know about the Kyoto Agreement, I'm under the impression it aims to cut atmospheric pollutants, and I cannot see how that ever could be described as a bad idea.
Actually, the Kyoto Agreement is a worldwide welfare program, in which the richer nations must buy "pollution quotas" from the poorer, less industrialized nations. And as the video points out, CO2 is not an "air pollutant", nor a "toxic substance", as Canada has labelled it... it's a necessary component of our atmosphere that has very little to do with global warming. Water vapor is the most common means of trapping heat energy in the atmosphere, by far... so we now need to outlaw water? Nature has it's own cycles, and while we should of course try to limit truly harmful pollutants and clean up the environment as much as possible, the Kyoto Accord is a ridiculous redistribution scam and "global warming" has not been proven to be the result of anything mankind has done.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Actually, the Kyoto Agreement is a worldwide welfare program, in which the richer nations must buy "pollution quotas" from the poorer, less industrialized nations. And as the video points out, CO2 is not an "air pollutant", nor a "toxic substance", as Canada has labelled it... it's a necessary component of our atmosphere that has very little to do with global warming. Water vapor is the most common means of trapping heat energy in the atmosphere, by far... so we now need to outlaw water? Nature has it's own cycles, and while we should of course try to limit truly harmful pollutants and clean up the environment as much as possible, the Kyoto Accord is a ridiculous redistribution scam and "global warming" has not been proven to be the result of anything mankind has done.

Actually it is preferred that the industrialised nations don't buy from poorer countries.
It's preferred that they cut down altogether, but if they can't, they can buy the other countries pollution points.

The idea being that it creates less pollution and more opportunities for less developed nations.

(Less developed nations also have more points to give them a chance to catch up).

[thehod]

In addition (and science was never my strongest point, so this may be a little wrong) as far as I understood it, CO2 does make up our atmosphere, but too much of it is a problem. In the same way that there are low levels of toxic substances in the natural makeup of our bodies, but increase the levels of these and it can be very harmful.

CO2 may not be an air pollutant or a toxic substance, but throwing a shit-load of it into the atmosphere doesn't do the planet any favours.

[Winslow]

In addition (and science was never my strongest point, so this may be a little wrong) as far as I understood it, CO2 does make up our atmosphere, but too much of it is a problem. In the same way that there are low levels of toxic substances in the natural makeup of our bodies, but increase the levels of these and it can be very harmful.

CO2 may not be an air pollutant or a toxic substance, but throwing a shit-load of it into the atmosphere doesn't do the planet any favours.

There is substantial scientific evidence that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen in the past 100 years.

There is NOT a scientific consensus as to whether that's a good or bad thing.

(and no I didn't see the referenced video)

[Roquefort Raider]

I'm not surprised that a google search of Dr. Leahy provides sites with names like "ConservativeGroundswell.com".

So here we have a guy who wants to air a show where he can present his views on global warming, and wants to be reimbursed by our tax dollars. He's all upset because to be eligible for Telefilm Canada funds, one has to respect certain rules that he didn't follow. Oh, yeah, that's persecution all right. Any idiot who watches Canadian television knows that Telefilm has in the past funded many shows presenting equivocal opinions on divisive subjects, including assisted suicide and the clash between the French- and English-speaking populations.

Maybe Dr. Leahy's show is just plain awful and presents bad science. Considering that MOST scientists agree than mankind's activity DOES have an impact on global warming, contrary opinions should be backed by solid science. Refering to the Tokyo protocol as a "scam" is hardly indicative of a rational and inquisitive attitude.

[Lone Ranger]

Actually, the video Canada really doesn't want you to see is Pop Goes the World by Men Without Hats.

That's a real national shame.

[Charles RB]

The editor doesn't like the current Candian PM, so he compares him with the UN's Secertay General.

...

Urm? :confused: I don't get quite how that's meant to work.

CO2 is not an "air pollutant", nor a "toxic substance", as Canada has labelled it... it's a necessary component of our atmosphere

And it becomes a toxic substance when there's too much of it. Like with the other components in our atmosphere and pretty much any gas or chemical substance.

Water vapor is the most common means of trapping heat energy in the atmosphere, by far... so we now need to outlaw water?

So because water vapour also traps heat energy, there's no need to be concerned about carbon dioxide doing the same and human industrialisation producing a lot of it so there's now more heat energy being trapped than would otherwise be?


Maybe Dr. Leahy's show is just plain awful and presents bad science. Considering that MOST scientists agree than mankind's activity DOES have an impact on global warming, contrary opinions should be backed by solid science.

Gee, that's a bit of a radical concept.

[Roquefort Raider]

Actually, the video Canada really doesn't want you to see is Pop Goes the World by Men Without Hats.

That's a real national shame.


Ssssssh! we're ot-nay upposed-say to alk-tay about that!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

...

Urm? :confused: I don't get quite how that's meant to work.

Me neither and I read the article.

Just seems to me he's one of those UN is evil type guys and so dropping the PM's name in there makes him seem evil as well.
(see to me you show the similarities between somone to the SG of the UN and that means the person is a good guy, but to this editor and posters like DDM, that's not the case).

It's like when every host on Fox news started mentioning the french in every sentance with Kerry, saying he looked it, pointing out matters the french had a similar view on - even when it was completly unrelated.
Bad journalism, but it's made to get an emotional rise outta people.

[Adam Crocker]

ny idiot who watches Canadian television knows that Telefilm has in the past funded many shows presenting equivocal opinions on divisive subjects, including assisted suicide and the clash between the French- and English-speaking populations.

I'm not familiar with Canadian television or the things that Telefilm has funded since I don't watch TV anymore, though there are a few things to comment on.

So here we have a guy who wants to air a show where he can present his views on global warming, and wants to be reimbursed by our tax dollars. He's all upset because to be eligible for Telefilm Canada funds, one has to respect certain rules that he didn't follow. Oh, yeah, that's persecution all right.

Well the article doesn't say that Leahey actually applied for Telefilm funding, he merely got his documentary shot down by national broadcasters after he and his compatriots produced it. Yet, since the government provides funding for documentaries through Telefilm supposedly, on this basis, the government is blocking the film because it contravenes its political agenda, even though it was the broadcasters themselves who shot the film down. So Garth Pritchard claims that the government is blocking this documentary by virtue of the fact that the broadcasters don't want private investment, but have the documentaries reimbursed by the government.

Well that's a problem on the part of the national broadcasters, which include private ones as well, if they don't want privately funded documentaries (if this is indeed true). This includes one of Canada's largest private TV networks Global television, owned by CanWest/Global which is run by Leonard Asper, son of Izzy Asper (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/asper/). In 2000, they both bought half interest in Conrad Black's national daily newspaper the National Post and took over the rest of Black's newspaper empire in Canada. Anyone familiar with the Aspers knows they are hardly timid about their right-wing political views (and no that's not meant to be a criticism, but it's relevant to the point I am making) or being rather critical of the Canadian government. And they certainly give ample opportunity to those who share these views to air them in the editorial pages of their newspapers. Among these is frequent criticism of the Kyoto Accord and the idea that the current climate change is man-made.

So if we're going by Pritchard's tenuous logic that the government must be behind the failure of the broadcasters to pick up the film when the reason they gave was that it was that the quality was not suitable for broadcast, then not even Global TV, owned by a company that has shown no timidity in criticizing the government, picked it up. Can we substantiate that with the information we have? No, but then again if the documentary was presented to this broad group identified as 'national broadcasters' as Pritchard says then guessing that even Asper's network failed to pick this up is a better guess than the government's agenda was behind it's failing to air.

And that's all this kvetching about the government blocking the documentary is, an unsubstantiated guess.

[Michael P]

Who wrote that article, J. Jonah Jameson?

[Adam Crocker]

Who wrote that article, J. Jonah Jameson?

Not nearly as hilarious or entertaining enough.

[fly on the wall]

I saw an episode of the Simpsons the other day. All the kids went on a field trip to see the Springfield Glacier.

When they got there all that was left was some slush because of Global Warning.

There's your proof, people. Global warming is real, TV says so.

[Samurai]

Actually, the video Canada really doesn't want you to see is Pop Goes the World by Men Without Hats.

That's a real national shame.
I love that song!

[Samurai]

I'm not surprised that a google search of Dr. Leahy provides sites with names like "ConservativeGroundswell.com".

So here we have a guy who wants to air a show where he can present his views on global warming, and wants to be reimbursed by our tax dollars. He's all upset because to be eligible for Telefilm Canada funds, one has to respect certain rules that he didn't follow. Oh, yeah, that's persecution all right. Any idiot who watches Canadian television knows that Telefilm has in the past funded many shows presenting equivocal opinions on divisive subjects, including assisted suicide and the clash between the French- and English-speaking populations.

Maybe Dr. Leahy's show is just plain awful and presents bad science. Considering that MOST scientists agree than mankind's activity DOES have an impact on global warming, contrary opinions should be backed by solid science. Refering to the Tokyo protocol as a "scam" is hardly indicative of a rational and inquisitive attitude.

This is wrong... he's not asking for reimbursement. The film was created with private funds. The complaint is that only films created with public funds (and the rules and restrictions that go along with it) are being allowed to air. I watched the whole video... the quality certainly isn't terrible... it's the equal of any infomercial out there. I wonder if they could just buy an infomercial spot on US TV stations near the border and get the film aired that way?

[Roquefort Raider]

This is wrong... he's not asking for reimbursement.

Oops! You're right, it's not mentioned anywhere. I had assumed that part of the reason why Dr. Leahy felt unfairly treated was that he couldn't get funded by telefilm. The following quote certainly seems to imply that telefilm has something to do in the affair:

The Canadian government created an entity known as Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund--a $250-million slush fund of taxpayers’ dollars. A bureaucracy that in theory provides funds for the creation of Canadian programming. Hidden in this monolith are a few interesting rules:

1. If you roll a camera before you get permission from them, you are not eligible for any funding.
2. You must have a letter of licence from a broadcaster to qualify for funding.
3. You can only apply twice a year.

Obviously, the scientists had contravened all of these rules. They had even paid to make the documentary with their own money. This is definitely a faux pas!

I have to wonder why Telefilm is brought into this at all. It is a funding agency; it has no power to decide what is or isn't aired. That's up to the broadcasters, both public and private.


The complaint is that only films created with public funds (and the rules and restrictions that go along with it) are being allowed to air.

Dr. Leahy must not watch a lot of television (and more power to him). We get plenty of documentaries bought from private companies or organizations. We also get lots of UFO and spoon-bending pseudoscience, so an attack on the Kyoto protocols would be nothing too revolutionary.

I watched the whole video... the quality certainly isn't terrible... it's the equal of any infomercial out there. I wonder if they could just buy an infomercial spot on US TV stations near the border and get the film aired that way?

Sure. It's a free country. Putting it on the net was also a good idea.

[Charles RB]

Who wrote that article, J. Jonah Jameson?

Nah. He's trying to pin global warming on Spider-Man.

[Paul McEnery]

This is pretty straightforward.

Any TV station has not only the right but the obligation to maintain journalistic standards.

Leahy is talking cock. The only "scientists" who have a problem with the idea of global warming are in the pay of industry, in particular Exxon. So any editor worth a damn would shoot his "documentary" down.

All of his whining is just trying to drum up interest in his big fat pack of lies.

[Paul McEnery]

This is what I was looking for ages ago, when Tages was disputing the facts:

Meet the global warming sceptics
12 February 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Most of the prominent organisations making the case against mainstream climate science have an avowed agenda of promoting free markets and minimal government. They often accept funding from the fossil-fuel industry. Few employ climate scientists.

1 Competitive Enterprise Institute (Washington DC)

A free-market lobby organisation that employs six experts on climate change. Two are lawyers, one an economist, one a political scientist, one a graduate in business studies and one a mathematician. They include economist Myron Ebell, most famous in the UK for a tirade on BBC radio in November 2004 in which he accused the UK government's chief scientist David King of "knowing nothing about climate science". The institute receives funding from ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company and an outspoken corporate opponent of mainstream climate science.

2 American Enterprise Institute (Washington DC)

Another free market think tank. The five experts it sent to the most recent negotiations on the Kyoto protocol, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December, included just one natural scientist - a chemist. Receives money from ExxonMobil.

3 George C. Marshall Institute (Washington DC)

A think tank that has been promoting scepticism on climate change since 1989. It is a leading proponent of the argument that climate science is highly uncertain. Receives money from ExxonMobil.

4 International Policy Network (London)

Free-market think tank which in November 2004 said global warming was a "myth", and described David King as "an embarrassment". Receives money from ExxonMobil.

5 The scientists
There are a few authoritative climate scientists in the sceptic camp. The most notable are Patrick Michaels from the University of Virginia, who is also the chief environmental commentator at the Cato Institute in Washington DC, and meteorologist Richard Lindzen from MIT. Most others are either retired, outside mainstream academia or tied to the fossil fuel industry. In the UK, three of the most prominent are Philip Stott, a retired biogeographer, former TV botanist David Bellamy, and Martin Keeley, a palaeogeologist. Keeley argues on a BBC website that "global warming is a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests". He is an oil exploration consultant.

And some extra stuff from George Monbiot's column in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1480279,00.html) today:

For the past three weeks, a set of figures has been working a hole in my mind. On April 16, New Scientist published a letter from the famous botanist David Bellamy. Many of the world's glaciers, he claimed, "are not shrinking but in fact are growing ... 555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980". His letter was instantly taken up by climate change deniers. And it began to worry me. What if Bellamy was right?

He is a scientist, formerly a senior lecturer at the University of Durham. He knows, in other words, that you cannot credibly cite data unless it is well-sourced. Could it be that one of the main lines of evidence of the impact of global warming - the retreat of the world's glaciers - is wrong?

...

So last week I telephoned the World Glacier Monitoring Service and read out Bellamy's letter. I don't think the response would have been published in Nature, but it had the scientific virtue of clarity: "This is complete bullshit." A few hours later, they sent me an email: "Despite his scientific reputation, he makes all the mistakes that are possible." He had cited data that was simply false, he had failed to provide references, he had completely misunderstood the scientific context and neglected current scientific literature. The latest studies show unequivocally that most of the world's glaciers are retreating.

But I still couldn't put the question out of my mind. The figures that Bellamy cited must have come from somewhere. I emailed him to ask for his source. After several requests, he replied to me at the end of last week. The data, he said, came from a website called www.iceagenow.com. Iceagenow was constructed by a man called Robert W Felix to promote his self-published book about "the coming ice age". It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the "ice age cycle"; and that "underwater volcanic activity - not human activity - is heating the seas".

Is Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a "former architect". His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says. But there, indeed, was all the material that Bellamy cited in his letter, including the figures - or something resembling the figures - he quoted. "Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich." The source, which Bellamy also cited in his email to me, was given as "the latest issue of 21st Century Science and Technology".

21st Century Science and Technology? It sounds impressive, until you discover that it is published by Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax-code violations. He has claimed that the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate, that Henry Kissinger is a communist agent, that the British government is controlled by Jewish bankers, and that modern science is a conspiracy against human potential.

It wasn't hard to find out that this is one of his vehicles: LaRouche is named on the front page of the magazine's website, and the edition Bellamy cites contains an article beginning: "We in LaRouche's Youth Movement find ourselves in combat with an old enemy that destroys human beings ... it is empiricism."

Oh well, at least there is a source for Bellamy's figures. But where did 21st Century Science and Technology get them from? It doesn't say. But I think we can make an informed guess, for the same data can be found all over the internet. They were first published online by Professor Fred Singer, one of the very few climate change deniers who has a vaguely relevant qualification (he is, or was, an environmental scientist). He posted them on his website, www.sepp.org, and they were then reproduced by the appropriately named junkscience.com, by the Cooler Heads Coalition, the US National Centre for Public Policy Research and countless others. They have even found their way into the Washington Post.

[MushMouth]

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/world_burns.html

Paul, don't forget the libertarians. Reason Magazine's Ronald Bailey is one of the most vocal global warming skeptics and I'm fairly certain he is not receiving funding from Exxon.

[eJm]

I would like to meet these 'scientists' that say Global Warming is not man made because I haven't heard one that has good evidence that it hasn't been caused by us.

[Paul McEnery]

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/world_burns.html

Paul, don't forget the libertarians. Reason Magazine's Ronald Bailey is one of the most vocal global warming skeptics and I'm fairly certain he is not receiving funding from Exxon.

And you'd be wrong. From Exxonsecrets.org (note the bold):


Adjunct Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Adjunct Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute. Science Correspondent, Reason Magazine. Science and Technology reporter for Forbes 1987-1990. Competitive Enterprise Institute's Warren T. Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism in 1993.

Bailey has written widely in criticism of climate change science and is a producer for television shows "Think Tank" and "Technopolitics."

Bailey was editor of "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death," "The True State of the Planet" and "Earth Report 2000: Revisiting The True State of The Planet," all of which were published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He authored "Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse" and "The Law of Increasing Returns." Bailey received funding for Eco-Scam from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Bailey has long-standing connections to the Wise Use movement and was a speaker at the 1997 Fly In for Freedom, the annual gathering of "wise use" activists sponsored by the Alliance for America.

BA in economics and philosophy at University of Virginia.


About that Atlas Economic Research Foundation:

Atlas' vision is "to achieve a society of free and responsible individuals, based upon private property rights, limited government under the rule of law and the market order. " (www.atlasusa.org)

Atlas promotes international development of free market think tanks and provides support and networking opportunities for existing organizations. Atlas brings "freedom to the world" through workshops, publications, awards, and a global directory of conservative/free market think tanks. Atlas is a member of both the Cooler Heads Coalition and the State Policy Network. (4/04) Atlas is funded by conservative foundations, including the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation and the Carthage Foundation. (www.mediatransparency.org)
Atlas Economic Research Foundation has received $505,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.


And again:

The Reason Foundation, made up by the Reason Public Policy Institute and Reason Magazine, describes itself as "a leading voice for individual liberty, economic freedom, and dynamic market-based public policies." Reason Foundation's mission "upholds the classical liberal approach to seeking truth via rational discourse, free inquiry, and the scientific method. We support the rule of law, private property, and limited government. We promote voluntarism and individual responsibility in social and economic interactions, relying on choice and competition to achieve the best outcomes." Reason's has an associated environment website (www.newenvironmentalism.org) which essentially promotes the views of Ronald Bailey and like-minded Reason staffers. The page links to articles on websites for organizations such as CEI, the Heartland Institute and Tech Central Station. It also has a section praising the environmental stewardship of corporations such as ExxonMobil. Reason magazine is a tool used by the organization to badmouth the environmental movement and promote the interests of Reason's corporate contributers.

Several authors of Reason's "Roadmap to Reform" were appointed by CA Gov. Schwarzenegger to his budget working group and transition team. Reason's second President, Lynn Scarlett, is now Assistant Secretary for Policy and Management at the US Department of the Interior under Secretary Gale Norton. Reason Foundaiton is also a member of the State Policy Network. According to the 1999 Reason Foundation Annual Report, top funders include: C. Boyden Gray and David Koch (each individually contributed $25,000 or more in 1999), the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the JM Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, Lilly Endowmet, Scaife Family Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, and the Sunmark Foundation. Corporate Donors in 1999 included: American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest and Paper Association, American Petroleum Institute, American Plastics Council, ARCO Foundation, BP Amoco, CA Building Industry Association, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Chevron Corporation, Chlorine Chemistry Council, Clorox, Coca-Cola, American and Continental Airlines, Daimler Chrysler Corp, Dow Chemical, Eastman Chemical, Edison Electric Institute, ENRON, Exxon Mobil, FMC Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Kimberly-Clark, Koch Industries, Koch Materials, Eli Lilly, Microsoft, National Air Transportation Association, National Beer Wholesalers, National Soft Drink Association, Pfizer, Inc, Philip Morris, Procter and Gamble, Shell Oil, Sun America, Union Carbide Corporation, United Airlines, Western States Petroleum, Watson Land Company, Whole Foods Market, Winston and Strawn.

Reason Foundation has received $361,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

[Samurai]

I would like to meet these 'scientists' that say Global Warming is not man made because I haven't heard one that has good evidence that it hasn't been caused by us.
So watch the video... it's in the link I posted up in the 1st post.

[Matt]

Having watched that video ... I'm still waiting for some decent evidence.

It has been mentioned in this thread that the video had the production values/standards of an infomercial ... after seeing it, all I can say is that it seriously is about as credible.

[Paul McEnery]

And here's some more information on the fraudulent "Friends of Science":

(http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html)

(This includes a nice map that shows who's in bed with whom:
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/pix/06_GeorgeCMarshall_Map97_big.JPG)

So, more Exxon money. Not too much of a surprise there.

[MushMouth]

And you'd be wrong. From Exxonsecrets.org (note the bold):

Man, looks like Exxon has plenty of money to go around, eh?

Still, kind of besides my point.. Although Reason, and thus Bailey, may be receiving money from Exxon their disbelief in global warming precedes the money because they seem to have an ideological incapability of recognizing the reality of global warming (or the fact that a free market might actually have a negative impact) because it conflicts with their world view.

[Paul McEnery]

Man, looks like Exxon has plenty of money to go around, eh?

Still, kind of besides my point.. Although Reason, and thus Bailey, may be receiving money from Exxon their disbelief in global warming precedes the money because they seem to have an ideological incapability of recognizing the reality of global warming (or the fact that a free market might actually have a negative impact) because it conflicts with their world view.
Their world view being that they're entitled to as much dirty money as they can snaffle, and to hell with the lot of youse. One hand washes the other.

[Matt]

And just because it's sort of related ... those whacky swiss are at it again!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1364606.htm