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 4 of 9)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Envirofascism rears its ugly head, again

by sn53 In reply to If it were free & easy, t ...

neil wrote, "Certainties and Liberty
Only children deal in certainty."

And would-be-tyrants exploit fear.

"There is so Global Warming!
There is not global Warming!

And use lies. Let us take this example. I personally have written at least a dozen times on this board that we have had a record of global warming for 13,000 years. The last ice age began to end because of warming. That trend has continued up to the present. So claiming that I am saying there is no global warming is a bold lie. Why do you lie?

"What adults do is weigh the evidence and assess the probability of the outcome being one thing or the other."

I am very familiar with risk management. It is one of my additional duties in addition to being an engineering manager.

"The probability of the outcome is then set against the scope and magnitude of that outcome and the effectiveness of a potential cure or mitigation and the effect of that and so on."

As a risk manager I would never suggest that our risk mitigation plan include enslaving all of our customers.

There is always a time component to risk. When do we expect this risk to manifest itself, in what ways and to what effect? Will it cost more to mitigate the risk than it would cost to fix whatever problems actually occur?

"We are all IT professionals and we have all done risk assessment (I hope) and we should all be able to scale this up to a larger outcome."

Risks deal with uncertainties. In the case of man-caused global warming the cause and the outcome are both uncertain. I personally prefer the warmth over the ice age.

"On this basis, given the number of people that GW might adversely affect, you, Abs and sn3, may take your Liberty and your Rights and shove them where the Sun Don't Shine."

And thus we are lead to tyranny. It is so obvious. And it comes right out of the writings of the envirofascists. Like all other tyrants they tell us in advance what they intend.

Collapse -

Double post

by sn53 In reply to If it were free & easy, t ...
Collapse -

The seriousness of the charge

by sn53 In reply to You're right, it's becaus ...

neil wrote, "Given the magnitude of the perceived problem and its potential for huge destruction of social and economic stability,"

You know, the Democrats used to say that the seriousness of the charge was sufficient reason for an investigation. Now you are saying it.

The man-caused global warming tyrants say we are doomed once or twice a week so we must have more power concentrated in a central body (which I am sure they will graciously consent to run) plus the ability to punish with huge penalties and a host of new taxes. And you say, roll over.

I will begin to take them more seriously when their answer to this perceived problem is more freedom, more liberty, less control by centralized, soviet style bureaucracies, and less taxes. But that is not likely to happen. Is it?

Collapse -

The seriousness of making the charge falsely.

by Absolutely In reply to The seriousness of the ch ...

neil wrote, "Given the magnitude of the perceived problem and its potential for huge destruction of social and economic stability,"

Well, neil, 2 sides can play at that little game. Either side of this argument can appeal to "the seriousness of the charge". Libertarians can equally appeal to the seriousness of the ramifications of loss of liberty. We have some extremely poignant examples in very recent history. We need not refer back more than 100 years to show how uncritical compliance with cultural norms and other arbitrary preferences have resulted in losses of lives on the order of tens of millions per nation where collectivism has taken hold. So, neilb, you had better by Absolutely Certain before you infringe one iota on my rights.

What freedom-loving people need to do, sn53, is make our arguments in those terms more often. Stupid ideas only take hold through repetition, and the hesitancy of people with good ideas to be equally redundant. But, as long as the voters are susceptible to proof by repetition, our duty to remain vigilant in defense of our freedom includes repeating the seriousness of our charge, every time we make our charge.

Collapse -

Certainties and Liberty

by neilb@uk In reply to The seriousness of the ch ...

Only children deal in certainty.

There is so Global Warming!
There is not global Warming!

What adults do is weigh the evidence and assess the probability of the outcome being one thing or the other. The probability of the outcome is then set against the scope and magnitude of that outcome and the effectiveness of a potential cure or mitigation and the effect of that and so on. We are all IT professionals and we have all done risk assessment (I hope) and we should all be able to scale this up to a larger outcome.

On this basis, given the number of people that GW might adversely affect, you, Abs and sn3, may take your Liberty and your Rights and shove them where the Sun Don't Shine.

No offence meant...

:)

Collapse -

Is THAT what you think adults do?

by Absolutely In reply to The seriousness of the ch ...

Only children deal in certainty.

There is so Global Warming!
There is not global Warming!

What adults do is weigh the evidence and assess the probability of the outcome ... blah, blah, lots of pretentious pseudo-intellectual overuse of long words that only mean that if you invent a scary enough fairy tale, you will feel at liberty to dispense with the rights of anybody who doesn't wish to worship at your altar. Blah, blah, blah. I've heard it all before, and I'm still neither impressed, nor convinced.

On this basis, given the number of people that GW might adversely affect, you, Abs and sn3, may take your Liberty and your Rights and shove them where the Sun Don't Shine.


Quite ironic that you began by lecturing us about adult behavioral norms.

Back to the main topic, it's interesting how quickly and how drastically your tone changes when I mention the abuses that have occurred in the past century in the name of compulsory allegiance to various stupid ideas. You do still hold Nazism, Communism and Fascism to be stupid ideas, I hope.

I'm not questioning your good intentions. I'm just Skeptical of your paving skills.

Collapse -

Global Warming

by neilb@uk In reply to The seriousness of the ch ...

I thought that this dicussion was about global warming and specifically about a Channel Four programme. This is a programme, by the way, that laid the blame for the upsurge of the environmentalist movement on Margaret Thatcher.

It is - was - what I have been trying to discuss but every time you, Maxwell or sn3 takes it into a political tangent, I get a little more fed up and a little more reluctant to reply. I don't WANT to talk about Naziism, Communism or Fascism and "compulsory allegiance" and get drawn into discussing the very obvious comparisons that you want to make with the environmentalist movement. Although it's worth remembering that not all allegience to those ideas was compulsory (far from it) and certainly not all of the time. If this is where you want to take this discussion - and it surely where Max and sn3 have gone - then you do it without me.

It's just so f*cking painful to have a discussion with you all and I just can't be bothered to try any more. What can I do with "global warming tyrants", "more freedom, more liberty, less control by centralized, soviet style bureaucracies", "envirofascism", "enslaving"...The damn thread is called "Heresy".

Neil

p.s. No. I don't think that's what adults do. That much is painfully obvious just by looking around. I think that it's what they SHOULD do.

p.p.s. "Would neilb agree to including those in a political debate on global warming, or would he insist that the data regarding humans' direct impact on one another is somehow "out of scope"?"

Neilb, alas, is not going to give you the time of day on this subject lest you accuse me of forcing GMT onto you. Neilb does not subscribe to and is not a part of your political system for good or evil.

Collapse -

neilb's dislike of politics: I also replied re. Friis-Christensen

by Absolutely In reply to The seriousness of the ch ...

You have so far chosen to respond only to the political messages, and only with complaints about the very existence of messages regarding the political context of the environmentalist movement.

I, when challenged to do so, addressed the scientific research you posted. Was my dismantling of your research too devastating, or will you eventually get around to posting some verifiable evidence of Friis-Christensen's alleged "trivial arithmetic errors"?

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=217739&messageID=2208160

Collapse -

It was devastating

by neilb@uk In reply to The seriousness of the ch ...

I'm off to get a life.

Collapse -

Awww, don't go away MAD...

by Absolutely In reply to The seriousness of the ch ...

Just, go away until you can discuss the science objectively, without including a pile of scare tactics in every post.



My devastating dismantling of the critique neilb posted of the hypothesis that it might just be the sun can be found here:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=217739&messageID=2208160

Have fun getting a life, Neil. It is Absoolutely Necessary to be alive in order to type real messages on real keyboards, so by all means, come on back once you become alive, or "get" whatever the **** you're really talking about getting.

Back to Software Forum
87 total posts (Page 4 of 9)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums