The Global Warming Ruse


There is so much talk about climate change these days. Is it a result of human activity? Is it just the normal cyclical change the Earth always goes through? I believe it is a combination of both. The Earth’s climate has always been in flux; there have been times of great heating and times of cooling.

The proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) would have us believe that mankind is the only cause of the change in climate we are now experiencing. They would have us believe that humanity’s increased use of fossil fuels has caused irreparable damage to the Earth. My question to them is who causes this change, the suburban American that burns natural gas for heat or the African bushman who burns dung? The American farmer that uses a gallon of Diesel fuel for every 5 acres of land he plows or the Chinese farmer plowing with methane producing oxen? Now, the AGW advocate will say that the suburban American and the American farmer have a larger carbon footprint because of their affluence. But what if we all returned to burning dung and using oxen? Wouldn’t the climate be far more threatened by millions of dung fires and millions of oxen? Yet this is the result of the AGW advocate’s thinking: to give up the things that use fossil fuels.

Hidden in all the talk about climate change is something far more insidious and far more dangerous. Every proposal to “combat” AGW involves more government control and a larger burden on the very things that make the West prosperous. Taxation of carbon dioxide, onerous regulations that, in fact, decrease the efficiency of gas and diesel burning vehicles and miniscule changes such as the type of light bulbs we use do not help alleviate climate change one iota. The AGW crowd is devoid of ideas that will ease the inevitability of climate change. They only recite the litany of horrors, the unavoidability of humans to prevent a cataclysm that will lead to the destruction of the planet, if not the solar system and the universe. They want us to turn to solar and wind, energy sources that are far more expensive and far less efficient. Isn’t it amazing that the proponents of these energy sources are turning to government and its cronies for relief?

The champions of this movement fly on private jets while they deride the jet exhaust that contains greenhouse gasses. They live in mammoth estates that burn more energy than entire neighborhoods. They have fleets of automobiles. Thus, the AGW crowd does not really believe their own hype about climate change. They are doomsday prophets that want to convince the masses that, because of climate change, we need the government to control energy, transportation and manufacturing to ensure that we are doing our best to combat this dreaded situation. The whole movement is about one thing: socialism.

There may be a human component in climate change. I think it is miniscule. When volcanoes erupt, the climate changes radically. The force and amount of climate changing material that a volcano can produce is exponentially greater than what we produce in any given year. Climate change is also a fact. The climate has always changed and always will.

The AGW advocates like to cite that human activity can cause changes in climate. But large-scale nuclear war or meltdowns have not and are likely to ever occur. Yet they use this remote possibility to demand we give up our prosperity in favor of a government controlled existence. Theirs is a world of public transportation for the masses and free conveyance for the wealthy and well-connected. Theirs is a world of rationing of resources and rolling blackouts. Theirs is a world of urbanization and multi-family housing.

This is socialism at its most insidious. Bringing fear to the people to gain control is no new strategy. AGW has been knocked down statistically over and over. Yet the mantra remains the same. The urbanists and the deep ecologists have joined hands with the socialists and communists. Don’t mistake this as science; it’s government domination.

About Author

Dave Jones

Dave Jones has been an active Libertarian for 30 years. He currently resides in Northern California, Murica's regulationland with his lovely mate Diane. He is currently working toward liberating the Northern California region from the State through the State of Jefferson movement.

  • Tubored

    I’ve got to say, I’m very disappointed to see this on PRL. I’ve always thought of libertarians as critical thinkers and seeing a climate change denial essay here is disheartening. You can point out the hypocrisy of those in the debate, but the science is there, AGW is real and it’s a problem we need to solve. We need to push free market solutions to this problem, not deny its existence.

    • Chris Swanson

      You didnt read the essay then did you ? 1 volcano can change the climate . The past proves it. The essay does give man credit for aiding in the warming minuscule as it may be. What it rallies against is more government control of us and the elitist slobs flying around on private jets telling us peons how to live. Solar and wind are inefficient its a proven fact. As a matter of fact wind mills kill 500k birds annually some are endangered and yet there is no out cry about that by the environmentalist community due to the religions strict sharia type adherence to the movement. Think about it.

      • Tubored

        Uh, as a matter of fact I did read the essay. Yes, one volcano can change the climate. One asteroid strike can too. Does that mean we should ignore our own contribution simply because we don’t have a monopoly on affecting the climate? You claim it is a minuscule, but the science disagrees. The best working theories of climate change show we’ve made an appreciable effect upon our environment and it’s going to have serious and possibly irreversible consequences.

        I do see environmental outcry about bird-strikes on wind generators. There are scientists exploring those problems and looking for solutions. There are also animals being killed by concentrated solar thermal plants. Do you think there are no wildlife casualties in fossil fuel extraction and refinement?

        No means of energy conversion is 100% efficient, so would you care to define inefficient? I certainly think that waiting hundreds of thousands of years for biomatter to convert to coal and petroleum would not be considered efficient by any standard and we certainly aren’t consuming it in a sustainable manner. We don’t need our energy generation to be highly efficient if the source is the sun. It puts out more energy than we could ever use.

        You can complain all you like about “the movement”, but what you can’t deny is the science with any kind of credibility. Continuing to deny the problem only perpetuates it and leads to solutions you’ll be less happy with. Embrace the problem and find solutions that make the trade-offs you find less egregious.

        Can anyone prove climate change is real and caused by our rapid consumption of the stored energy of the planet? No, it can be proven. There are no double-blind studies here. But scientists have come up with a well-founded theory, and observed effects and evidence that corroborate that theory. Frankly, I’m sure they all wish they’re wrong because the results will be dire for many areas of the planet. But even if they are wrong, and we still make changes away from fossil fuels, we’ll end up with a more sustainable energy system that doesn’t rely on an exhaustible system of resource extraction that has led to so much war and conflict.

        • felixthecatsucksass

          And those wars were waged by governments. You read the article, true, but your comprehension is obviously limited by a closed mind; you’ve made up your mind and nothing will change it, reminiscent of those who held the Earth as flat. History is full of scientists proving each other wrong. Every time someone like yourself has made up their mind about a matter, scientists release a new study going in the exact opposite direction. The credibility of science is always in question, as it should be, so progress can be made. You do know that for the past 15 years, those hypothesized rise in temperatures leveled off, right?

        • Karl Schipul

          “Can anyone prove climate change is real and caused by our rapid consumption of the stored energy of the planet? No, it can be proven. There are no double-blind studies here. ”

          And yet even though your own case by your own admission is not 100% strong, you still try to trash talk and bully those who are skeptical.

    • PunkRockLibertarians

      You seem to be reading what you want to read, Tubored. Like Chris said below, the author is more emphasizing the reliance on government to solve the problem than denying the problem exists. Though I disagree with the author on the amount of influence that people have on Climate Change (I think it is much more significant), that doesn’t change the point of the essay. -JS

    • Karl Schipul

      “I’ve always thought of libertarians as critical thinkers and seeing a climate change denial essay here is disheartening. ”

      But critical thinking actually means being open minded to evidence that may support a different conclusion. Obviously you refuse to acknowledge or examine contrary evidence in this circumstance. You made up your mind about what the conclusion should be and just declare everything different from it to be wrong.

  • Guy with the awesome hat

    I disagree with this article in it’s assertion that the current climate changes are not fully anthropogenic. That being said, it’s true that the government does often use this crisis to expand it’s power. But, the government is part of the problem. It’s their subsidies that aid the largest corporate polluters. It’s their regulations that make it hard for entrepreneurs to find green solutions to current problems (like the regulations that make it near impossible to build an Earthship). Libertarianism’s anti government sentiments are the best way to allow a culture of “being green,” and the innovations to help reverse the current climatological trends.

  • LeaveWellEnoughAlone

    This is an issue that we as libertarians and people passionate about limited government need to take the lead on. We need to use this as an opportunity to show how individual innovation and ingenuity can come up with sensible solutions to this problem. I’m not a scientist. I’m educated in history and literature. I’m inclined to believe that current evidence of climate change reflect BOTH normal, cyclical geological patterns AND a certain degree of human causation. Even in the event that people have nothing to do with it I think it would be advantageous to figure out ways to minimize our impact on the environment before even the most adamant climate change denier has to admit we might have something to do with it. Why does something have to become a glaring, obvious problem before we do something about it? We won’t always be able to save ourselves, Superman-style, at the last minute. Less governmental involvement would be ideal. Don’t subsidize energy corporations (particularly big oil and coal which already enjoy corporate welfare) simply eradicate legal and financial impediments to small start-ups and individual, private researchers “doing their thing” to get to the bottom of the problem and find solutions. Yes, the earth has always gone through cyclical environmental shifts…even predating the existence of humanity…but cleaner, less-harmful energy sources would go a long way toward making sure our contribution to these normal shifts in the future is minimal.
    Overall, though, I think this is an example that proves the cliché that government will take advantage of any crisis (real or perceived) to increase its sprawl and influence. I, for one, think that Americans are too squeamish about nuclear power. Yes, toxic waste is produced, but meltdowns and near-meltdowns are less common than the general public fears and nuclear power produces a much smaller carbon footprint. Eventually, technology will catch up and our ability to store or “shoot into space” the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants will make radioactive pollution less of a concern. Just a thought.

  • ted

    Thank goodness the “libertarian” Koch brothers, Peabody and the rest are availing themselves of that “free speech”, as provided for under Citizens United, to give millions in “donations” to the GOP representatives who chair the Science, Space and Technology Committee so they’ll rail against the “Global Warming myth”, pollution regulations and witches (okay, I made the last one up, but give it time). The fact remains that glaciers have calved and receded more in the last decade than they did in the preceding century and the 97% of scientists who link it to man made causes (many of which were formerly the most outspoken AGAINST the relationship between the two) can’t ALL be wrong. But then the majority of rational human beings also believe that the Earth is round and considerably older than 6,000 years despite the very vocal minority of science deniers who dispute THOSE facts as well!