n 16 November last year, Edgar Gartnër (1) published in L'Echo and La Libre Belgique a forum entitled "Towards an ecological totalitarianism." This article, which calls into question the scientific assumptions relating to global warming was surprised. Sharply criticized the Kyoto Protocol it calls to question the causes of climate change. Reprit by the German conservative daily Die Welt on 8 November he came to France on December 26 under the heading discussion of the newspaper Le Figaro and in Les Echos. The answer to this paved in the fed has not tardée, November 29, also in La Libre Belgique, several professors (2) of the University of Leuven have disputed the analysis of Mr Gartnër accusing him of making the misinformation. One of the main points raised is that of financing: the Think Tank of the author is funded by the American Exxon tanker. Does it if this man an ugly agent of influence has the balance of this company?


The remarks by Edgar Gartnër:


It does not deny the reality of climate change, but causation of this phenomenon, "he makes it clear that climate change is undeniable." Totalitarianism according to him is that the Kyoto protocol focuses on the causes human principally CO2 emissions. He mentioned the difficulty of proving this, addressing the same methods of scientific experiments conducted in the laboratory and by computer simulation. For Mr Gartnër other causes must be taken into account such as the evolution of solar activity. He condemned the Kyoto Protocol and the European policies that this international treaty applies with even greater severity than expected at the expense of the economy.

The answer:

The five academics attack from the outset with an argument, "Mr. Gärtner, is attached to the Centre for the New Europe. This center has been funded by donations from Exxon. ". They go on to state that "it is in fact the only well-known public financing of the Centre in question". "In addition the Royal Society - the Academy of Sciences of the United Kingdom - even wrote to Esso / Exxon informing him of her concern about the funding provided by the company to organizations disseminating views contrary to scientific knowledge about climate change. "

So they do not hesitate to say that it's a kind of "disinformation". At the scientific level, having denounced the argument Gartnër Edgar, the authors explain that "no serious argument is presented, and it was predictable."

Notes:

Both say right away, my point is not to defend that matter or determine the relevance of various scientific arguments (I do not have the capacity) exposed on both sides, but to challenge the delégitimation made against Mr Gartnër. Indeed dice the first lines of the answer is clear about: the author is in the pay of Exxon's analysis therefore is not relevant because interested. But who are there bad for a research center to receive private funding? While Mr Gartnër is Director of Environment Forum in this centre, and is an Exxon oil company. But this funding is not hidden. When the Union of Concerned Scientists, or the site ExxonSecrets reveal that the Centre has reached $ 170,000 between 2003 to 2005 there is nothing obscure or secret. The reports of contribution of oil are available online at its website (2003, 2004, 2005). In addition Mr Gartnër supports on the site of the institute Hayek, "since he works (an honorary title) for the Center for the New Europe" the center "does not receive any funds from the same Exxon" he acknowledged that "the CNE was partially funded by Exxon a few years ago" but that the company "does more such activities."

So money from Exxon will be dirty. What then of public funding? Mr Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who signed the response to Edgar Gartnër, is a professor climatologist at the University of Leuven and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Do there will not suspect that Mr funded by the taxpayer, to be paid by the European Union and Belgium that represents the IPCC? Its analyses Are not biased by its membership of this institution in a country in favour of the Kyoto Protocol and in the capital of the EU itself ahead of these issues? If we met often before the economic interests of the anti-Kyoto, can not there be no doubt as to the interests of the pro-Kyoto?

I do not judge person, I am unable to say whether Mr Gartnër was wrong in its scientific arguments or if it is the teachers who are right. Just think that economic interests are not just on one side or the other. The stakes are enormous, multiple and complex. So Gartnër Agent influence of Exxon? You are the sole judges.

A Olivier

(1) Biography CNE: Responsible for the Environment Forum of the CNE. Before joining the team at CNE, Edgar Gaertner wrote for Science & Vie, he was also the editor of the letter environment and the editor in chief of WWF Germany. He finally currently writing a book on PVC and a book on eco-nihilism.

(2) Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Philippe Marbaix, Marie-France Loutre, Michel Crucifix and Wouter Lefebvre