4 comments

1. The very next time I read a blog, I hope that it won’t fail me as much as this particular one. After all, I know it was my chcoie to read, but I really believed you’d have something helpful to talk about. All I hear is a bunch of moaning about something that you can fix if you were not too busy searching for attention.

2. Oh my goodness! Amazing atricle dude! Many thanks, However I am encountering troubles with your RSS. I don’t understand why I am unable to join it. Is there anybody else getting the same RSS problems? Anyone that knows the solution will you kindly respond? Thanks!!

3. Hi RobIm flattered that you think ayonne would bother to take legal action against Zone5! maybe I should take legal advice, but I didnt say specifically that Durkin was paid by Big Oil to make the film.There are several sources who have published what i am only repeating, apparently without fear of legal recriminations themselves.Monbiot in today’s Guardian (see link given in the post above) is quite explicit: Far from revealing its contributors’ financial interests, the film created the impression that they have taken no money from the coal or oil industries. In truth, 10 of its protagonists have either been funded directly by fossil-fuel companies, or have received paid employment from lobby groups funded by these companies, which campaign against taking action on climate change. Tim Ball claimed in the programme that I’ve never received a nickel from the oil and gas companies. But he has received fees from two groups which lobby against taking action on climate change — Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project — both of which receive major funding from energy companies. It is a while since I read Leggett’s book (your copy i think!) and I dont have it with me but I was impressed by the specifics of who was paid what by whom for what. It was the same old suspects co noodling with the Saudi and US delegates in conference after conference, plotting in the lobby to sabotage the agreements any way they could.And Alistair McIntosh has this to say in his new book Hell and High Water with regard to Durkin’s film: Meanwhile, George Marshall of the Climate Outreach and Information Network drew attention to the fact that several of Durkin’s experts were in bed with industry and political lobby groups dedicated to denying climate change Another of Durkin’s interviewees, Fred Singer, was founder of The science and Environment Policy Project which, syas Marshall, aggressively contradicts climate science and has recieved direct funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO’. On 4 September 2006 Exxon had been sent an unprecedented letter from the Royal Society. This accused the company of willfully funding thirty-nine groups that misrepresented the science of climate change , by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change, or by overstating the amount and significance of uncertainty in knowledge ‘ I havnt seen any attempt to rebut or refute any of this- it seems to me to be firmly in the public domain and equivalent in certainty to the facts of climate science themselves.

4. giwrgo kalimerase xiaromai kai se diavazw an kai ta poulia me endieferan panda alla esy to vlepeis aliws kai pio epistimonika.dexesai episkeptes?lew na perasw an vrw ton tropo.an thes check kai to site mou etc.na eisai kalaNikos