Gambling With Freedom

Gambling With Freedom

Climate change hysteria could force Americans to gamble with their freedom.

If we embrace the fear mongering associated with climate change, we will opt for regulations with their accompanying bureaucracies that are always associated with government regulations. 

Bureaucracies are the bane of freedom.

Refer back to the cap and trade legislation, i.e., the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, passed by the House, rejected by the Senate, that was over 1,500 pages long.

The House Bill was difficult to read with multiple references to other laws, and where there were multiple occasions where authority was delegated to various executive agencies. The Bill was peppered with statements such as “provided that the Commission certifies that—”

The only way to eliminate CO2 and CH4 emissions is to regulate how emissions are generated, which means regulating every aspect of energy development and energy use.

Here is an actual proposal from The Daily Mail, 16 November 2007, with the headline: 

New green law could ration flights and raise fuel prices.” 

Quoting from the article: “One method could be personal carbon-allowances, where everyone is given a fixed amount of carbon to use each year. Each time they travel in a plane, buy petrol, go shopping or eat out would be recorded on a plastic card. The more frugal could sell spare carbon to those who want to indulge themselves. But if you were to run out of your carbon allowance, you could be barred from flying or driving.” 

This was a serious proposal, to cut CO2 while regulating how you live. How many other ways will the bureaucracy devise to control how and where we live?

Over 80% of the energy we use comes from fossil fuels. It’s impossible to eliminate the use of all fossil fuels by 2050, which is 30 years from now, or even by the end of the century.

Let’s put temperature rise in perspective before doing anything irrational.

If temperatures rise by 1 to 2, by the end of this century, there is no existential threat to mankind.

And 1℉ to 2℉, is what science is predicting. 

“While the original 1979 Charney report projected a 6℉ rise for a doubling of CO2, and the IPCC later projected as much as 8.6℉ warming by 2100, the latest science shows that temperatures could rise as little as 1 and possibly 2.3, with a doubling of atmospheric CO2.”      See, Why There is Good News Now.

One to two degrees F is the same amount that temperatures have risen over the past 150 years, from approximately 1850 to today. Nothing terrible has happened climate-wise since the mid-1800s, so why will adding another 1 to 2 degrees now, create an existential threat?

This chart shows how temperature forecasts have steadily declined.

Graph from Scaffeta in 2017 paper “Natural climate variability, part 2: Interpretation of the post 2000 temperature standstill”.

Meanwhile, organizations such as McKinsey and Company, and people such as Larry Fink of BlackRock, use fear mongering by predicting the worst case scenario in an effort to scare people into making bad decisions.

Graph from McKinsey and Company, January 2020, report, based on RCP 8.5,
Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts.

RCP 8.5 is the IPCC’s worst case scenario.

Here is what Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., said, in his WSJ commentary,

“RCP 8.5, which posits a near collapse of the global economy and a world that burns an implausible six times as much coal as today,”

Jenkins makes clear the extreme nature of RCP 8.5 on which McKinsey and Company based its fear mongering, far fetched graphic.

If CO2 is the cause of some climate change, the only way to protect freedom is to allow climate change to run its course and take steps to mitigate any negative consequences caused by slightly higher temperatures.


Even with a 2℉ rise in temperatures, we will not face an existential threat. Proof of that is what has happened over the past 150 years.

And, as Dr. Judith Curry said in 2017: “There is growing evidence that climate models are running too hot and that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is at the lower end of the range provided by the IPCC.”

The Scaffeta graph, shown above, clearly demonstrates that temperature projections are getting lower and that the perceived climate threat is diminishing.

Taking extreme actions now to eliminate the use of fossil fuels will result in the loss of freedom.

We will be gambling with our freedom, handing it over to bureaucrats, if we take rash actions now.

. . .



Please follow and like us:

2 Replies to “Gambling With Freedom”

  1. I have noticed that some Green supporters say that even if the climate predictions turn out to be wrong, we’ll still have gained the benefit of the wonderful reforms they’re fighting so hard to introduce.