Alors, qui dit vrai?
Le doute persiste et je vous laisse vous faire une tête si la question vous intéresse. En attendant, un petit tour au Laboglatoire m'a fait découvrir ce petit vidéo montage montrant les allées et venues du trafic aérien en Amérique du Nord. Assez impressionnant de voir tout ce trafic, c'est à se demander pourquoi il n'y a pas d'embouteillage là-haut!
Parlant blogosphère, L'Équilibriste y allait récemment d'un billet intitulé Al Gore : le grand arnaqueur et la pensée unique, où il présentait à nouveau le documentaire intitulé «La grande arnaque du réchauffement climatique», version original anglaise de: «The great global warming swindle» avec sous-titres en francais, dont nous faisions mention ici il y a un an, au moment de sa sortie. Si vous ne l'avez pas vu encore, le détour en vaut définitivement la peine.
Bonne fin de semaine!
++
Un jour, un de mes garçons qui était au primaire, arrive de l'école tout fier de m'apprendre qu'un Boeing 747 cause une pollution égale a 10,000 voitures. Il venait d'apprendre cela dans ses cours d'écologie.
A Dorval, combien d'avions de ce genre y atterrissent par jour? Vingt-cinq, trente? On dit que c'est à l'atterrissage et au décollage que ces avions polluent le plus. Ouais bon!
J'ai été lire l'équilibriste! Question empoisonnement, on est assez d'accord. Question climat, idem. Question Gore, on est très énormément d'accord. « Méchant bullshiter ». Comme j'ai toujours dit : Les écolos sont des fumistes. Fumiste, fumée, pollution, écolo!
J'ai déjà qualifié ici, sur un des blogues de BV, l'écologie de régime totalitariste. Justement le jeune a l'air de penser la meme chose que moi.
Voici un extrait de la définition. (Wikipédia)
L'expression totalitaire vient du fait qu'il ne s'agit pas seulement de contrôler l'activité des hommes, comme le ferait une dictature classique : un régime totalitaire tente de s'immiscer jusque dans la sphère intime de la pensée, en imposant à tous les citoyens l'adhésion à une idéologie obligatoire, hors de laquelle ils sont considérés comme ennemis de la communauté.
En lisant l'équilibriste, j'ai vu dans ses propos une certaine similitude.
@Jesus: montrez moi un seul gouvernement qui est "écologiquement" totalitaire...
J'ai lu les réponses dans les commentaires et il y a encore des gens qui confondent quantité de neige avec hiver froid! À Montréal, ça fait des années que le thermomètre n'a pas descendu en bas de -30C. Et justement, l'hiver dernier, le minimum a été de... -26C.
Christian
Et laprès les vedettes internationales du genre Hollywood...sports...musique... etc. Nous disent qu'ils sont pour la protection de l'environnement et l'économie d'énergie. Avec leurs avions, autos, maisons, et leurs MULTIPLES vols outre-mer. Non mais cé qui l'cave.
AVERTISSEMENTS SÉRIEUX CONCERNANT LE VIDÉO The great global warming swindle
Ce "documentaire" est grandement contesté, entre autres, en ce qui a trait à la crédibilité des faits avancés. Plusieurs personnes se sont amusés à décortiquer le "documentaire" et à démolir les arguments présentés. Personnellement je trouve que ce documentaire n'est aucunement crédible...
Je vous invite vous renseigner avant de le considérer comme sérieux...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573
# Climate of denial Open letter from 37 British scientists (most active in climate studies) regarding "misrepresentations of scientific evidence" in The Great Global Warming Swindle, which they say are "so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme without amendment, are not in the public interest." The claimed misrepresentations are discussed in detail on the same website at Misrepresentations of scientific evidence
http://www.climateofdenial.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
Reactions from scientists
* The IPCC was one of the main targets of the documentary. In response to the programme's broadcast, John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions. According to Houghton the programme was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming", which he noted had been endorsed by the scientific community, including the Academies of Science of the major industrialised countries and China, India and Brazil. Houghton rejected claims that observed changes in global average temperature are within the range of natural climate variability or that solar influences are the main driver; that the troposphere is warming less than the surface; that volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning; that climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change; and that IPCC processes were biased. Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature, but then writes that the programme's assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC [is] NOT TRUE. For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."[5]
* The British Antarctic Survey released a statement about the The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is highly critical of the programme, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years." Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4's editorial standards, the statement says: "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 programme would be guilty of serious professional misconduct." It uses the feedback argument to explain temperatures rising before CO2. On the issue of volcanic CO2 emissions, it says:
A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions.[19]
* Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading and Chief Executive of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, commented on the film in New Scientist. He wrote, "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role...Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence."[20]
* The Royal Society has issued a press release in reaction to the film. In it, Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society, shortly restates the predominant scientific opinion on climate change and adds:
Scientists will continue to monitor the global climate and the factors which influence it. It is important that all legitimate potential scientific explanations continue to be considered and investigated. Debate will continue, and the Royal Society has just hosted a two day discussion meeting attended by over 300 scientists, but it must not be at the expense of action. Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future.[21]
* Thirty-seven British scientists signed a letter of complaint, saying that they "believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed".[22]
*
On 5 July 2007, The Guardian reported that Professor Mike Lockwood, a solar physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory had carried out a study, initiated partially in response to The Great Global Warming Swindle, that disproved one of the documentary's key planks -- namely that global warming directly correlates to solar activity. Lockwood's study showed that solar activity had diminished subsequent to 1987, despite a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth's surface. The study, to be published in a Royal Society journal, used temperature and solar data recorded from the last 100 years.[23]
In a BBC interview about this study, Lockwood commented on the graphs shown in the documentary:
All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that ... You can't just ignore bits of data that you do not like.
* Volume 20 of the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society presented a critique by David Jones, Andrew Watkins, Karl Braganza and Michael Coughlan.
The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science... Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views.[24]
* A public forum entitled "Debunking "The Great Global Warming Swindle"" was held at the Australian National University in Canberra on 13 July 2007, at which scientists from the Australian National University, Stanford University, USA, and ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies exposed what they described "as the scientific flaws and half-truths in the claims of climate change skeptics"[25]
[edit] Criticisms by the film's contributors
Two of the scientists featured in the film, Carl Wunsch and Eigil Friis-Christensen, have since stated that they disagree with the way their contributions were used.
[edit] Carl Wunsch
Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, was originally featured in the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.[26][3] He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."[27] Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action[27] and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator.[28] The production company denied that he had been misled and that correspondence to Wunsch had clearly stated the programme would 'examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2'.[3] Filmmaker Durkin responded, "Carl Wunsch was most certainly not 'duped' into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said."[27] Wunsch has since said that Durkin "clearly quite deliberately understood my point of view but set out to imply, through the way he uses me in the film, the reverse of what I was trying to say" [4].
Although Wunsch has admitted that he finds the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful [3] he wrote in a letter dated March 15, 2007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component". He also says he had thought he was contributing to a programme which sought to counterbalance "over-dramatisation and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts". He raised objections as to how his interview material was used:
"In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous--because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important--diametrically opposite to the point I was making--which is that global warming is both real and threatening."[3]
On March 11, 2007, The Independent covered the Carl Wunsch controversy, and asked Channel 4 to respond to what it described as "a serious challenge to its own credibility". A Channel 4 spokesman said:
"The film was a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the contributors has concerns about his contribution we will look into that."[26]
Wunsch has said that he has received a letter from the production company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he agrees to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented nor misled. Wunsch refused.[29]
Following Wunsch's complaints, his interview material was removed from the international and DVD versions of the film.
On December 7, 2007, reacting to what he claimed were new and further distortions by Durkin, Wunsch stated that Durkin made a false statement about Wunsch's reasons for demanding his material be removed[5]:
"Durkin says that I reacted to the way the film portrayed me because of pressure from my colleagues. This is completely false. I did hear almost immediately from colleagues in the UK who saw the film who didn't berate me. They simply said, "This doesn't sound like you, this seems to be distorting your views, you better have a look at this".
During the interview, Wunsch restated and strengthened his critique of Durkin's "Swindle" on ABC's Lateline after the channel screened the film:
"I'm somewhat troubled that TV companies around the world are treating it as though this were a science documentary. It's not. It's a tendentious political propaganda piece of the sort I really could imagine the Bush Administration in this country could have put out on its own to throw raw meat to their believers. It's not a science film at all. It's a political statement."
[edit] Eigil Friis-Christensen
Eigil Friis-Christensen's research was used to support claims about the influence of solar activity on climate, both in the programme and Durkin's subsequent defence of it. Friis-Christensen, with environmental Research Fellow Nathan Rive, criticised the way the solar data were used:
We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled 'Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years'. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming.[4]
In response to a question from The Independent as to whether the programme was scientifically accurate, Friis-Christensen said: "No, I think several points were not explained in the way that I, as a scientist, would have explained them ... it is obvious it's not accurate."
Following Eigil Friis-Christensen's criticism of the 'Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years' graph used in the programme (for perfectly matching the lines in the 100 years 1610-1710 where data did not in fact exist in the original), Durkin emailed Friis-Christensen to thank him for highlighting the error: "it is an annoying mistake which all of us missed and is being fixed for all future transmissions of the film. It doesn't alter our argument".[30]
[edit] Reaction in the British media
The documentary received substantial coverage in the British press, both before and after its broadcast.
George Monbiot writing for The Guardian before the programme was shown, discussed the arguments for and against the "hockey-stick graph" used in An Inconvenient Truth, claiming that the criticism of it has been "debunked". He also highlighted Durkin's previous documentary Against Nature, where the Independent Television Commission found that four complainants had been "misled" and their views were "distorted by selective editing".[31] After the film was shown, Monbiot wrote another article arguing the documentary was based upon already debunked science. He accused Channel 4 of being more interested in generating controversy than in producing credible science programmes.[32] Robin McKie, science editor of The Guardian, attacked the documentary for opting "for dishonest rhetoric when a little effort could have produced an important contribution to a critical social problem".[33]
Dominic Lawson writing in The Independent was favourable toward the show. He echoed many of the show's claims and recommended that viewers tune in. He largely focused his attention on the reactions of the environmental community, first at Durkin's earlier production, Against Nature, and now at Swindle. He characterised the opponents of the film as being quick to leap to ad hominem attacks about Durkin's qualifications and political affiliations rather than the merits of his factual claims. Lawson summarised examples from the production of how dissenting scientists are pushed into the background and effectively censored by organisations such as the IPCC. Lawson describes the scientific theory posed by these dissenting scientists as "striking."[34]
Geoffrey Lean, The Independent's environment editor, was critical of the programme. He noted that Dominic Lawson is the son and brother-in-law, respectively, of two prominent global warming sceptics (Nigel Lawson, who is featured in the programme, and Christopher Monckton), implying that Lawson was not a neutral observer. The Independent mostly disagreed with three of the film's major claims, for example stating: "recent solar increases are too small to have produced the present warming, and have been much less important than greenhouse gases since about 1850". [35] In a later Independent article, Steve Connor heavily attacked the programme, saying that the programme makers had selectively used data which was sometimes decades old, and introduced other serious errors of their own:
The original, and corrected versions of Temperature data from TGGWS, along with NASA GISS data
The original, and corrected versions of Temperature data from TGGWS, along with NASA GISS data
"Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. 'There was a fluff there,' he said. If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the NASA website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940--although that would have undermined his argument. 'The original NASA data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find,' Mr Durkin said."[10]
The online magazine Spiked published an interview with the film's director, Martin Durkin. In the interview, Durkin complains about how OfCom censures "seriously controversial work", saying that the end result is "phoney controversialism on TV but not much real controversialism". Spiked describes the programme's "all-encompassing cosmic ray theory" as "a little unconvincing", but says that "the film poked some very big holes in the global warming consensus", and argues "we could do with more anti-conformist films from 'mavericks' like Durkin".[36]
The Times science editor Mark Henderson listed a number of points where, he said, "Channel 4 got it wrong over climate change". In this section he highlights the feedback argument for the ice core data, the measurement error explanation for temperatures in the troposphere, and the sulphate cooling argument for mid 20th century cooling.[37]
Janet Daley writing for The Daily Telegraph headlined her column "The Green Lobby Must Not Stifle The Debate", noting that "Among those who attempted to prevent the film being shown at all was the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the environment, Chris Huhne, who, without having seen the programme, wrote to Channel 4 executives advising them in the gravest terms to reconsider their decision to broadcast it". [6]
Huhne sent a letter to The Daily Telegraph about Daley's column, writing "Janet Daley is simply wrong to state that I wrote to Channel 4 'advising them in the gravest terms to reconsider their decision to broadcast' Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle. I wrote asking for Channel 4's comments on the fact - not in dispute - that the last time Mr Durkin ventured onto this territory he suffered serious complaints for sloppy journalism - upheld by the Independent Television Commission - and had to apologise."[38] The Daily Telegraph apologised, saying they were happy to accept that "Mr Huhne's letter was not an attempt to prevent the film being shown or suppress debate on the issue".[39]
[edit] Other reaction
David Miliband, the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs at the time, presented a rebuttal of the main points of the film on his blog and stated "There will always be people with conspiracy theories trying to do down the scientific consensus, and that is part of scientific and democratic debate, but the science of climate change looks like fact to me."[40]
Bob Ward, former spokesman for the Royal Society, complained to Britain's media regulator about inaccuracies in the film. (British broadcast law demands impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy.)[11]
Steven Milloy, who runs the Web site Junkscience.com, endorsed the documentary on March 18, 2007.[41]
The programme has been discussed extensively in Australia, including favourable mentions in an editorial in The Australian[42] and the Counterpoint radio programme presented by Michael Duffy.[43][44] The Australian stated the film "presents a coherent argument for why governments must hasten slowly in responding". Duffy noted the program's claims regarding Margaret Thatcher. In response, writing in an opinion piece for the Australian Financial Review, John Quiggin criticised the programme for putting forward "conspiracy theories".[45] According to The Australian, scientist Tim Flannery had wondered at a conference whether the programme should be classified as fiction rather than a documentary.[46]
In the Czech Republic, President Václav Klaus addressed the audience at the local first release of the movie on 28 June, 2007. He called the premiere a "meeting of supporters of reason against irrationality" and compared the warnings of scientists against global warming to Communist propaganda. According to Czech news, Klaus - an outspoken critic of scientific consensus on global warming - has been the first head of state to introduce this movie.[47]
In March of 2007, media watchdog website Medialens published a refutation of Durkin's film describing the work as "Pure Propaganda"[48]
Avertissements sérieux, dixit Patrick Bonin.
Le seul avertissement sérieux aurait dû être : attention, bourrage excessif de crâne en approche.
Voilà ce que je dénonçais : le refus du droit de douter.
Nous noyer de citations officielles contestant la contestation des théories pour lesquelles on leur paie un salaire n'apporte absolument rien au débat. Rares sont ceux qui mordent la main qui les nourrit.
De toute façon, je rigole à chaque fois que je découvre que sur la blogosphère, les plus grands détracteurs du "great global warming swindle" ne l'ont pour la plupart jamais même regardé.
D'autre part, les scientifiques qui se sont rétractés par la suite sont en plus ceux qui expliquent dans le dit documentaire qu'on ne peut obtenir de financement pour la recherche à moins d'aller dans le sens de la nouvelle religion. Belle façon de rentrer dans le rang après avoir frappé là où ça faisait mal. J'aurais sûrement fait pareil pour éviter l'aide sociale.
Pendant que la masse se préoccupe d'un pet dans l'océan, l'industrie lui met du poison partout. Dans son linge, sous les aisselles, dans l'eau, dans l'air.
L'intoxication inquiétante de l'humanité par des centaines de milliers de produits chimiques n'occupe qu'une infime partie des débats publics. Pourtant, il se passera moins de temps avant qu'on passe de 1 humain sur 3 à 2 sur trois qui développeront un cancer, que de temps avant que nous soyions témoins des dits cataclysmes. D'ailleurs, je trouve facile pour des scientifiques de sonner l'alarme sur ce qui va se passer lorsqu'ils seront pour la plupart morts ou si vieux qu'on les prendra en pitié s'ils s'étaient trompés.
Il n'aura suffi que d'un ex-futur président victime, d'une présentation powerpoint et d'un obscur groupe composé de plus d'employés politiques que de scientifiques, pour convaincre l'occident (les pays pauvres n'en ont que faire de Kyoto) qu'un pet dans l'eau était en train de surpasser l'autorité même d'un astre infiniment plus grand que notre planète et qui, à l'occasion, nous souffle dessus comme un immense chalumeau.
Parts des émission de gaz à effet de serre, par l'aviation environ 3%, par l'informatique 3% aussi. ÉTRANGE !
La part de l'aviation devrait augmenter mais rien, aucune information sur l'évolution de part due à l'informatique (pourquoi tant d'obscurantisme ?)
Materre.ca © Copyright BRANCHEZ-VOUS! inc. et partenaires, 1995-2008. Tous droits réservés.
