opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Walter Williams
Walter E. Williams
10 Feb 2016
Sloppy Language and Thinking

George Orwell said, "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." Gore Vidal … Read More.

3 Feb 2016
Isn't It Strange?

There is a letter titled "Isn't It Strange?" making the rounds in email boxes. It asks questions to which our … Read More.

26 Jan 2016
Education Insanity

Some credit Albert Einstein, others credit Benjamin Franklin, with the observation that "the definition of … Read More.

Global Warming Rope-A-Dope


Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is going to destroy our planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil. The Washington Post asserted on May 28, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of manmade climate fears. Bill Blakemore on Aug. 30, 2006 said, "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such (scientific) debate on global warming." U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was "criminally irresponsible" to ignore the urgency of global warming. U.N. special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the U.N.'s scientific "consensus." In July 23, 2007, CNN's Miles O'Brien said, "The scientific debate is over." Earlier he said that scientific skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually."

The global warming scare has provided a field day for politicians and others who wish to control our lives. After all, only the imagination limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the name of saving the planet. Recently, more and more scientists are summoning up the courage to speak out and present evidence against the global warming rope-a-dope. Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming."

Dr. Goldenberg has the company of at least 650 noted scientists documented in the recently released U.S. Senate Minority Report: "More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk 'Consensus' in 2008." The scientists, not environmental activists, include Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics, who said, "I am a skeptic … Global warming has become a new religion." Dr.

Kiminori Itoh, an environmental physical chemist, said warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." "So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming," said Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, said, "Many (scientists) are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined."

The fact of the matter is an increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling. Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University says, "Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely." Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden asks, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"

That's a vital question for Americans to ask. Once laws are written, they are very difficult, if not impossible, to repeal. If a time would ever come when the permafrost returns to northern U.S., as far south as New Jersey as it once did, it's not inconceivable that Congress, caught in the grip of the global warming zealots, would keep all the laws on the books they wrote in the name of fighting global warming. Personally, I would not put it past them to write more.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



4 Comments | Post Comment
Yep. "There's no debate" on Global Warming. Which brings us to Today. Everybody THINKS that there's some kind of 'FOG' hanging over the Obama Team, because of the whole Blagojevich-Senate Seat-thingy. There isn't. In case you weren't paying attention, the Obama Transition Team, writing from deep inside the OFFICE of the PRESIDENT ELECT, has put out a REPORT. They, THEMSELVES, have done an INVESTIGATION of THEMSELVES, and they have determined, that THEY have done nothing wrong. So that's that. Scandal OVER. You don't believe me? Watch the Cable News shows. Watch the MSM. They are quoting this 'REPORT' like it was GOSPEL. And come to think of it, since it came from their MESSIAH, I guess it is. And you wonder how they fall for the Global Warming Scam. The Democrat mascot should be changed to the LEMMING. And not just ANY Lemming. Just the ones that are going off the cliff.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Timothy L. Pennell
Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:31 AM
Algore wants to tax my flatulence. Fine; tax it if you can catch it.
His house of cards will crash, and I look forward to its demise. The sooner the better.
Kyoto is fraudulent. Global warming is fraudulent. The Y2K scare was fraudulent. BHO's schemes are fraudulent.
A sucker is born every minute, says the huckster. That is what keeps Algore's gw in business and what's making him obscenely wealthy. He really ought to have JesseJackson as his point man; they operate the same way--by intimidation. The main difference is that AG doesn't have a faux THE REVEREND at the front of his handle.
This too shall pass, and so shall my flatulence, taxed or otherwise.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Juanito Verde
Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:42 AM
Thanx for writing about the global warming rope-a-rope. I wish we could get more fooled Americans to read it. But I am afraid it is all arm waving and we may not get very far.
Another problem is that people think nuclear energy program is too dangerous. They don't realize that in the Nineteenth Century gasoline was dumped at sea to get rid of it – it had no great utility and was DANGEROUS. But we have learned to live with gasoline. The problem is the fear that FDR dispelled was recreated by Jane Fonda. It has slowed the growth of the nuclear energy industry because of more arm waving.
Comment: #3
Posted by: William Felmlee
Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:35 AM
Most of Darwin's theories have proved correct. Yes, he wasn't right about all things, but how many "scientists" did he "debate" before his theories were accepted? And yes, there are still evolution skeptics that have scientific credentials / pedigree. Are they right too?

Is Climate Change real?
I'm pretty sure any rational scientist would acknowledge that using "global warming" is inaccurate and only describes unique periods of the global climate cycle.
Perhaps we are in a period of warming or coming up on a period of cooling, as you imply - are you a scientist? Should I "believe" you?

We need to have rational debates based in fact, not on belief systems or what the majority think. As much as we'd like it to be, science is not a democracy.

Let's get past "Is Global Warming real?" or "Is Climate Change real?" and acknowledge that as humans, we have a CHOICE whether to continue to denude and destroy our habitat or take positive steps to reduce our impact. Either scientifically or economically, even in self-interest, it should be the only path we have.

I suggest you contact George Mason's Sustainability Coordinator for information about what your university is doing along that path.

Comment: #4
Posted by: Robert
Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:03 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Walter E. Williams
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Linda Chavez
Linda ChavezUpdated 12 Feb 2016
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne FieldsUpdated 12 Feb 2016
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 12 Feb 2016

28 Jan 2009 There Is No Santa

11 Jul 2011 Failing Liberty 101

4 Nov 2009 Economic Myths and Irrelevancy