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 5 of 9)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

It's because it's not true - I cite Dr. Wlliam Gray

by maxwell edison In reply to Interesting little exchan ...

I've been citing Dr. Gray for years, but this story just appeared. (Okay, Neil, go ahead and discredit him as well. Why is it, by the way, that all the dissenters are worthy of being discredited, thereby simply dismissing their argument, but the alarmists are not?)

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," has helped fuel media attention on global warming.

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.

Collapse -

Gore's Documentary and Channel Four's documentary

by neilb@uk In reply to It's because it's not tru ...

Are simply opposite sides of the same coin.

Had you started a thread on why Gore's film was a piece of ill-researched, misleading propaganda, you'd have found me cheering you on! The Channel Four documentary was similarly ill-researched, misleading propaganda. If we're going to have a dialogue then lets use good science and common sense.

As for William Grey, I think we've discussed him before. I've seen some of what he's written but I'm not sure how I can offer alternative viewpoints on his work without you crying foul and accusing me of "discrediting" him.

Interesting tactic...


Though spring is here to me it is still September
That September in the rain

Collapse -

On discrediting

by maxwell edison In reply to Gore's Documentary and Ch ...

Because that's what you've (you collectively -- the global warming crowd) continually done in the past. I post support for my argument, and the source is either discredited (or a lame attempt to discredit and dismiss) or simply not commented on. NONE OF YOU have ever said something like, That's an interesting observation. I've never looked at it that way. And he seems qualified enough to express a valid opinion. I wonder why the difference in opinions?

You will maintain that man-caused global warming/climate change is an undeniable fact until I (or other dissenters) can prove otherwise. I, on the other hand, will continue to be a skeptic until you (and other global warming advocates) can prove it beyond any doubt whatsoever. Unfortunately, I can't really prove a negative. But YOUR side has proved absolutely nothing, AND you behave as though you have. Moreover, contrary to claims made by you and others, there is not a majority consensus among expert and qualified scientists and climatologists that suggest, one: man-caused global warming/climate change is happening, or two: if it is happening, it's something we can and/or should do anything about, or three: if it is happening, it's necessarily a bad thing, or four: that all possible variables and factors have been considered, or five:...... In short, between the claim and the "therefore what", at best, it might be split down the middle among "qualified" opinions. But go ahead, try to get an ACCURATE and SUPPORTABLE number of pros and cons. I'd love to see it.

Unfortunately, we've being inundated with lies and scare tactics by you people for so long, that now your "theory" has turned into a proven fact in the minds of many. (London is gonna' flood by the rising ocean levels!) As it's been said, a lie will travel ten thousand miles before the truth puts its shoes on. Look at all the people who buy into Al Gore's bogus movie, and compare them to the ones who laugh at it. We're outnumbered probably ten to one, and he won a friggin' Academy Award for it! And for a large part, these are the people who actually control the information in the U.S. -- the main-stream media, HollyWeird, et al. Most people don't read and research. They believe what's being told to them and follow like blind sheep.

And there's another reason, other than the ones I've stated above and in other messages, for my extreme skepticism (but something I've said before). It's the whole crowd advancing the notion. I never have, and I never will trust either their word or their motives. They're the same crowd that, in essence, tells people they're too stupid or helpless to take responsibility for and control of their own lives. They're the same crowd that uses class-envy, race-baiting, anti-business, anti-everything to pit one group of people against another. They're the pro-union people, the pro-collectivist people, the pro-tax people, the what's yours in mine to give away people. They're the people who try to get others' emotions to trump their reason. They're the scare-mongering people, regardless of the issue. They're the demagogues of today. These people have been using environmentalism to advance their extreme and leftist political causes for my entire adult life. I've seen them operate for decades, I know who they are, and I know what they're all about. Why in the world would I (or should I) believe a damn thing they say? And why in the **** would I want to join their camp? Especially when there are reputable people like Professor Gray (and scores of others) who cast doubt on the basis of their whole argument?

And IF they really believed what they say, the issue would be solved by now because they would have advanced the cause by devoting their time, effort, and money actually DOING what they "claim" they want others to do -- what they try to FORCE others to do. They're hypocrites of the worst kind. They're demagogues of the worst kind. They're about the worst mean-spirited bunch I've ever seen. And for some reason, you want to join hands with them.

Here are some of your bedfellows:

One day you'll look to see I've gone
For tomorrow may rain,
so I'll follow the sun

Collapse -

"to join hands with them"

by neilb@uk In reply to Gore's Documentary and Ch ...

Your post rather stops the discussion.

Because I have personally put a lot of time and effort into checking over some of the claims made on the side of the pro and the anti and have come to the conclusion that there is a changing climate and that we are probably contributing to the rapidity and increasing the scope of that change I am, it appears, aligned with Satan.

Ah, well. I'm outa here...

Collapse -

Oh come on, Neil. You're not Satan!

by maxwell edison In reply to Gore's Documentary and Ch ...

But you do, for better or worse, find yourself, as you said, aligned with him/them (figuratively speaking, of course).

But you have to admit, these are the people I SEE advancing the cause. I DO NOT see scores of scientists taking great pains to warn the public of the impending doom. I hear activists always speaking for scientists, or quoting them, or misquoting them, but the real "scientists" are conspicuously absent from the public view. Sure, they'll write articles and such, but they have to have something to show for the funding they've been receiving. Can you imagine your boss paying you to study something, but not expecting some sort of report? If all the scientific doom and gloom was truly widely believed, we'd see a scientific march on Washington demanding action. This alone tells me there's no "consensus".

You may have the education and training to make some sense out of all the facts and figures, but most of us don't. Most of us have to choose to either believe one way or the other. On what should we base that decision? I'd really like to hear your answer to that question. Should the one with the worst prediction get my vote? I don't think so.

I base mine on how I see things:

1. The power and dynamics of the earth and sun, as described in my earlier message, seems like a more plausible explanation for any earthly change than anything mankind is doing.

2. The claims being made are really no different than the way the earth has been behaving for hundreds of thousands of years. Climate has always been a changing dynamic. What else is new? Wasn't the Sahara Desert once a fertile and wet grassland? Did "man-caused global warming" create the Sahara Desert? I think not. So why should today be any different? The earth changes; climates change; that what the earth does. Instead of trying to place blame for the changes and implement some lame cures to stop it, perhaps we should just do what hundreds of generations before us did -- deal with it and adapt.

3. The "common sense" factor, such as something people exhale is destroying the planet. Oh come on, give me a break! We exhale something that's destroying the planet? Yea, right.

4. Just like some people have a distrust of the "religious right" in America, I have an extreme distrust of the "religious left" (THEIR version of religion, that is). And like I said, these are about the only people I see advancing the silly notion.

5. Okay, I DID consider the possibility, but entering into my research with open-mindedness (okay, stop laughing!), I find qualified people -- all of whom are a heck of a lot smarter than I -- who actually disagree among themselves. If they even disagree among themselves, then obviously we need a lot more time before we implement a lot of knee-jerk solutions to solve a problem that might not even be real in the first place. In every other aspect of life, that's about the dumbest thing a person can do.

6. I want to see all of those who believe it to actually walk their own talk. If I truly believed that something I was doing was actually destroying my environment, I'd quit doing it -- regardless of how anyone else behaved. For example, I both teach and practice the Leave No Trace principle -- even if others don't. And if the hundreds of millions of "believers" don't even live their own cure, why should I believe they're sincere?

7. Geesh, already! I get SO TIRED of some people and how they ALWAYS blame every problem on other people. Is this just another one of those times? Some people just need to get a grip.

8. I could go on.....

In short, Neil, I have absolutely no reason to actually believe it, but I have quite a number of reasons to disbelieve it. So I honestly ask. On what should I base my decision to believe or not believe?

Collapse -

Neil runs...again

by sn53 In reply to Gore's Documentary and Ch ...

neil wrote, "Ah, well. I'm outa here... "

And so he runs away again. I am beginning to see a pattern here.

Collapse -


by neilb@uk In reply to Gore's Documentary and Ch ...

I believe that I have simply investigated the science that has been available to the best of my ability and have come to the conclusion that these is significant truth in what I have read that we should at least make some attempt to reduce the the carbon emissions that result from our lifestyle.

Well, I find myself in the position of being allied with Satan and His Cohorts for my simple beliefs in anthropogenic climate change. It would seem that, as Charles Manson and Peter Sutcliffe both believe in climate change then I, by association as a posessor of like beliefs, am a mass murderer.

Even if I ignore that particular issue and concentrate simply on the science I have nowhere to go. If I critque or criticise the scientific statements from anti-GW people then I am accused of character assassination (which would seem to be a characteristic of "my sort".

Do I care to continue a discussion on those terms? No.

Am I running away (as also seems to me characteristic of "my sort")? No.

Am I bovvered? Am I bovvered, though? Do I look bovvered? Am I bovvered, though, Look at my face, does it look bovvered, though? Look at my face. Look at my face. Look at my face, though. Does any part of it look bovvered? Am I bovvered? Ask me if I'm bovvered. Go on, ask me if I'm bovvered. Ask me. Ask me if I'm bovvered. No, I ain't even bovvered. I ain't bovvered. Face. Bovvered. Look. Face. Bovvered. Look. Face. Bovvered? Look. Bovvered? I ain't bovvered.


Collapse -

Neil, one more question

by maxwell edison In reply to Gore's Documentary and Ch ...

(Even though you didn't even attempt to answer the first one.)

Do I or do I not make a good case for not believing?

Collapse -

Maxwell: NO

by neilb@uk In reply to Gore's Documentary and Ch ...

The best that you can do is to make a case for not doing anything about it.

1. Whilst I agree with what you wrote, we can have BOTH. The planet is rebounding after the Ice age and we're giving it a push.

2. See 1, above

3. We BURN something that may destroy the planet. What we exhale is in equilibrium with the plants and what goes around, comes around. What carbon we burn would not, without our help, have ever seen the light of day.

4. Irrelevant to the science.

5. If the scientists disagree then seek out WHY they disagree and allow yourself to be convinced by the one with the best science. Ignore the politics to the best of your ability, find out what's true and then see if you want to pay the price that may be asked. You're also allowed to change your mind.

6. In America? Be serious!

7. In this case, "other people" is all of us.

8. Oh, so could I.....


Collapse -

It is not about the science

by sn53 In reply to Gore's Documentary and Ch ...

neil wrote, "I believe that I have simply investigated the science that has been available to the best of my ability and have come to the conclusion that these is significant truth in what I have read"

When two things happen and can be correlated in some way does that prove cause and effect? The rooster crows. The sun comes up. Did the crowing rooster cause the sun to rise?

Since the last ice age 13,000 years ago we have been in a warming cycle. In the last 100 years it has gotten about a degree warmer. The ocean levels have risen and fallen throughout the life of this very dynamic planet. Did Americans driving SUVs cause those things? Why did most of the warming that has been noted occur in the middle of the 100 year period, when America was far poorer than today? Why do we see evidence of global warming on other planets?

There are facts. And there are political conclusions. Agreeing to one ought not to automatically have you agreeing to the other.

Once freedoms have been lost it is very hard to get them back. Rome will have to fall again. We will have to experience dark ages before this grand experiment in self-government will have another chance to be run.

Back to Software Forum
87 total posts (Page 5 of 9)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums