The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (11 comments)

  1. I’ve quit reading the Economist. It seems like their solution to all problems (booth real and imagined) require more power from the state.

    Notice they mention that the temperature is different now than it was in 1913. Just like 1913 was different than 1613. The only reason they’re alarmed is because the models (that aren’t working) told us the temperature would increase dramatically.

  2. everyone looking at the sky when they should have been out to sea…more than 80% of the CO2 is going into the ocean and forming carbonic acid, and the reefs & shellfish are dying off..

    1. Really. The amount of shellfish that is being harvested now is far more expansive than it was even 10 years ago. So I would think it has nothing to with climate change, global warming or carbonic acid as you put it. More like consumer demand for multiple demands of shellfish, fish and other seafood that is destroying the shellfish. In regard to reefs that again would be people building where they should not and tourists and even marine sciences that should leave it alone and allow the earth to take of itself. Just sayin’

    2. RonRonDoRon

      Can you cite sources for this info, please?

      1. Max Planck
        1. So much for CO2 killing off the shellfish industry. I guess that nobody told the lobsters that CO2 was bad for them.

    3. Oh! Oh! Another one of the carbon dioxide myths starting surface again…

  3. mesa econoguy

    These same idiots want to reorganize the world economy based on crap science.

    Before proposing a civilization-wide multi-trillion dollar reorg, you need to first justify the cost.

  4. As it is, the worst-case climate change scenarios look less likely. But does this argue for doing nothing more than watchful waiting and adapting to the impacts that do occur?

    Yes Jimmy. Global warming is not a threat. And if you have paid attention you would have noted the deemphasis of the warming rhetoric in favour of climate change quite some time ago. Like all government sponsored projects and views the AGW story is a scam in search of taxpayers and consumers to be fleeced. The trends are not driven by human emissions of CO2 but by changes in solar activity that drives natural cycles. The current data is indicating that we are going to go through a period of cooling, not warming. Expect more old people to die in places like England and Germany as they are unable to find or pay for the fuel that is needed to heat their homes. And expect the eventual backlash from voters against idiot politicians and charlatans pretending to be objective scientists.

  5. republicanatheist

    The Economist used to be a relatively free-market oriented newspaper. Since it has endorsed Obama twice, it seems to have changed its philosophy. It still has good international news.

  6. And I thought we had some pretty dumb citizens in this country…

    Claim: Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content