General discussion


Global Warming Heresy

By maxwell edison ·
Reprinted article from

By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Most climatologists agree that the earth's temperature has increased about a degree over the last century. The debate is how much of it is due to mankind's activity. Britain's Channel 4 television has just produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a documentary that devastates most of the claims made by the environmentalist movement. The scientists interviewed include top climatologists from MIT and other prestigious universities around the world. The documentary hasn't aired in the U.S., but it's available on the Internet.

Among the many findings that dispute environmentalists' claims are: Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. Contrary to environmentalists' claims, the higher the Earth's temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change. Some of the documentary's scientists argue that the greatest influence on the Earth's temperature is our sun's sunspot activity. The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk.

Throughout the Earth's billions of years there have been countless periods of global warming and cooling. In fact, in the year 1,000 A.D., a time when there were no SUVs, the Earth's climate was much warmer than it is now. Most of this century's warming occurred before 1940. For several decades after WWII, when there was massive worldwide industrialization, there was cooling.

There's a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That's the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view. According to a March 11 article in London's Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges." Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

Today's version of yesteryear's inquisitors include people like the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen, who advocates that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming. Columnist Dave Roberts, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."

There are literally billions of taxpayer dollars being handed out to global warming alarmists, not to mention their dream of controlling our lives. Their agenda is threatened by dissent. They have the politician's ear; not we, who will suffer if they have their way.


Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

For pity's sake stop posting this bollocks!

by neilb@uk In reply to Global Warming Heresy

The Channel Dour documentary was every bit as biased as the most pro Warming publications. I welcomed it because I hoped it might spark a debate to a small extent. Unfortunately, those who are already anti tend to use the documentary as an argument-stopper whether they watched it or notand whether they understood it or not.

A little more delving and we find - for starters:

Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ?grossly distorted? and ?as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two?.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. ?I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,? he said. ?This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.? He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

There are others who appeared in the film who have similar complaints.

I'll deal wiith some of the scientific misrepresentation another day.


"Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow..."

Collapse -

Some "equal opportunity" bollocks!

by maxwell edison In reply to For pity's sake stop post ...
Collapse -

Don't MAKE me go British on your arse!

by Absolutely In reply to Some "equal opportunity" ...

But do let me know when you decide on acceptable terms for a knock-down, drag-out, winner-takes-all-the-imaginary-marbles-type argument, OK?

Collapse -

Neil, by the way. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to For pity's sake stop post ...

"Let the sun shine. Let the sun shine in....."

Collapse -

Oh, no!

by TonytheTiger In reply to Neil, by the way. . . . .
Collapse -

Not so fast.

by Absolutely In reply to For pity's sake stop post ...

"According to a March 11 article in London's Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change."

Under such circumstances I'm not willing to assume that Munsch, or any other skeptics who wish to disavow their doubt, are doing so truly freely. I'll need a lot more information than that to persuade me that the film was substantially exaggerated. Considering only the information you provided about Munsch, and what Maxwell has posted about the tyranny of the environmentalist movement, I'm more inclined to believe that Maxwell is telling the truth, and Munsch's retraction is largely inspired by a desire for self-preservation, and that what he fears is getting murdered, not a warming planet.

Collapse -

Conspiracy theory

by neilb@uk In reply to Not so fast.

Wunsch is not English and the documentary was made for English television. Have death threats been made against Wunsch? I think not. The fact that you imply some form of transatlantic coercion really does confirm you've switched sides with a vengeance. Watch out for new variant CTD (Conspiracy Theory Disease), some early symptoms here.

All Maxwell's link points to is the fact that you, perhaps, have more nutters than we have but I suspected that all along... OK, maybe the word "extremists" is better but who's counting?

I'm sorry, but dumping on this documentary is so easy as it was really not very good. It was exactly the equivalent of Al Gore's tosh. again, I only welcomed it for a bit of balance. both sides need a point to start from to move to rational agreement.

Some science: The documentary's central idea was that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the Sun.

This idea started with the 19** discovery by Danish climatologist Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on Earth are in "almost complete agreement" with the length of the cycle of sunspots ? the shorter they are, the higher the temperature. Actually, he discovered nothing of the kind. Subsequent papers in 2004 by other authors examining his findings showed that "agreement" was the result of "incorrect handling of the physical data". The real data for recent years show the opposite in that temperatures have continued to rise as the length of the sunspot cycle has increased.

When he got kicked by these publications, Friis-Christensen published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results but in this paper they made an error in their arithmetic that was very quickly pointed out.

Not to be put off by this Friis-Christensen developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a "remarkable agreement" between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the C4 documentary proposed for global warming.

But, yet again, the method has been exposed as faulty. He had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper by other authors clearly shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.

So the hypothesis then changed again! Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, one of Friis-Christensen's co-authors declared that there was in fact a correlation ? not with total cloud cover but with "low cloud cover". This too turned out to be incorrect.

Then, last year, we had the publication of a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying it was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays.

Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA has shown on that five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. None of this seems to have troubled C4, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.

I could go on but you'd probably come back on the political angle and - to be honest - I'm not really sure that I can be bothered to answer that one.


Don't know why there's no sun up in the sky - stormy weather.

Collapse -

dumping is always easy

by Absolutely In reply to Conspiracy theory

Supporting your claims is more time-consuming. I'll be Googling this "Friis-Christensen" name, and reply afterwards on his data. For now, I only note that you have that other researchers' work "clearly shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found" and that "real data for recent years show the opposite in that temperatures have continued to rise", but that you have not been forthcoming about what makes the data that you prefer more right or more real. I have not "switched sides with a vengeance", I have adopted a more Skeptical posture toward both sides.

Collapse -

Prove MY claims?

by neilb@uk In reply to dumping is [i]always[/i] ...

You forget the fact that this thread was started by Maxwell specifically to spotlight the Channel Four documentary.

It was to assess the claims made in the documentary - which I have watched twice - that I followed the trail through the claims of Friis-Christensen and his co-workers and the counter-claims. You may follow my paper trail or you may find your own.


I'm still working on some of the other claims in the documentary for my own satisfaction and so that those who use the documentary - those that haven't watched it - get it flung straight back at them.

I'm not sure it's a good idea for an American to start a thread on a British-made-for-British-TV documentary. We don't quite get the same starting point for the discussion.


Here comes the sun, here comes the sun
and I say it's all right

Collapse -

You assume too much.

by Absolutely In reply to Prove MY claims?

You forget the fact that this thread was started by Maxwell specifically to spotlight the Channel Four documentary.

I haven't gotten around to the fact-checking of maxwell edison's post that you obviously have already begun. But, the information you have posted is not enough to convince me that the entire program was a fraud, just because one guy is upset about how his comments were portrayed. You might be right, but from what you've posted so far, you still might be wrong.

Related Discussions

Related Forums