Global Warming Doubters Strike Back

by | Columns

Every few years, some group of scientists, egged on by the media, is persuaded to warn mankind of some new danger facing the human race. This triggers the anxiety that always floats just below the conscious level in most people, and serves the purposes of the media by generating several months of gratifying headlines. It also serves the purposes of the scientists, by giving them months of flattering publicity, not to mention the financial rewards that accompany scientific papers on the subject.

The excitement dies down in due course, but there is always some new peril being discovered. Remember the ozone hole? And whatever happened to acid rain?

But by far the most durable scare in recent years has been that generated by the supposed dangers of global warming. The Earth’s climate is never absolutely stable. It is always either warming or cooling by tiny fractions of a degree per year, and recently it has been warming. By extrapolating this process beyond any justification, the usual scaremongers have managed to convince a good many otherwise sensible people that human activity is responsible for the warming, and that we must slam on the brakes or face disaster.

A November editorial in The New York Times spelled it out: “… the consequences could be disastrous: further melting at the poles, sea levels rising high enough to submerge island nations, the elimination of one-quarter or more of the world’s species, widespread famine in places like Africa, more violent hurricanes.” What’s more, there is no time to waste: “…the world must stabilize the emission of greenhouse gases by 2015, begin to reduce them shortly thereafter and largely free itself of carbon-emitting technologies by midcentury.”

In support of this nonsense, the Times offered the report of “the International Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2500 scientists who collectively constitute the world’s most authoritative voice on global warming.” In the ensuing months, a major effort has been made to establish that this panel’s view is the all-but-unanimous opinion of the world’s climatologists on the question. It is, however, no such thing. More than 19,000 scientists have signed a petition saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. (The complete list can be seen at www.oism.org/pproject.)

The International Conference on Climate Change is meeting this week in New York City. Its topic is “Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?” and according to the announcement, “More than 400 scientists, economists and experts will meet … to challenge the claim that global warming is a ‘crisis.'” Under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, 50 organizations are co-sponsoring the event, including the John Locke Foundation, the George C. Marshall Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Among those participating will be Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, who has long opposed the global-warming hysteria; Dr. Robert Balling, professor of Climatology at Arizona State University; Dr. Vincent Gray, executive director of the New Zealand Climate Coalition; Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of The Rockefeller University; and Dr. Willie Soon, chief science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute.

It is too much to hope that even a gathering of experts as impressive as this one will deter the global-warming hysterics. The latter are hell-bent on forcing down emissions associated with the use of fossil fuel, on which the United States relies for 85 percent of its energy. This can be done only by restricting the supply or raising the cost of energy — especially coal, which provides half of America’s electricity.

But it is heartening to know that the scientific community is at last finding its voice and speaking out against such folly.

*****

This article originally appeared on Townhall.com on Mar 06, 2008

Author

  • William A. Rusher (1923–2011), publisher of National Review (1957–1988), was a leading conservative spokesman, columnist, and author. He helped draft Barry Goldwater for the 1964 GOP nomination, shaping the party’s future. A Princeton and Harvard Law graduate, he served in WWII, worked in law, and advised the U.S. Senate. In 1989, he became a Distinguished Fellow at the Claremont Institute and remained active in conservative circles until his passing in 2011.

    View all posts

Recent Articles

Justice Clarence Thomas Reflects on Progressivism, April 15, 2026

Clarence Thomas — full remarks on progressivism, its foundations, history, and impact from his appearance at University of Texas at Austin: “Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao were all intertwined with the rise of progressivism, and all were opposed to the natural...

Rusher’s Wise, Vital Voice at National Review

“Bill Rusher is every bit as vital to National Review as I am,” William F. Buckley informed the audience at the magazine’s 20th anniversary dinner in 1975. “Tonight he has been trenchant, which he always is; and diplomatic, which usually he isn’t. In contrast to his...

Conservatism v. Progressivism

Who We Are: What is Conservatism? Conservatives in America seek to conserve the political inheritance of our Founders. That inheritance is a system of governance premised on the unchanging nature and God-given sovereignty, equality,...

A Model of Political Effectiveness: How Rusher Did It

William Rusher strengthened the conservative movement as an energizing leader, a formidable debater, an incisive columnist, and an engaged mentor who made things happen.  His success in these multiple roles makes his career a rich lesson in political...

Quotes on Progressivism: Definitions and Distinctions

Gathered and prepared by David Frisk “What, then, is progressivism? … we can think of it as an argument to progress, or to move beyond, the political principles of the American founding. It is an argument to enlarge vastly the scope of national government for the...

The Quotable Bill Rusher Part 2: From His Books

Special Counsel (1968) “… a steady diet of political infighting tends to coarsen, and ultimately to cheapen, most participants. They approach politics as reasonably honorable citizens, and by imperceptible degrees it sucks them into its vortex. The plainly right...