[Buddy]

I've commented on the dubious science presented in the programme, so lets go back to the roll call. I must admit that even I am shocked at what a bunch of rogues they really are:

• Fred Singer Exxon Secrets #1

  In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies.

  He was the last one to speak on the programme, and the UK's Cheif Scientist should be after him for slander:

  There will still be people that believe that this is the end of the world. Particularly when you have for example the chief scientists of the UK telling people that by the end of the century the only habitable place on Earth will be the Antarctic. And it may ... humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples that move to the Antarctic. It's hilarious (chuckle) it would be hilarious actually if it weren't so sad." Roll credits ...

  Oh dear, Sir David King is the UK's Chief Scientist and he has never said any such thing. It was Professor James Lovelock who said it in 'The Revenge Of Gaia'. I'm sure they know the difference, lies but it sounded impressive, so they put it in the programme...
  
• Patrick Michaels Exxon Secrets #4:

  Dr. Patrick Michaels is possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist. He has admitted receiving funding from various fossil fuel industry sources.

  and http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006...audit.php#more (enjoy the magic changing graph):

  The first approach is the one taken by Pat Michaels, who dishonestly erased scenarios B and C from Hansen's graph.

  From DeSmogBlog:
  

  Numerous media outlets reported that one of your professors, Dr. Patrick Michaels , has accepted upwards of $150,000 from coal interests and coal-burning electric utility companies for his advocacy against the overwhelming consenus on global warming.

• Fred Seitz Exxon Secrets #6

  A June 2000 Business Week article referred to physicist Frederick Seitz as "the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics". Seitz was once a director and shareholder of a company that operated coal-fired power plants.

  n 1998, Seitz wrote and circulated a letter, asking scientists to sign a petition asking the Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. Seitz signed the letter and identifed himself as a former president of the National Academy of Sciences. He also directed attention to a report by Dr. Arthur Robinson, which concluded that carbon dioxide posed no threat to climate. The report was not peer-reviewed, but was formatted to look like an NAS journal article. The NAS later issued a statement disassociating itself from the petition and the article.

• Tim Ball (apparently not an emeritus professor) Exxon Secrets #1164:
  

  5 February, 2007
  I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

  - but Michael Crichton is "a Harvard Medical School graduate turned writer" who gave a leture "entitled "Aliens Cause Global Warming"", can't he find someone more reliable? http://www.desmogblog.com/channel-4-...of-its-experts
  

  In its promotional material, Channel 4 was advertising one of its experts, Dr. Tim Ball, as a “Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg.” In fact, Dr. Ball retired from a short, unspectacular academic career in 1995. He neither earned – nor was he given – the honour of an Emeritus professorship, and the University of Winnipeg has, on at least one previous occasion, specifically requested that he stop presenting himself as such.
  
  Far from being a working scientist or credible expert, Dr. Ball has associated himself in the last decade with a series of energy industry front groups (the Friends of Science, the Natural Resource Stewardship Project ) that fight against any policy that would address climate change.
  
  Even the Calgary Herald, the leading newspaper in the Canadian oil capital of Calgary, has said that Ball is “viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

  But the locations that Channel 4 still mentions suggest that the other “experts” will include at least a cross-section of other people who are known more for taking money from the energy industry than they are for scientific research.

• Ian Clark Exxon Secrets #1280 and from DeSmogBlog

  Dr. Fred Michel, part of a small group of Ottawa scientists (also including Tim Patterson and Ian Clark) acting on behalf of the energy-industry front group the Natural Resources Stewardship Project

  ... Natural Resources Stewardship Project

  12 Oct 06, BREAKING UPDATE!
  NRSP exposed -- controlled by energy industry lobbyists

  ...
  
• John Christy Exxon Secrets #903

  While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant

  His findings have been widely disputed.

• Richard Lindzen Exxon Secrets #17

  Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

• Roy Spencer Exxon Secrets #19

  17 April, 2006
  "We are not saying that we don't believe that there can be significant global warming. As John [Christy] said, if you add CO2, something has to change. But things are changing all the time anyway. The big question is: So what? How much is it going to change, compared to other things? And what can you do about it?"

  Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station

  ExxonSecrets:

  ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support."

  and note Sponsors pull plug on Tech Central Station
  
• Paul Reiter Exxon Secrets #421

  11 January, 2007
  I am not a climatologist, nor an expert on sea level or polar ice. But I do know from talking to many scientists in many disciplines that this consensus is a mirage.

  and try here.
  
• Paul Driessen (author) Exxon Secrets #1038

  Paul Driessen is the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com) and director of the Economic Human Rights Project, a joint initiative of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and Congress of Racial Equality.

  ... ExxonSecrets:

  Alan Gottlieb, a former tax felon, founded CDFE in 1974 along with two gun groups

  "We are sick to death of environmentalism and so we will destroy it. We will not allow our right to own property and use nature's resources for the benefit of mankind to be stripped from us by a bunch of eco-facists."

  "Facts don't really matter. In politics, perception is reality."

• Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) SourceWatch
  

  In 2000 Moore went to the Brazilian Amazon rainforests for the filming of a documentary by Marc Morano for American Investigator, According to an interview in the New York Post, Moore dismissed concerns about the impacts of logging, mining and clearning for agriculture on the Amazonian rainforests. "All these save-the-forests arguments are based on bad science ... They are quite simply wrong. We found that the Amazon rainforest is more than 90 percent intact. We flew over it and met all the environmental authorities. We studied satellite pictures of the entire area," he said.
  
  "They are just about the healthiest forests in the world. This stuff about them vanishing at an alarming rate is a con based on bad science ... Anyone who has been in the jungle knows that if you want to live there, you'd better take a few machetes. Otherwise, it'll take it all back," he said.

• Piers Corbyn SourceWatch
  

  He keeps the details of his methodology for making predictions a secret, and has been criticized for making unfounded claims about the power of his predictions, even after they turned out to be inaccurate.

• Carl Wunsch (tricked to appear) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...7/03/swindled/

  Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed.

  http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/0...comment-367476

  I've just received the following email from Carl Wunsch, whcih confirms that Martin Durkin has been true to type:
  
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Carl Wunsch"
  To:
  Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:31 PM
  Subject: Re: Just wanted to check something
  
  Dave,
  I've not seen it and the context was not at all what we
  had agreed on. Was billed as a balanced discussion of the
  threat of global warming As I began to see ads for the program, I realized I'd been duped. I'm wondering if there's some way I can get to see it. If you do register some kind of complaint, can you let me know what it says?
  
  Carl

• Nigel Calder (author) SourceWatch