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.

87 total posts (Page 3 of 9)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Poor sod just wants to go about his business

by neilb@uk In reply to But is WAS a "qoute". . . ...

watching clouds...

All the leaves are brown (leaves are brown)
And the sky is grey (sky is grey)

Collapse -

The notion than mankind is causing it. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to For pity's sake stop post ... what I simply cannot buy into.

The climate is changing, they say? Well, what else is new? It's always been changing. The ocean levels are rising, they say? Well, again, what else is new? They've been rising for thousands of years. They're rising at a higher rate, people might retort? Oh really? Relatively speaking, I doubt it; or I doubt it can be measured accurately enough to tell. But the oceans are getting warmer and the polar ice is melting, they say. And the cycles continue.

It must all be caused by mankind's activities, they say. Sorry, I don't believe that the power of man even measures up to an iota compared to the power of the earth and the sun. The sun is amazing. The heat and the energy it generates can be felt for hundreds of millions of miles. It can sustain life. It can kill life. And it's extremely dynamic, with explosions and flares that would engulf hundreds of earth-sized planets. It's a good thing for us it's so far away; but it's also a good thing for us it's as close as it is. It's all relative, isn't it? And the notion that the sun's activities could alter Earth's temperatures a mere degree or two are much more plausible than suggesting it's being caused by man.

Have you ever been to Yellowstone National Park? When civilized man first reported of the steam shooting up from the ground, and pools of bubbling mud, and ponds of water so hot it that would boil a man to death, they were thought to be delusional. But those things are real, and they're generated from the enormous power contained inside the Earth. They say that Yellowstone is a massive volcanic explosion waiting to happen -- one that would change the landscape of the entire North American Continent. It's not a matter of if, they say, but when. They even estimate that it'll happen somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years from now. (Make your travel plans accordingly!)

Did you know that the temperatures inside the Earth are as hot as those on the surface of the sun? Some of it obviously leaks out into Yellowstone, causing all those things I just described. And it's not just in Yellowstone, but all over the globe we can find examples of the power of the Earth -- hot pools and geysers, cracks, crevices, and earthquakes -- scores of examples of a powerful and dynamic Earth. Maybe some of it's leaking under Greenland causing the surface to react in certain ways, perhaps causing some of the ice to melt. Maybe some of it's leaking at the deepest depths of the oceans -- the yet unexplored oceans. That seems much more plausible than a changing earth being caused by people driving their automobiles.

The universe, our solar system, our sun, and our earth -- nature, as we often call it, or the environment, it's not so "fragile", as is often claimed. It's a source of energy so great and powerful it's actually difficult to imagine. And it's so massive that anything we can produce is insignificant by comparison. Come on, Neil. You don't really think that little ol' us is powerful enough to change the dynamics of nature, do you? In reality, my friend, it's the other way around.

Collapse -

The difference between humans and other animals

by TonytheTiger In reply to The notion than mankind i ...

Ego. Some of us think we're significant.

Collapse -

as opposed to ...

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

'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.?

... those on that other side, who are attempting to exploit everyone else on the planet!

Seems some can dish it out but they can't take it.

Collapse -

Nice catch!

by Absolutely In reply to as opposed to ...

"Ewww, yuk, my own medicine doesn't taste good! Waaaaa!

Collapse -

Interesting little exchange [edited]

by neilb@uk In reply to Nice catch!

TonytheTabby was quoting Wunsch who, I think, is entitled to say that he thinks he was used by Martin Durkin the documentary's director. TTT's post is a simple ad hominem. I'll respond to TTT directly when his contribution is more than snide one-liners.


You,now. You're a cat of a different stripe. Have you watched the documentary yet? It's out on the Web, I believe, though I've not looked for it.


I was musing on my morning stroll as to what has made you shift your stance in a skeptic-ward direction. We on the "GW is real" side can offer you the published opinion of most of the world's scientists (yes, 'most', whatever anyone might say on t'other side to attack their motives.) I would have thought that it might have been enough.

So, I mused on a little, what hold has Maxwell got on you? But it's obvious, really. It occurred to me then the mitigation of the effects of climate change - which is really happening whether you believe that we humans are contributing or not - will require money. Lots of money. The politicians will want to take it from YOU and give it to someone else. However noble the reason, you can't face that.

Even worse, if there is a link proven to everyones satisfaction between CO2 production and climate change, other countries will be looking to the greatest contributor of CO2 for some serious action or, God forbid, for some of that money. Now who could that be?

I understand now.

En garde...

Collapse -

You're right, it's because you're after my $

by Absolutely In reply to Interesting little exchan ...

If after reviewing the research on the solar activity hypothesis, I am once again convinced that "GW is real", so be it. But, knowing that that conclusion will mean more taxes (regardless of my personal agreement) I'm interested in being certain that my position on this topic is an informed one. What noble reason do you believe I can't face?

It occurred to me then the mitigation of the effects of climate change - which is really happening whether you believe that we humans are contributing or not - will require money. Lots of money. The politicians will want to take it from YOU and give it to someone else. However noble the reason, you can't face that.

Have not yet watched the Channel Four documentary, but just about to search the web for it.

Have you watched the documentary yet? It's out on the Web, I believe, though I've not looked for it.

Collapse -

If it were free & easy, there would be no reason to argue.

by Absolutely In reply to You're right, it's becaus ...

If there were an artificial sweetener that really tasted as good as sugar, I'd use it. If there were an equally convenient alternative to my automobile, I'd use that. In both cases, there is not an equally good option, and in the case of climate change, I'll have to be convinced that the magnitude of the trade-off is sufficient to warrant any additional effort, expense or inconvenience on my part. As of now, I'm less convinced than I was 10 years ago. Like maxwell edison, I'll keep an open mind, until I'm Absolutely Convinced one way or the other. But if you're trying to convince me to take global warming seriously, you've lost ground since I started paying taxes, and you're losing much more ground every time you present an argument based in any part on fear. I consider reasoning based in facts I can verify, and nothing else.

Collapse -

One assumption which is in error

by neilb@uk In reply to If it were free & easy, t ...

I have no real wish to convince you. I have no "ground" to lose.

Given the magnitude of the perceived problem and its potential for huge destruction of social and economic stability, I do invite you to put sufficient effort into this find out for yourself.

Collapse -

"No ground to lose"? Are you sure?

by Absolutely In reply to If it were free & easy, t ...

Well, then, London is NOT going to be devastated by rising water levels from melting glaciers. You heard it here first, no ground to lose.

Back to Software Forum
87 total posts (Page 3 of 9)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums