Who Says There is No View Other Than That of Global Warming?

At Jewish World Review columnist Debra J. Saunders writes an article titled "See No Dissent, Call It Science". She writes about a science teacher in Washington state who wanted to show Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, without presenting any opposing information on global warming. A parent protested and was portrayed as a villain, even though he merely wanted additional information presented--he was not trying to stop the showing of the film. Saunders says of the teacher:

In this case, Walls told The Washington Post that she could not find any authoritative articles that counter "An Inconvenient Truth" — other than a 32-year-old Newsweek article. CNN apparently went to the same school as Walls, as it aired a segment in which University of Maryland Professor Phil Arkin asserted, "I don't think there is legitimately an actual opposing viewpoint to the 'Inconvenient Truth' film."

Isn't that interesting? No authoritative articles that counter An Inconvenient Truth. Not anything newer than 32 years old. Saunders immediately shows the falsity of this statement by saying:

Allow me to present a few names. Massachusetts Institute of Technollogy's Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology Richard S. Lindzen complained to the Boston Globe about the "shrill alarmism" of Gore's flick. Neil Frank, who was considered authoritative when he was the director of the National Hurricane Center, told The Washington Post that global warming is "a hoax." Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years.


University of Virginia professor emeritus Fred Singer co-authored a book, "Unstoppable Global Warming — Every 1,500 Years," that argues that global warming is not human-induced but based on a solar cycle. Last year, 60 Canadian scientists signed a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in which they argued that there is no consensus among climate scientists.


Odd, isn't it? Global warming believers heap scorn on religious zealots for not valuing science and knowledge. Yet the thrust of their argument to prove apocalyptic global warming relies on denying the existence of views and scientists who clearly exist.

Debra J. Saunders' article provides yet more food for thought regarding the supression of viewpoints opposing global warming.