The Greenhouse Conspiracy (1990) + update over enkele geïnterviewden

[Fatalistische fakir]

Een Channel4-documentaire uit 1990 (toen volgens Jedd nog niemand wakker lag van het klimaat) over Global Climat Change.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...1518010&hl=en#

Mijn update over de belangrijkste geïnterviewden.

Reginald Newell

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/newell.html

http://www.fortfreedom.org/s47.htm

Unfortunately, despite all the models of how global climate may change, there is relatively little funding for research on the actual record. A case in point: though the Global Ocean Surface Temperature Atlas has passed peer review and been accepted by MIT Press, so far no sponsor has been willing to provide the modest subsidy that such a technical book often requires for publication -- it this case $60,000.

Patrick Michaels

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

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ck_J._Michaels

Dr. Tom Wigley, lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists, was quoted by Ross Gelbspan as stating that "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."[38]

Richard Lindzen

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

In 2001 Lindzen served on an 11-member panel organized by the National Academy of Sciences.[10] The panel's report, entitled Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions,[11] has been widely cited. Lindzen subsequently publicly criticized the report summary for leaving out doubts about the weight that could be placed on 20 years of temperature records.[12] Gavin Schmidt has said that Lindzen agrees with about 90% of what other climate scientists are saying, yet the last 10% is sufficiently different to label him a contrarian.[13]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ichard_Lindzen

Tom Wigley

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

Wigley has argued in the popular media that the IPCC has been too optimistic about the prospect of averting harmful climate change by reducing greenhouse emissions, and that "the human-induced changes that are expected over the next 100 years are much, much greater than any changes that societies experienced in the past.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...w_the_whistle/

Stephen Schneider

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

“Schneider has been publicly criticized by fellow atmospheric scientist, Craig Bohren, for his history of self-promotion using contradictory climate scares:
"...some of the prominent global warmers of today were global coolers of not so long ago. In particular, Steven Schneider, now at Stanford, previously at NCAR, about 30 years ago was sounding the alarm about an imminent ice age. The culprit then was particles belched into the atmosphere by human activities. No matter how the climate changes he can correctly say that he predicted it. No one in the atmospheric science community has been more successful at getting publicity. NCAR used to send my department clippings from newspaper and magazine articles in which NCAR researchers were named. We'd get thick wads of clippings, almost all of which were devoted to Schneider. Perhaps global warming is bad for the rest of us, but for Schneider and others it has been a godsend."[10]”

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...phen_Schneider

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu..._Schneider.pdf

“I am an activist. I want the world to be a better place, and I define specifically what I mean by that: If one group, the rich, benefits from an activity like dumping their waste in the atmosphere and the other group, the poor, are hurt by it and don’t get much benefit, that’s an inequity. Therefore, in my value system, that’s a higher criteria for action than aggregate dollars. I don’t have aggregate dollars as my moral principle. I look at who’s responsible. But I never say that without admitting that those are my values. So, that’s activism.”

(…)
Instead of getting hung up on what percentage we’re going to reduce, why don’t we talk about how many tens of billions of dollars each country is going to spend every year on helping ourselves
out of the problem, and what cooperative strategies we can enter into with China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Mexico? Between our companies and their companies, we would share profits and patents. I want policies and measures, not targets without teeth. I argued this in Kyoto and got shouted down. I wanted an international carbon tax, with revenue recycled to poor countries and directed toward inventions to get us out of the problem. Oh man, everybody hated that!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvUz...ayer_embedded#

http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm


John F.B. Mitchell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._B._Mitchell

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science...ice/index.html

The emails were seized upon by climate skeptics who say they prove scientists are manipulating global warming data to strengthen the argument for man-made climate change.
But Professor Mitchell told CNN that he didn't see "any issue whatsoever with the soundness of global mean temperature records.
"If you look at the land data, the sea surface data temperatures and mean air temperature data, those three records independently show a 0.7 degree warming trend over the past 100 years. That's all published by the IPCC."
Professor Mitchell urged people who had become skeptical since the publication of the CRU emails to look at the evidence rather than "a selective take on emails which were stolen."