Barbara Boxer

Chill Out About Global Warming

We can love nature and still hate the tyranny of bureaucrats' rules.


The Hill, the newspaper that covers Congress, says this year, there will be a major policy battle over "climate change." Why?

We already waste billions on pointless gestures that make people think we're addressing global warming, but the earth doesn't notice or care.

What exactly is "global warming" anyway? That's really four questions:

1. Is the globe warming? Probably. Global temperatures have risen. Climate changes. Always has. Always will.

2. Is the warming caused by man? Maybe. There's decent evidence that at least some of it is.

3. But is global warming a crisis? Far from it. It's possible that it will become a crisis. Some computer models suggest big problems, but the models aren't very accurate. Some turned out to be utterly wrong. Clueless scaremongers like Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Cal., seize on weather disasters to blame man's carbon output. After Oklahoma's tragic tornadoes last year, Boxer stood on the floor of the Senate and shrieked, "Carbon could cost us the planet!" But there were actually fewer tornadoes last summer.

4. If the globe is warming, can America do anything about it? No. What we do now is pointless. I feel righteous riding my bike to work. That's just shallow. Even if all Americans replaced cars with bicycles, switched to fluorescent light bulbs, got solar water heaters, etc., it would have no discernible effect on the climate. China builds a new coal-fueled power plant almost every week; each one obliterates any carbon reduction from all our windmills and solar panels.

Weirdly, the only thing that's reduced America's carbon output has been our increased use of natural gas (it releases less greenhouse gas than oil and coal). But many environmentalists fight the fracking that produces it. 

Someday, we'll probably invent technology that could reduce man's greenhouse gas creation, but we're nowhere close to it now. Rather than punish poor people with higher taxes on carbon and award ludicrous subsidies to Al Gore's "green" investments, we should wait for the science to advance. 

If serious warming happens, we can adjust, as we've adjusted to big changes throughout history. It will be easier to adjust if America is not broke after wasting our resources on trendy gimmicks like windmills. 

Environmental activists say that if we don't love their regulations, we "don't care about the earth." Bunk. We can love nature and still hate the tyranny of bureaucrats' rules. 

We do need some rules. It's good that government built sewage treatment plants. Today, the rivers around Manhattan are so clean that I swim in them. It's good that we forced industry to stop polluting the air. Scrubbers in smokestacks and catalytic converters on cars made our lives better. The air gets cleaner every time someone replaces an old car with a new one. 

But those were measures against real pollution—soot, particulates, sulfur, etc. What global warming hysterics want to fight is merely carbon dioxide. That's what plants breathe. CO2 may prove to be a problem, but we don't know that now. 

The world has real problems, though: malaria, malnutrition, desperate poverty. Our own country, while relatively rich, is deep in debt. Obsessing about greenhouse gases makes it harder to address these more serious problems. 

Environmentalists assume that as people get richer and use more energy, they pollute more. The opposite is true. As nations industrialize, they pay more attention to pollution. Around the world, it's the most prosperous nations that now have the cleanest air and water. 

Industrialization allows people to use fewer resources. Instead of burning trees for power, we make electricity from natural gas. We figure out how to get more food from smaller pieces of land. And one day we'll probably even invent energy sources more efficient than oil and gas. We'll use them because they're cost-effective, not because government forces us to. 

So let's chill out about global warming. We don't need more micromanagement from government. We need less. 

Then free people—and rapidly increasing prosperity—will create a better world. 

NEXT: Does Florida Let You Bring a Gun to a Popcorn Fight?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bring on the global cooling. I want the midwest to be completely uninhabitable.

    1. I wonder how long it took for the glaciers to spread that far south during the last ice age. It is pretty awe inspiring to go to a place like Illinois or Indiana and see how flat it is and realize that the glaciers were so far south and so think that they basically rolled the land flat like a rolling pin flattening a piece of dough.

      1. It is crazy to look at the abrupt difference at the southern edge of where the glaciers stopped. And there is lots of coal under there, so it was extremely warm at one time, too.

        1. The water in the Great Lakes was once frozen and sitting on top of the whole midwest. That and a lot of other water. The Great Lakes are inland seas. They are hundreds of feet deep in places. It makes you laugh to think how stupid these people have to be to believe that man can make ant’s fart worth of difference on a scale that large.

          1. They believe it because that’s what the facts say is happening, you ridiculous moron.

            1. No TOny, they are not…

              Even the IPCC’s assesment agrees that we aren’t.

              “What the IPCC says, and what the media says it says are poles apart. Your talk is a perfect example of this. Low liklihood and low confidence for almost every nightmare scenario. Yet this isn’t reflected at all in the media. Many people here have expressed concern at the influence of climate sceptics. Wouldn’t climate scientists’ time be better spent reining in those in the media producing irresponsible, hysterical, screaming headlines?”

              Tumbleweed followed for several seconds. Then Matt said:

              “Not my responsibility”.

              So take your fucking unscientific superstitions and stick ’em where the sun don’t shine. Your cult has already caused too many deaths, misery and poverty.

              1. I’m sorry, I don’t see where it says that humans can’t cause major changes to global climate because John is a moron and can’t wrap his head around the idea/is indoctrinated by rightwing media.

                1. The part that says extreme warmth or ice ages will happen again at some point anyway, whether or not people even existed.

                2. I bet people’s habits won’t make more than a couple decades difference in long term climate change. A century or two at most.

                3. I work in Genomics lab where we work with corporations, universities, government agencies and independent researchers to develop a blueprint for interrogating genetic material to its fullest extent. My whole professional existence is based on current scientific discoveries, careful attention to detail, the scientific method and an understanding of the limitations involved in our methods, technology, personnel, statistical models etc etc etc.

                  That being said, a human liver cell (or any type of organism) is still a mystery to us in so many ways and continues to surprise us in the way that its internal environment changes in response to various stimuli or preprogrammed changes. In addition, these cells are studied under conditions that reduce outside influences (those not being studied) to as close to zero as humanly possible.

                  So, when people claim that our incalculably complex planetary biosphere has been studied with our very limited technology in just a few decades of its 4.5 billion year old existence warmed by our sun (that burns hotter than 85% of all suns in our galaxy and undergoes magnetic cycles and life phases we are only beginning to understand) and can be definitively predicted to respond in X (warming) way to Y stimuli (increased carbon emissions) they are so full of shit if you gave them an enema you could fit em in a suitcase.

                  Such sentiment is the epitome of dogma and the left seems to have forgotten that dogma is a BAD thing.

                  1. Why do you hate the children ?

                  2. But we do understand the greenhouse effect.

                    1. Who’s ‘we’?

                      I know plenty of people around here and around the world that understand the greenhouse effect. I’ve seen no evidence to count you among them.

                    2. No we don’t, Tony. There is not a linear or geometric relationship between carbon in the atmosphere and increased temperatures. This is true for multiple reasons. The biggest is that studies have shown massive increase in carbon capture by vegetation as carbon increases in atmosphere. This effect wasn’t known until we actually saw it in action. Proving yet again, we know very little about the way our bioshpere (not just the ecosystem because you must include the interaction of life with the environment). Also, changes in solar radiation have proven to have a much greater effect on global temperatures than anything related to anthropogenic carbon increases. If they have this all “locked down” how come neither of these effects were predicted nor accounted for in any models?? They didnt know and would rather ignore than take an honest account of the situation.

                      AGW has become politicized and is no longer a scientific matter to be studied and discussed (much like abortion and when life begins). People like Tony who don’t know the first thing about atmospheric reactions, global temperature trends and the relationships between various life forms and the ecosystem have pretended otherwise and circled the wagons to root for an outcome. Science is all about not aiming for a specific result. This is antithetic to good science.

                      We should all be skeptics about everything. The fact that the left uses this label as a pejorative just goes to show that it is politics and not science.

                    3. In the 70’s we were all going to die in the coming ice age. Looks like we fixed that problem but oh no now we have global warming! Think of the children!

                      As TANSTaaFL said we’re reacting to very short term changes in a very long term cycle of complex interactions.

                      And I love the RAH reference.

      2. Check out the Finger Lakes – cut by glaciers, some are 600 ft deep. And there are very substantial morains at the southern ends.

    2. Buy real estate in the South.

  2. Then free people?and rapidly increasing prosperity?will create a better world.

    Hey, John; I believe that is called burying the lede. The warmist crowd doesn’t like free people, nor is it interested in increased prosperity. “A better world” does not mean to them what it means to you.

    1. Freedom means asking permission and obeying orders.

  3. “The Hill, the newspaper that covers Congress, says this year, there will be a major policy battle over “climate change.” Why?”


    Because disbelief in the AGW theory is on the rise as is the evidence that the proponents of it have doctored data, have built models that don’t accurately predict actual temperatures and generally can’t prove their assertions.

    They see things like the Australations throwing out the bums who instituted a carbon tax in recent election and countries in Europe having to scale back their “green” energy subsidies and mandates becuase they are economically unaffordable and destructive and they become ever more desperate to ram legislation through to acheive the control over other’s lives that they eternally lust for before their chance to do so disappears altogether.

    1. And the AGW cult are really sensing that the opportunity to steal is passing them by. Europe just gave up on carbon restrictions and is embracing fracking. Australia is doing the same. Bullying the US into doing something is about the last move they have left.

      1. They never had a chance, but they could never see that. The politicians will go along with their demands to a certain point, but the instant the demands mean that the politicians might get voted out because people are pissed (you’ll note that the incandescent ban was passed, but not scheduled to be implemented for years because people would shit bricks), the politicians will stop going along.

        Popular sentiment has shifted against the climate cultists, people are sick of being told things are going to be even more expensive even as the economy sucks, and the cultists are now at a point where the next step in their plan requires getting even more extreme. The politicians are mostly done with their bullshit. The cultists are fucked, as they should be.

        1. It was really popular when believing in it meant spending other people’s money and doing shit like recycling and buying a Prius that allowed you to show off how enlightened you were. But when believing in it required actually sacrificing your standard of living, people said fuck this.

          1. Fads are fads. The CONTROL types of this world, especially the ones who do stuff like start campaigns about “global warming” or “climate change” are too stupid to understand that sure, they can get people on the bandwagon, but that support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Because it’s a fucking fad. And like all fads, not only will support instantly disappear if you make things the slightest bit difficult, but it will also fade over time because that’s what fads do. People get sick of them.

            And the best part of fads is that when people are done with them, they are disgusted at how much they dove into them, and never want to see them again. Like bell bottoms or Swatches.

            Live by the fad, die by the fad, CONTROL scum.

            1. You can’t really sell a religion where salvation is in this world. And that really is what AGW is; a religion where if we all live the chaste life the world gets better. It is like those cults that say Jesus is coming back this December. When Jesus doesn’t show, everyone loses interest. Same with AGW only it is less dramatic and more gradual. Eventually people are going to notice that the winters are still cold and no Island nations have been returned to the ocean just like people notice Jesus didn’t show at the appointed time.

              1. But the Mayans were right, right? RIGHT?!?

              2. Doomsday cults are doomsday cults.

              3. Luke 17:20-22
                “Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

                There are several other passages that indicate Jesus was talking about a spiritual kingdom, not an after-death salvation.

                1. I think he was talking about after death salvation too. But it is absolutely undeniable that whatever “salvation” is like and whenever it is coming is not something that Jesus said we could figure out on our own.

                  I really don’t understand how people come up with the idea that they can know what the future holds.

    2. I predict that the left will throw in the towel on the AGW cult as soon as they figure out some pretext for global cooling to justify expansion of government power.


      1. They have a backup “crisis” already teed up to agitate for the power grab they enternally seek:

        Income/wealth INEQUALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        1. Ocean acidification is the next crisis.

          1. Alka-Seltzer can cure that


          1. Go in to as much debt as you want. I will not be responsible for it.

            1. Good point. Does anyone spend 40% more than they take in every year, year after year? Can’t do it since no one will lend you the money.

              If the US was a person making $50k, the equivalent level of debt would be $400k, and his long term obligations (SS, Medicare etc) would be over $1,200k. Your average person has no clue how deep we are in the shit.

              1. Just take a few zeros off the actual figures. If the federal gov’t was a household, it would have a 27,000 annual income, 37,000 annual expenditures, 170,000 in debt, and long term obligations of 800,000 – 1 million.

                1. You’re forgetting it is also on the hook to support the neighbor, and the neighbor’s kid when they decide to stop working.

  4. s/b Australians in previous post.

  5. Industrialization allows people to use fewer resources. Instead of burning trees for power, we make electricity from natural gas.

    For those who haven’t seen it, the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti.

    1. I’ve seen climate-change speak twist the language so hard that they now justify burning trees for heat. Using “bio-mass” for heating is now “carbon-neutral” if you replant.

      But they didn’t tell the EPA who are trying to make woodstoves too expensive to buy.

      1. They will do anything to avoid the obvious solution to their perceived problem: nuclear power. Clean, no CO2, reliable, dispatchable.

        That is how you know that this is about something other than global warming.

        1. Yes, this is what I always thought. If you were truly interested in reducing CO2 you would push for the US to follow France’s lead and go 80% nuclear.

    2. Have you ever been to the DMZ in Korea? Same thing: collectivist heaven is treeless and the evil capitalist tyranny of the south is forested.

  6. I wonder if the AGW crowd is even largely aware that US carbon emmissions have been falling and are now back to early 90s levels, while it’s the BRIC nations and the Middle East that are seeing rapidly expanding emissions, while the nice green Europeans haven’t reduced theirs at all.

    I think the US is now down to only about 16 or 17 percent of global emissions if I remember correctly.

    So the US adding a few more windmills isn’t going to do shit.

    The key to global emissions reductions, if it happens, will be a set of new techologies that are economically viable without the government’s heavy hand. We saw how fast natural gas is taking over, because it’s economically viable. It’s going to have to be like that in the future.

    1. To be aware of that, they would have to care. And to care, actually reducing emissions, rather than having an excuse to enforce socialism on the world would have to be the goal.

    2. you give the AGW crowd too much. It does not give a shit where carbon levels are, would argue you to the death on the point, and they count on a massive cohort of the uninformed to NOT know.

      You are arguing facts against emotion. It’s a no-win approach.

      1. There is no truth except Global Warming, and Al Gore is HIS prophet.

    3. “So the US adding a few more windmills isn’t going to do shit.”

      “China builds a new coal-fueled power plant almost every week; each one obliterates any carbon reduction from all our windmills and solar panels”

      And this is where the other side goes off the rails. Neither of those statements are completely true.

      Frankly, Stossel’s statement is just blatantly wrong. Currently US wind power alone produces the equivalent electricity of 60 average US coal plants.

      And I realize that both intermittency (the wind doesn’t consistently blow and the power’s not dispatchable) and subsidies are significant problems. However, the cost of a solution to intermittency is exaggerated. The solution exists in the form of Pumped Hydro power.

      It’s the Rightwing version of the Left exaggerating the problems with Nuclear Power.

      1. Frankly, Stossel’s statement is just blatantly wrong. Currently US wind power alone produces the equivalent electricity of 60 average US coal plants.

        No, it does not. Nameplate capacity in the US is about 60GWe (cool timelapse map lower on the page). That does not mean that wind power produces 60GWe. Even with a generous capacity factor of 33% (more likely in the 20’s) that means your installed 60GWe is really producing 20GWe. The average size of a thermal plant in the US is about 500MWe, so that would be about 40 coal plants at a CF of 100% or 50 plants at a capacity factor of 80% which would be on the low side for most baseload thermal plant.

        And pumped storage is not a solution.

        But let’s continue to play the game: If we indeed demanded 2 TW of power from about 170 pumped-hydro stations, we’re talking 12 GW of production capability each. This is significantly larger than the biggest hydroelectric installation in the U.S. (Grand Coulee, at 6.8 GW). Times 170.

        I think at this point, you can see why quibbling about the need for 1 TW vs. 2 TW or requiring 2 days of storage vs. 7 days is not going break the logjam of a hard problem. Even accomplishing 1% of the requirement I have laid out would be super-impressive.

    4. Your information is out of date.

  7. The globe is cooling and even a small increase in temperature is a bad thing. I agree that government is completely incapable and are leveraging this to tax people and support rich assholes. That doesn’t mean we should just “sit back and wait for science” to fix things. Wow.

    1. The alternative to science fixing things, or ‘not doing anything’ because it isn’t a problem in the existential sense, is the proglodytes solution to everything, sacrificing the human race for a cause (see Soviet Union, Maoist China for examples) which is indeed an existential problem for us.

    2. How’s that cult working out for you? As bad as it seems? How hilarious.

      1. They are amusing to watch because of the sullenness and wrath that eat them up every time their plans are set back by something like Davos getting shot down, sun cycle cool downs, the CRU e-mails, the gapingly obvious hockey stick fraud, and the predictions like sunken cities by now having not occurred. Styx is not just a river in Hell with these guys.

        1. Dear god you are stupid.

          1. I can only feel sorrow for one such as you. The torment you must feel when you gaze upon the thoughts committed to words of a superior being I can not imagine.

    1. But it’s a slideshow and thus invalid.


    3. I hope this was a joke.

      That’s a lot of assertions without evidence and question begging made 2 years ago. Also, SLIDESHOW!

      1. I hope this was a joke.

        It’s a joke for sceptics, but dead serious for LiveScience and their target market.

        1. Target Market – hippies who hate corporations but would go into withdrawal if they couldnt use their iphones to send out location updates on facebook while waiting in the Starbucks drive thru in their VW bugs?

          1. Those, too; plus anyone who needs prepackaged talking points to “debunk” criticism of climate change/AGW sceptics/critics.

            It is PR warfare and by “busting” “myths” (a common enough tactic of progressives/feminists) they provide ammo for those who want to discount sceptics/critics.

            1. too true. I just love the “we use science and are more logical in our thinking than you Koch-Skpetic troglodytes” attitude while blatantly misusing scientific findings and data in a way that should turn a HS science teacher’s hair white.

        2. Everyone is taught in grade school the importance of CO2 in the photosynthesis process. It’s essential to process of life on Earth. And I’m willing to bet that almost all your Lefties were devout believers in the “Science” at that point.

          The Left trying to label CO2 a pollutant at this point is just a form of Orwellian Newspeak.

          1. Most plant growth shuts down at about 200ppm, and then we starve. The pre-industrial Panglossian Earth we are supposed to worship had an atmospheric CO2 level of about 280ppm or just barely above the point at which we lose our food supply. Tell me again why adding some CO2 to the atmosphere is a bad thing.

            Plants sure don’t seem to mind.

            As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types.

    4. Well that site is BS. Hand-picked data, no citations, vague and intentionally misleading language. Most importantly, it makes the pretense of being a scientific rather than the literary/editorial journal it actually is.

      Of course, none of that bothers you Neo-douche because you enjoy sitting in your bubble and bathing in confirmation bias. To hell with people starving, dying of malaria or being kept in pre-industrial living conditions because of AGW policies and PR! As long as you feel good about yourself when you are eating wheat grass and drinking non-conflict coffee, all is well.


    6. LiveScience is not just wrong, but wrong on each and every point.

      1. OK, then let’s go to ScepticalScience’s Global Warming & Climate Change Myths.

        These people are even “reappropriating” ‘scepticism’ in their slogan “Getting sceptical about global warming scepticism”.


    So, variations in solar activity have caused dramatic climate changes in the past but ” However, it is important to understand that research also indicates that these solar effects are minor compared to modern-day anthropogenic effects. Even if there is measurable cooling, a grand minimum should not be relied upon to slow global warming.”

    That’s right, the global warming that isn’t happening. Can these people even hear themselves?

    1. But massive periods of global warming/cooling occurred in the past without human activity. Almost makes you tempted to think something else was going on.

      1. Clearly mankind had intelligent, technologically advanced predecessors. Perhaps giant squirrels of some sort. Who changed the climate and are no more.

        1. The dinosaurs farted a lot too, ProL.

          1. That didn’t involve TECHNOLOGY or CORPORATIONS, silly.

            1. But what about T-REXes?!?

              BANG A GONG GET IT ON

              1. Are you suggesting that Tyrannosaurus rex masturbated using those tiny little arms? This seems implausible to me. Do you have supporting fossil evidence for this claim?

                1. It was totally possible, since they had gigantic, 12′ T-Rex penises.

                  1. Ah, excellent riposte. I concede defeat, provided you can demonstrate fossil evidence to support your claims.

                2. Dude, if you can’t masturbate without your hands, you need to work out more.

      2. But we know what’s causing it this time, and it’s human greenhouse gas emissions. We KNOW this. It’s not a mystery.

        1. “We KNOW this. It’s not a mystery.”

          The science says no such thing. We have a theory about the process.

          Learn some basic science.

          1. We have a theory about the process

            Not to be pedantic, but it is an hypothesis, not a theory. Theories have substantial, reproducible evidence. AGW is just a crude attempt to explain a rough correlation between temperature and CO2. Upon further review, it has failed.

            1. I started to go with the word hypothesis, but frankly there is some gray area there. And I’d probably give AGW the benefit of the doubt in this regard.

              “A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis.”

              I think you could probably considered AGW as an “accepted hypothesis”. Certainly it’s not without many doubters, but neither has it been disproven.

              To be fair, I have a bias. I believe the basic tenets of AGW. I think that CO2 is a major factor in global warming, though not necessarily the only factor. However, where I part ways from most of the AGW crowd is in the belief of catastrophic AGW. I’ve seen no evidence to support it, just massive amounts of unproven speculation. Furthermore, most if not all the models supporting a rapid, long term rise in global temperatures don’t match the current data. So they’re complete crap.

              Mush of AGW, has morphed, into catastrophic AGW, and most of the skeptics waste their time debating the proof of minor global warming, which is pretty persuasive, and ignore the silly catastrophic AGW hypotheses, which are routinely shown to be wrong.

              1. The problem is that CAGW or really just “global warming” in the vernacular posits a huge positive feedback for water vapor. Direct warming from each doubling of CO2 (that would be 560ppm and we’re at 400 now) by theory only adds 1-1.5C. The models have been calibrated using an ECS of 3C or greater so basically they assume the positive feedback to match the late 20th century warming. Unfortunately what nature giveth it can also taketh away. You don’t get to claim that natural variability is swamping GHG forcing now and keeping temperatures flat without also acknowledging that that same natural variability could have caused much of the late 20th run up.

                I don’t know what “major” means, but even though the IPCC can claim 95% certainty, I don’t see how they can claim to be serious scientists when the models built upon their hypotheses have failed so spectacularly. A real scientist has to admit that they may be wrong (or at least less certain, not more) when their predictions are falsified by data.

        2. You don’t know that, Tony. You believe it, and that’s not the same thing. It’s rather like the way you believe that Obamacare is a good thing.


          1. You have to be seriously committed to being misinformed not to vaguely appreciate the level of scientific certainty in this matter. It’s just a Google search away.

            Science isn’t optional. You better find a way to figure that out. People might stop taking libertarians seriously.

            1. You really must be the person least rational, most ignorant and most deficient in critical thinking skills to comment on this site.
              Science is a method of analysis – it does not “say” or “tell” any more than a ruler tells us how long my microscopic pecker my be.
              Logic doesn’t “dictate” – again a process of analysis.
              Declarations of opinions as “fact” shut down genuine discussion because they attempt to dismiss genuine dispute and discourse.
              Don’t be such a troll.

            2. When you use the phrase “scientific certainty”, I know that you are utterly bereft of any understanding of science.


        3. All you have is your religious belief that the principles of Trofim Lysenko are the same as the principles of the Scientific Method.

          Real scientists follow the Scientific Method. Your beloved “climate scientists” refuse to do so – their work cannot be replicated because they keep their data, algorithms, and computer code secret.

          Why do you think they do that?

  9. Wow, and to think I visit a website where the commentariat is just a bunch of denialist kochsucking scum. The end is nigh! What is wrong with you people!?

    1. Sex your freaky, hippie mom turned us all off on that sort of life style.

  10. You misunderstand. Free people cannot build a better world without guidance and control and a powerful and omniscient Government. People are basicallly too stupid and selfish to do so. (Of course, what many don’t see is that these same stupid and selfish people also run that Government.)

    1. Are you suggesting they are not the golden, chosen beautiful people whose destiny it is to lead us out of squalor?

      You did see Beyonce at Michelle’s party, right?

    2. We’ve taken care of everything
      The words you read, the songs you sing
      The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
      It’s one for all and all for oneLook around at this world we’ve made
      Equality our stock in trade
      Come and join the Brotherhood of Man
      Oh, what a nice, contented world
      Let the banners be unfurled
      Hold the Red Star proudly high in hand

      We are the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx
      Our great computers fill the hallowed halls
      We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx
      All the gifts of life are held within our walls

      We work together, common sons
      Never need to wonder how or why

      1. gah, cut-n-paste screwed me.

  11. I hate to say it, but I think the earth laughs at man’s impact on it. When a single volcano eruption spews as much carbon in the atmosphere as 50 years of human impact on the atmosphere, there is little that can be said. The hubris of Al Gore is comical. 98% of the heat on earth comes from the sun, 1% comes from geothermal sources, and the other 1% is up for debate. We are the same country that set off over 700 nuclear tests in the 40s and 50s in New Mexico and Nevada. Now we are worried about someone driving a car that gets 18 miles to the gallon.

    1. I’ve often wondered about a couple of things… like before man, every tree that fell in the forest, just rotted releasing all it’s carbon back into the atmosphere.

      Now we have less forests, but more patures (crops). We’ve also turned thousands of acres of desert into lawns and crops and palm trees. Doesn’t that count for eating up carbon dioxide?

  12. Global warming reminds me of “paying your fair share”. They won’t define what a “fair share” is, so it’s always just “more”, and they won’t say what the optimum temp should be, just that it’s “changing”.

  13. We already have a perfectly good alternative to CO2 emitting power plants: nuclear power plants. Despite the scaremongering over radiation it is still our best option for just about any electricity production in the near and long term. We have lots of fuel available, it emits little to no greenhouse gasses, and modern designs are made so that they will not meltdown even if someone intentionally tries to make it meltdown. Even the existing plants are orders of magnitude safer than other forms of electricity production (more people have died installing rooftop solar panels than have died in the nuclear power industry, for example). Not only that, but it is the only form of power generation that is required to account for all of its waste, and anyone can buy devices that can monitor for waste emissions at a level far below anything that could harm living things.

    Take the time to educate yourself and you’ll be asking a lot of questions, like if AGW is really so dire, why aren’t we taking advantage of what we already have to fix it?

    1. I agree with you. It is telling that most who are worried about climate change aren’t promoting nuclear at every opportunity.

      1. It’s even more notable that most of those people advocate shutting down the existing Nuclear plants. Germany is in the process of destroying its First Rate manufacturing industry, do to a hysterical over reaction to Fukushima.

        1. And shutting down nuclear is requiring the Germans to build coal plants, blowing their CO2 commitment out the window. This proves how serious they consider AGW.

          Merkel’s hasty decision to ban nuclear makes it difficult to achieve the country’s carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets. And Germany does not seem to be very serious about achieving those reductions. According to Laszlso Varro, head of the gas, coal and power markets division at the International Energy Agency, the phase-out has already caused a 22.7 million ton[3] annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions, equal to the annual emissions from 4.4 million cars in a country of 80 million residents. Laszlo concludes this rise in carbon dioxide emissions is largely due to the new coal plants that have come online to meet the shortfall of power.

      2. I was surprised by Discover magazines touting of nuclear as part of the “solution” to global warming.

        Until I remembered that they were for nuclear power all along. Just another bandwagon jumper.

    2. On the issue of safety and nuclear power: the idea that Three Mile Island was precipitated by sabotage popped up again last week. Does anyone know if that is even a remote possibility?

      1. I can’t imagine so, or it would have leaked by now. But in any case Three Mile Island was a dramatically overhyped non-event.

  14. If there are any Global Warming believers out there who live in Southern Florida…. I’d like to trade my home in New Jersey (6 degrees F this morning) for your equal value home in Southern Florida.

    You don’t like “warming” and I don’t like the cold. Swap?

    1. It was -34? F in Watertown, NY this morning.

      1. Both of you are speaking about weather. Stossel is attempting to speak about climate.

    2. I live on the water. My house is about 30′ above sea level. My neighbor, a scientist and a firm believer in AGW was going on about how the sea levels will rise by about 20′ within a short time. This was about 7 years ago. His house though sits only about 10′ above sea level. I called him on it. Do you really believe this? Of course, he said. We have passed the tipping point. Well I guess your house is going up for sale, I asked. Mmmmm, no. Why? Why?!? Your house is going to be under water in less than ten years. You must, if you believe this, be putting your house up for sale immediately. It turned out he was going to hold off until it was closer to being under water. I pointe dout if sea levels rise even two feet in the next few years his house becomes unsellable. Now is his only hope. No, he was going to hold off a bit.

      He didn’t really believe in it when it came right down to it.

  15. There is a model being developed that explains about 90% of the variation in earth’s temperature over the past 150 years without invoking CO2. It relies on two mechanisms – solar activity as indicated by sunspots, and the multidecadal ocean cycle. This model integrates the sunspot number as an indicator of accumulated heat input – and uses a 4th power as it should for radiative heat transfer. The ocean cycle is less important, but has a period of about 65 years, adding or subtracting from the heat content of the earth. Importantly, this model closely models the shape of the T curve of the earth for the past 150 years, while all CO2 models are monotonically increasing since CO2 is constantly increasing.

    An entire journal was devoted to the planetary explanation for the sunspot cycle. The journal was then disbanded because it dared to question AGW!! Farenheit 451

    1. Why would the journal be disbanded no matter side it took? There is a worldwide conspiracy that funds all AGW science and gets dissenters to cease? Tell me exactly how that conspiracy functions, and who is funding it.

  16. I didn’t realize John Stossel was a climatologist. Is there anything he’s not an expert in?

    1. You don’t need to be a climatologist to have an informed opinion Tony.

      1. Perhaps not, but that’s not the sort of opinion John Stossel has.

        1. Is that your informed opinion, Tony?

          1. Actually it is.

    2. He’s not an expert, rent-boy, nor does he claim to be. If expertise is a necessary prerequisite for speaking on this subject, then Al Gore and the rest of your favorite politicians should shut the fuck up.


      1. But Stossel is lying because he’s an idiot and you guys trust him more than the experts. It’s a crime against thinking.

  17. Really, John, what drivel. But at least it shows your improvement over previous positions you held. “Global temperatures have risen, decent evidence man is partly the cause, potential for a crisis.” Just about 5 years ago you were among the crowd that there was no warming, and there is no potential for it to be a problem.

    And then you start with the strawmen.

    Al Gore and Barbara Boxer have nothing to do with it. You are being warned by science, including every single major science organization in the world. The potential for catastrophe is real. Read up on the website of the National Academy of Sciences rather than Al Gore.

    China is taking steps to address it, and may eclipse what we do. They may be the worst emitters now, but your suggestion that they are doing nothing about it is uninformed. But read it at Bloomberg.…..-says.html

    You make the point that regulations in the past have in fact been BENEFICIAL and have worked. But as far as climate change, you just want to throw up your hands and surrender. Surely you are not serious that too much CO2 is in the end just beneficial to plants. John, not if that increased CO2 causes droughts, extreme weather, and temperatures that allow insects and plant disease to thrive.

    But at least you are starting to come around. Too bad for the rest of us your enlightenment is happening at a snail’s pace.

  18. By the way, you say “We can love nature and still hate the tyranny of bureaucrats’ rules.”

    And then you say “We do need some rules. It’s good that government built sewage treatment plants. Today, the rivers around Manhattan are so clean that I swim in them. It’s good that we forced industry to stop polluting the air. Scrubbers in smokestacks and catalytic converters on cars made our lives better. The air gets cleaner every time someone replaces an old car with a new one.”

    Tyranny of rules, the need for rules. Which is it that you are warning us about?

  19. I say we dig a trench from the East African rift valley all the way to the red sea, and create a huge sea of shallow water. Ditto the area of Australia that’s below sea level, if possible (one of the cities is there)

    All that extra water surface will transpire tons of moisture, which will have a greenhouse effect, but it will also have a watering and mediating effect on climate.

    This will remove any effects global warming has permanently. Not that the anthropomorphic theory is true.

  20. “Today, the rivers around Manhattan are so clean that I swim in them”

    Yeah. I dunno why everyone thinks they’re so dirty. It’s only dirty because the rivers by NATURE are full of dirt and silt. I saw some kids swimming in Piermont (NY state) in the river and I was like “Good that they know that” Even the East River. Too much you say? I dunno, I just don’t see how THAT much shmutz can be getting in there, it’s all just the sparse gas spills and dog poos on New Yorks paved streets, and maybe some garbage juice. That’s not actually that bad when you compare how much water there is and it’s flow rate

  21. Stossel,

    Your metric has been captured, you look at a problem and think as the first response – the only response – is more government. You are against increasing the size of government, so therefore you are against admitting any such problem exists.

    You are wrong.

    The solution is less government.

    The climate change solution is obviously less government. Carbon pollution is caused by consumerist culture* – consuming too much of everything, inefficiently and too quickly causes a massive carbon footprint. Post-2008 the government of the USA has borrowed and spent $trillions on cultivating consumption, extending this culture. The US government is wasting $trillions of dollars to promote the wastage of $trillions more on stuff we do not need.

    It is a sick culture that needs to die.

    * Consumerism used to be financed privately by burgeoning home values that allowed people to buy now pay later with the equity of their assets, but then in 2008 this culture fell flat on its face. Without government spending it would be dead.

  22. my co-worker’s sister-in-law makes dollars81 every hour on the computer . She has been without work for six months but last month her payment was dollars13913 just working on the computer for a few hours. check out this site

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.