General discussion

Locked

Global Warming Heresy

By maxwell edison ·
Reprinted article from TownHall.com

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.

End

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.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/03/28/global_warming_heresy

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

87 total posts (Page 2 of 9)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I haven't posted everything that I've found

by neilb@uk In reply to You assume too much.

nor will I. It does strike me that it's not really of any use to me - or to you - to post a rebuttal of the contents of a program that you have not seen.

What I've actually posted so far (and probably all that I'm likely to post for the moment) was the subsequent objections of the one climate scientist who appeared in the programme and a critical comment on the scientific paper used as the basis of one of the main programme points made.

There's a lot more that I could say but I refer you to the first paragraph above. I never said that the program was a complete fraud but I did say that it was the anti-GW equivalent of Al Gore's stuff in every way and thereby in part or wholly worthless or worse than worthless.

Neil

Now i, I wish it would rain down, down on me
Yes I wish it would rain, rain down on me now

Collapse -

"the greenhouse theory has been refuted"

by Absolutely In reply to Prove MY claims?

However, the statement "the greenhouse theory has been refuted" is premature.

http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/solspot.html

The meaning of an excerpt can be greatly distorted, if enough of the context is omitted.

LOL!

Collapse -

"I could go on but you'd probably come back on the political angle and - "

by Absolutely In reply to Conspiracy theory

I did come back on the political angle, and on the scientific angle, and you responded by forfeiting both.

Collapse -

I think what he fears most

by TonytheTiger In reply to Not so fast.

is having his funding cut :)

Collapse -

I don't.

by Absolutely In reply to I think what he fears mos ...

I don't think anything at all about what he might fear. I just know that he hasn't convinced me of his claims.

Collapse -

Being " biased"

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

OF COURSE, it's "biased". BUT WHY IS BEING BIASED necessarily A BAD THING? It set out to take a position, and it did. Why would a documentary that intended to dismiss the silly notion of man-caused global warming present the other side of the argument? The problem with BIASED is when people don't admit their own. The people on the opposite side of the argument do the same damned thing -- and THEY seem to be accepted!

Besides, Neil, YOU, TOO, took Carl Wunsch's comments out of context. Quit being so damned biased!

Let me take more of his words "out of context".

"I am distrustful of prediction scenarios for details of the ocean circulation that rely on extremely complicated coupled models that run out for decades to thousands of years. The science is not sufficiently mature to say which of the many complex elements of such forecasts are skillful."
-- Carl Wunsch

But at least I will provide the context:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

Mt bottom line: Over all the things in the world to worry about and/or try to do something about, "global warming" isn't even on the list. And the people who DO want it on their list, do so for reasons that are more in-line with advancing their political agenda of structuring society in their preferred likeness, and less to "protect the environment". These people, the "global warming" advocates, need to be dismissed, and discredited, and made irrelevant.

I would also be willing to wager that the vast majority of scientists who do believe that it's possible human activity might be having some affect on the climate, probably wish their studies had not been hijacked by political activists, and/or don't advocate major changes in society, and/or don't really subscribe to all the dire doom-and-gloom scenarios, and/or might consider the trade-off (what such technology has provided for mankind) acceptable, and/or don't agree with most (or all) of the silly and stupid "cures", such as carbon credits, restriction of liberties, and all that crap. It might be their "science", but the "therefore what" is not. (At least that would be my wager if it could be proved.)

And Neil, you said, "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?."

Please provide the context for that comment, would you please? I'd like to read all of what he said surrounding that statement. (I found sources where people said he said that, but I can't find one of him actually saying those exact words.)

Collapse -

One thing of which you may not be aware

by neilb@uk In reply to Being " biased"

is that I work for the organisation that is responsible for acting on complaints about UK TV programmes (not the BBC but everyone else).

I didn't need to go delving into our database for Wunsch and I'm not even sure if he complained to us personally - although quite a few people did! Read his own words. http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response

What I would quite like is an unpolitical reponse to the scientific stuff I posted re: Friis-Christensen. The references in the order that I mentioned them in my post, should you care to go back to source. A couple of them are easily accessible.

Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, 19**. Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate. Science, Vol 254, 698-700.

Paul Damon and Peter Laut, 2004. Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data. Eos, Vol. 85, No. 39.

Knud Lassen and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 2000. Reply to ?Solar cycle lengths and climate: A reference revisited? by P. Laut and J.Gundermann. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 105, No 27, 493-495.

Paul Damon and Peter Laut, ibid.

Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 1997. Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: A missing link in solar-climate relationships. The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 59, 1225-1232.

Peter Laut, 2003. Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Vol 65, 801-812.

Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, 2000. Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays. Physical Review Letters Vol 85, no 23. 5004-5007.

Paul Damon and Peter Laut, ibid.

Henrik Svensmark et al, 2007. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proceedings of the Royal Society Volume 463, Number 2078, 1364-5021.

Danish National Space centre, October 2006. Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate.

http://spacecenter.dk/publications/press-releases/getting-closer-to-the-cosmic-connection-to-climate

Gavin Schmidt, 16th October 2006. Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin

Enjoy...

Neil

"I'm walking on sunshine , wooah"

Collapse -

That's the same article (letter) I posted!

by maxwell edison In reply to One thing of which you ma ...

And the quote you attributed to him (biggest propaganda since World War Two), was not part of it.

So again, please post the full context of that particular quote.

"And I wonder, Still I wonder, Who'll stop the rain"

Collapse -

I don't have it directly attributed to Wunsch

by neilb@uk In reply to That's the same article ( ...

The quote came from a Guardian article about Channel Four which quoted Wunsch. http://www.guardian.co.uk/pda/story/0,,2039587-TV+and+Radio,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
and a few other places as well.

It's really not the main issue, anyway, although it is worth taking on board that Wunsch was the only reputable climate scientists on the program and, "propaganda" or not, he's pissed. Let's not get bogged down in quotes when an examination of the science in the program - surely the most important issue - demonstrates completely WHY Wunsch wishes to be disassociated with the programme.

Neil

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

Collapse -

But is WAS a "qoute". . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to I don't have it directly ...

.....so EVERYBODY is using him, misquoting him, taking him out of context, etc.

We take a walk, the sun is shining down
Burns my feet as they touch the ground
Good Day Sunshine, Good Day Sunshine, Good Day Sunshine

Back to Software Forum
87 total posts (Page 2 of 9)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums