Very good points as always but you'd have better luck trying to explain these things to a bag of hammers than to the global warming true believers

While I agree that predicting the future is a risky business, Williams may want to investigate his so-called facts.
Meanwhile, what's the price of oil? How much is it costing us at the pump? How much is it costing us elsewhere?
How is the air in Salt Lake, Provo, etc.? That wouldn't have anything to do with gasoline, would it? Bad air results in disease, deaths, and increased health care costs.
And of course there's a food shortage right now. Food prices are rising, and people in foreign countries are starving because rice is too expensive...part of the reason is drought, and part of the reason is our decision to grow corn as fuel instead of food.
Let's face it...we're trying to replace gasoline with biofuels, and all it's doing is making corn farmers happy and increasing the price of food.
These are some reasons we need to move away from gasoline and corn biofuels (or at least decrease consumption) and move towards better forms of energy (solar, wind, nuclear).

It's alway great to get the lowdown on global warming from an economist. Maybe the Sutherlund think tank, boys can fund a paper on the subject. Paul Harvey, Rush Limbaugh and Mr. Williams can give us all the rest of the story, and set those ignorant scientists straight.

"Damn the torpedoes, Al, full speed ahead."

Mr. Williams forgets that Global Warming is more religion than science. Reason will not prevail upon the zealots.

Maybe these fall under the class of "false prophets" the Bible says will come forth in the latter days. Al Gore & Huntsman the Younger included.

End the discussion. Liberal Larry, meet Cambridge. A man changed against his will, is of the same opinion still. GW zealots want to believe, therefore they are unchangeable, no matter what the contrary evidence. I get really weary when the response to any point is simply to invoke the Rush Hannity card as though that trumped all reasoned thought. Give it a rest Liberal Larry.

Great points Walter Williams and Anonymous (first reply). The left has been behind the "environmental" movement since the 60's, at least. They screech about the sky falling over and over and normally don't cause much damage. However, when they demanded a ban on DDT in the 60's and got it passed, at least a million people PER YEAR died of malaria due to a lack of the best mosquito control agent. The World Health Org. finally lifted the ban on DDT last year. If the man made global warming hoax is pursued, the impoverished people of the world will suffer again at the hands of the extremist enviros.

Here is what I find interesting about the whole "Global Warming Debate". The climate is not constant, yet Al Gore and the other "Global Warming" activists would have us think that we should have the same temperatures year after year.

Some of the problems with their theories is that they do not have complete data. Yes, they have temperature readings from 100 years ago, but they are based on thermometers placed at various locations. They are subject to error based on their location.

Next, they often clain that the ice sheets at the poles are the smallest that they have recorded. The problem with that is the lack of data. They have only been watching the ice sheets since around 1979, which was a time when we had unusually high amounts of cooling and snowfall at the poles.

I don't deny that the climate is changing, but how arrogant are humans to think that they can effect such a dramatic change to something so complicated?

DDT...
A couple of more facts about DDT...
Had DDT been used solely for destroying malaria, there would've been no need to ban it. Unfortunately, it was sprayed everywhere for everything. Kill household pests! Get rid of farm pests! Get rid of bugs on the beach! DDT was the solution to everything.
As a result, birds such as the peregrine falcon and the bald eagle started to go extinct. DDT may or may not affect other living things, but we know that it thins the shells of these great birds, and so these birds ran into serious problems.
As a result, the US banned DDT.
Even Rachel Carson, who was largely responsible for informing people about the hazards of DDT, admitted that pesticides should be used sometimes.
Unfortunately, DDT is no longer as effective as it used to be. Many mosquitoes have developed a resistance to it (they've evolved) because we used DDT without thinking about the consequences. We could've mostly eradicated malaria had we used DDT sparingly...but because we used mass amounts, it was eventually banned in the US and, when used elsewhere, it is no longer as effective.

YouGoFirst stated "how arrogant are humans to think that they can effect such a dramatic change to something so complicated?"
Humans have a lot of power. That is not arrogance...it is the truth.
There's a much quicker, easier way to cause dramatic change: build as many nukes as we can and then set them off.
Nuclear winter, anyone?
Our arrogance is seen in how we treat each other and how we treat what God has given us (including this planet).

Outside of nuclear war, can we really alter the climate that much? CO2 only comprimises .03% to .06% of the atmosphere, and a large portion of the CO2 being produced every year comes from NATURAL sources.

I do agree with Timj, we are arrogant in the way that we treat eachother and the planet.

Still, "how arrogant are humans to think that they can effect such a dramatic change to something so complicated?" (Outside of nuclear war)

Why do we assume that that people are the cause of global warming, Mars, which has no people/plants/animals on it is going through global warming. NASA and other groups have confirmed this.

Assuming that the atmosphere there is relatively constant, why would Mars be warming at the same time we are?

AM RADIO GUY
is (surprise!) completely wrong on his "facts". There has always been a clause allowing the use of DDT to control malaria, and in fact DDT continues to be used to this day in many places (not always very wisely, as Timj notes). Mexico has never stopped using it to combat malaria, yet Mexico has a growing malaria problem with DDT resistant populations.
Hey, AM guy; cite somewhere we can go to see your source! But Rush doesn't count.

The ice sheets this year have recouped their shrinkage according to news casts yesterday. The sun which is usually pimply with sunspots at this time in it's cycle, is remarkly clear. Cooler weather ahead. I just love it when nature confounds puny mankind. That said, man should do what he can to ease his burden upon the earth. Garbage everywhere, can't we pick it up? Reasonable water policy. Sewage treatment. These are necessary and admirable uses for our taxes, not some individual's drug perscription and other wasteful ever growing entitlement consumption programs.

Maybe you should follow your own advice. I don't see a citation for your "facts" either.

In each of the cases of dire predictions gone awry cited by Mr. Williams, the scientists of the day were just as convinced they were right as the global warming alarmists are today. Yes, our scientific methods and knowledge are better. But the zealousness is the same, as is the disregard for uncertainty and alternative explanations.

For example, ask a climatologist to explain the lag of CO2 rise centuries after temperature rise at the end of the last several ice ages and cold periods. They'll admit they don't know, but they'll force a highly uncertain explanation on you, ever faithful to the dogma that CO2 MUST be to blame. You'll find that on reputable web sites.

I knew that all the usual liberals would be spewing anything and everything but facts.

Not one person has proved the quotes from Mr. Williams to be false, erroneous, wrong. Instead you try to attack the messenger and try to change the subject.

These are the typical strategies employed by liberals when presented with facts.

The issue is what Mr. Williams has detailed, not your hatred for Rush, Hannity, Bush or anything else.

Liberals line up behind global warming, but have no facts to support it as being man-made.

Stick to the issue liberals....We know you can't because facts prove you and your theories wrong. So, just stay off the boards today with your hatefilled garbage that does nothing but show how shallow liberals really are.

As I've said many times, this earth will not pass away until He who is in charge of this earth says so. And He will do it in His own way and in His own time.

It's raining at my house right now. I'd like any liberal to come up and stop the rain please!

FM, Better check some facts yourself. First though, re-read my post. I mentioned that the WHO changed its position last year (I should have said 2006). The massive preventable death really happened and leftist environmentalists were behind it. I don't think the Des News allows links, but if you google "heartland institute and Africa Launches DDT Attack Against Malaria" It should be the top link you get. I'm surprised you are in denial on this.

Dude! This is an opinion page. Do you really think any of us are qualified to scientifically prove this issue one way or the other?

Yesterday's discussion on Intelegent Design and this thread today seem to attract the same group and some guys who think they are scientists and want to hear what other opinion writers credentials and citations are. It's just a discussion!

It is always highly interesting that those that listen to the lies of Rush Limbaugh THREE STRAIGHT HOURS PER DAY AND FIVE DAYS A WEEK are always quick to remind you to "stop bringing up Rush Limbaugh stories." Ie., ediddy 8:07.

The jig's up neo-reds.

We're wise to you.

Williams says "More than 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere." Really? My sources say that that number is somewhere betwen 36 and 70%. Certainly not 95%.
You asked for evidence that Williams is wrong, and there it is. And all you have to do to find that info is to search for "greenhouse gas" and click on any one of the first few links.

As far as DDT goes, search for that too, and click on the first link. DDT was banned worldwide for agricultural uses...but not banned for disease control. By the way, the more we use DDT, the less effective it becomes. So the agricultural ban probably ended up saving lives...

Wise to the Neo-Reds: Many of us, despicable conservatives, don't listen to the radio at all and television rarely. I consider it sound pollution. My conservative opinions were formed long before talk radio existed. Reading has always been and will always be my source of information. To some,the mention of Limbaugh, Hannity and Bush is like waving a red flag in front of bull.

"So the agricultural ban probably ended up saving lives..."

LOL... lib logic, ya gotta love it. Rachel Carson may well end up being even more revered, by the left, for the Malaria debacle as she is for starting Planned Parenthood. Carson, by the way, was one of the "progressives" who were pro-eugenics.

From the article I mentioned earlier:
"Tanzania's health minister announced at a May 6-7 disease control conference that Tanzania will immediately lift its DDT ban. Ugandan officials made a similar announcement in April. Mozambique, which has long ignored neighboring South Africa's pleas that it use DDT, will begin using U.S.-supplied DDT this year. South Africa, which began using DDT earlier this decade, has reduced its annual malaria death toll from 458 in 2000 to 89 in 2006.
After effectively eliminating malaria in the United States, DDT was banned here in 1972 by then-EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus. His decision defied and overturned the decision of an EPA administrative law judge who, after seven months and 9,000 pages of scientific testimony, ruled DDT posed no risk to humans and had been falsely blamed for a thinning of birds' eggshells and the decline in the U.S. bald eagle population."

How right you are, Lionheart. (no pun intended)
If only our local neo-reds would wise up and see how Rush O'Hannity is making chumps of them (while laughing all the way to their banks).
These nasty people with their nasty way of communicating is like watching a dog or cage fight.
I really think America at large is quite tired of this sort of "civil discourse." Don't you?

Man is the only animal that poisons it's own drinking water and air that it breathes.

Nature will be better off when man has (like every other animal) gone extinct.

AM Radio Guy:
So a few countries in Africa banned DDT altogether. I agree that was a stupid move.
By the way, insect resistance to pesticides is real, and the more we use a pesticide, the less useful it becomes. People are dying right now from malaria because the DDT that is used is no longer as effective as it used to be, and some mosquitoes are resistant to it. This is not lib logic...this is basic science. Just like bacteria has evolved resistance to certain frequently-used antibiotics, insects evolve resistance to certain frequently-used pesticides.
As far as your Rachel Carson info (starting Planned Parenthood???) I don't know where you're getting your information from. I'm assuming (from your name) that it's from AM radio...but come on now, not only is that silly, but it's stupid.

By the way, if you want to get some insider knowledge about how DDT affects peregrine falcons, Utah's lucky to have a resident expert. His name is Clayton White, and he's a professor at BYU.
Despite what you hear on talk radio (and I know I'm bringing it up again, but when you name yourself AM RADIOGUY I think it needs to be brought up), DDT does thin eggshells of top predator birds. There's a lot of good science out there...but you'll have to turn off your radio and go read from the experts (like White) to find it.

George Wald was correct . . . in 1970. Thanks to progressive environmental legislation, particularly by Democrats in the early 1970s, his prediction was at least temporarily staved off. The Clean Air Act, the Nat'l Environmental Policy Act, RCRA, etc. didn't exist in 1970. Thank heaven they do now.

All I have to say to you conservatives is: Rushbots, Hannity-lovers, Bush drones. NeeNer NeeNer NeeeeeNer. See, I win. That's how we liberals argue the facts.

It doesn't matter if Global Warming predictions are real or not. God gave us this planet and it's our responsibility to take care of it and keep it clean and free of pollutants for our children. Can you possibly argue with that? I heard someone say that the earth doesn't have a nougat center made of oil. Our resources aren't going to last forever so we have to conserve them.

I've got a great idea!

Why don't all you neo-reds just write a thousand times, ... no, on second thought, make that a MILLION times, the word liberal. That's L-I-B-E-R-A-L on a blackboard somewhere or even on this blog.

This should offer some assistance to you and save everyone a lot of time and trouble.

I can help you started ...liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal ...

@Mahershalalhashbaz,

I'll acknowledge that Gore is a false prophet of the Left if you'll acknowledge that Rush and Hannity are the false prophets of the Right. Fair enough?

I'm a Liberal:
A lot of posters here have posted real facts and arguments against Williams (which really isn't difficult to do). And not all of us are liberals...we just realize that most talk radio is extreme...just like Michael Moore can be extreme.
But I doubt you see the irony in your own post.

Stupid scientists.

Just a bunch of name calling. That's ok. we know you can win the debate with facts.

Despite someone's claim, no one has disproved the statements by Williams. Those he quoted said what they said and believed what they said. The realization of those statements is no where to be proven.

Although, one could say that by the year 2000 there was an extinct group, liberals who could think for themselves instead of being hoodwinked by radicals.

Gore is already proven to be a false prophet, by his own accord.

You Rush haters have a long way to go since you fulfill his prophesies each day.

Many of you, as Williams suggests, need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

And I know of no one who wants to intentionally hurt the environment or anything on the earth. However, there is a huge difference on whom is doing what and how it can be resolved.

Just look at the food prices due to the ethanol fiasco. You really have no idea about your unintended consequences to foolish propaganda enacted.

Liberal, like the word conservative is entirely subjective.

The definition all depends on whom is doing the defining.

I am a teacher but I work summer in mosquito abatement since I can't make it alone on teacher pay (but that is another story). I have to keep up on methods to abate mosquitoes as part of my job. We have many products that kill mosquito larvae/pupae and adults. They are for the most part too expensive for under-developed countries to use. DDT was no longer needed in the USA because it did reduce malaria to almost nothing. So when it was tied to reducing the bird population it was easy to ban it here. Then there was the push to ban it world-wide which for the most part was successful. Malaria cases is inversely proportional to the use of DDT.

The mosquitoes can develop resistance to the organo-phosphates if that is all that is used. In mosquito abatement we use different products to combat the developing of resistance.

On the subject of alarmists, Al Gore was giving his "the world will suffer irreparable harm in ten years" speech over ten years ago. The average world temperature has not risen for ten years according to a pro-global warming British newspaper I read a couple of months ago.

Mankind has the tendency to put off certain disagreeing facts until the last possible moment.

Dear "Wise... @11:41"
It may surprise you that i don't listen to either Hannity or Limbaugh. I only find it annoying how many times some people invoke the names Hannity , Limbaugh etal as though the mere mention of their name served as a reasoned rebuttal for whatever the topic of the day may be. You anly prove my point by taking issue with my annoyance, but then, this is an op ed page and you are free to look vacuous if you wish.

Why do "liberals" hate being called "liberals"? I would think it would be a badge of courage you wore proudly. I love when people call me a "Conservative".

I don't know if I like the new name calling, "Red Dog", "Neocon", etc, but I figure I have to put the derogetory tone aside and assume it's just his word for "Conservative" and take it as a compliment.

And to that anonymous guy who asks EVERY day, "What to Conservatives conserve"... NO, no one is going to answer your stupid question or take your rhetorical bait.

Please don't blame people who care about the environment for the corn biofuel issue. I'm guessing more of us so-called environmentalists would rather move to nuclear than biofuel. Biofuel in the US is just a way to get votes, much like the gas-tax break McCain and Hillary like so much. It's also a way for politicians to say "Look! We don't have to rely on foreign oil any more!" Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons it does more harm than good.

To 'Still Waiting':

You seem perfectly happy to accept random quotes cherry picked from the past as somehow being evidence against global warming. The fact is that none of the 'predictions' mentioned in the article were ever taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community. This stands in contrast to the mountains of evidence for global warming that has convinced EVERY major scientific organization that it is indeed something to be reckoned with. With libraries full of information it doesn't seem far-fetched to be able to find plenty of 'predictions' to support any point of view when your methodology is to cherry-pick quotes randomly from the archives. It is nothing more than a straw-man argument to somehow relate these quotes to the science behind global warming.

Perhaps you do a little introspection as to why you so uncritically accept any lousy, irrelevant argument that happens to come from anyone downing the same 'Kool-Aid' you're holding.

By the way, predictions that environmentalists make are generally conditional. "If we don't do this, then this will happen." Kind of like Old Testament prophets..."If you don't repent, God will kill you." We have made some significant advances in the last few decades, and significant improvements have been made. Therefore, for Williams to claim that the predictions have not happened...of course they haven't. We have, after all, improved things.
On the other hand, some people find it necessary to be alarmist in order to get any attention. Republicans do it too (think about all the fear-mongering and all the talk about "if we don't fight them there we'll have to fight them here" talk). I'm not trying to excuse the environmental alarmists...I think they're wrong to forecast death and destruction when all that will really happen is disease. But we really should make sure we take care of the gifts God has given us.

The Stockholm Convention, ratified in 2001 and effective as of 17 May 2004 restricted the use of DDT to vector control. This means mosquito control (and other species that spread disease). The Convention was signed by 98 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. The public health use of DDT was exempted from the ban until such alternatives are developed. This means that DDT was expressly allowed to prevent human deaths, by treating mosquito populations.

Malaria Foundation International states:

"The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations over two years ago. For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."
Google Malaria Foundation International to verify.

You might note that the foundation is APPROVING the restriction of mass use of DDT on agricultural crops, precisely because it was creating a DDT-resistant mosquito.

Big Al -
Go back to class.
And tell me where you teach as I am not too keen on the neocon agenda forced down the throats of my children.

Seems like spaghetti man and timj are full of apologies today...No one took those scientists for the real deal; predictions are like ____ everyone has one...

Sure, sure....Al gore was predicting over 10 years ago that in 10 years it would be gloom and doom for the world. Now he's on another tear and the scientific "consensus" is in... so the debate is over. Well there are plenty of scientists who dispute your claims. UK courts have identified lies in your inconvenient lie.

So please spare us your "spin" on the situation as it exists today. Global warming is already being disproved hand over fist. The question is why are you going down with the Titanic when the captain has already jumped ship?

Do you own stock with Al Gore and his carbon credit loons?

Environmentalists always run screaming that the sky is falling....

And it's interesting to note that it's the libs who have turned this into a left/right issue instead of right/wrong.

I hope you can hold your breath because the ship is almost under water.

What is it aboutthe neo-reds like "The apologists are out 5:48, that compels them to take every story (undoubtedly from Rush Limbaugh's famous "drive-by liberal media") and create some sort of paranoia from it?

Could it be some bad bottled water they are consuming?

Re 'The apologists are out':

I'm not sure why the global warming 'deniers' always equate any flaw with Al Gore as if it is a flaw with global warming science. Science doesn't base its conclusions on the word of its most visible proponents, it bases it on the facts. If Newton was a ravenous serial killer it wouldn't somehow disprove the laws of gravity would it? You need to tone down the ad-hominem attacks and focus on the science. Just because you have a few scientists backing you up doesn't say much when you compare it to the extreme vast majority of scientists who have weighed the evidence and found it convincing.

I think it is funny when those in the lay population think that they are so much smarter than whole of the scientific community who spend their lives studying this stuff. Perhaps you should try to read some of the evidence gathered by actual science rather than blindly accepting what is spoon fed to you by AM Radio. But that may be too much to ask from someone who places more credence on blind faith to authority over fact.