Shortcuts & Delusions: I Love Global Warming


Hello and welcome to Shortcuts & Delusions, a wholly owned subsidiary of Being Libertarian Inc., a division of Uni-Chem Consolidations LLC, a Bilderberg corporation specializing in industrial lubricants, munitions, genetically-modified cauliflower and tricycle wheels!

If you’re passing through as part of the bi-hourly tour, please remember to follow the yellow line on the floor as deviations from this path will not be tolerated and non-adherents will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The use of cell phones for any purpose during this time is strictly prohibited. If security hasn’t already confiscated your phones, please place them in this basket, and they will be returned to your sweaty hands upon exiting the building. Please be advised: do not enter any doors marked with the classic “skull and crossbones” and/or trefoil ionizing radiation warning symbol, as those are highly sensitive and hazardous areas (around the office, we refer to those areas as Automatic Cancer Rooms (ACRs), due to the high levels of radiation emitted from our R & D projects).

If you’re here as a taxpayer, curious as to why your dollars are required to subsidize a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, rest assured that the money is sagaciously spent on subsidizing golden parachutes (severance packages, as well as actual, literal golden parachutes used by wealthy skydivers), writing off irresponsible debts, and retaining a bevy of tax lawyers so that we comply with the tax code to ensure Uni-Chem reports a loss so as to avoid paying a 40% tax on our profits.

If you’re here as a government regulator, customer, vendor, shareholder, or one of the many, many politicians we routinely bribe, thank you for your continued cooperation and support of Uni-Chem’s mission statement of making the world a better place for transnational corporations.

If you’re here because of the clickbait headline, please contribute your thoughts in the comments section regarding its effectiveness. Alternate headlines were “I Heart Global Warming” and “I Global Warming.” Are those more or less triggering? Thank you in advance for your assistance regarding this important sensationalist matter.

Irregardless the purpose of your visit today, we are very appreciative of your patronage of Uni-Chem! Without YOU, our employees, directors and shareholders would not be able to collect their inflated paychecks. We are constantly developing projects to bring to market products that will help individuals simplify and streamline their busy lives. For example, Uni-Chem is concurrently developing and qualifying products that create, as well as mitigate, the effects of man-made global warming We here at Uni-Chem believe ALL global citizens should benefit from climate change!

Enjoy your time here at Shortcuts & Delusions, and please be sure to visit our gift shop!


In northern New Jersey, we’ve been experiencing a 10 day stint of unseasonably warm weather this February, which is typically one of the most frigid months of the year. In what can only be described as malicious irony, the hot romance of Valentine’s Day limps into February; Black History Month is also in February, and blacks stereo-typically do not enjoy cold weather. February is an appropriate time for families to take a vacation to enjoy a reprieve from the chill. Parents who win enough bread can afford a week in Florida, and the truly privileged could stay at a Disney resort (you can purchase a decent mid-level SUV for the cost of a Disney vacation for four).

This past week is a Godsend for Leftists obsessed with man-made climate change because it is a real world reminder that there is something out of the ordinary. It shouldn’t be this warm in February, and if it’s this warm that means it’s due to man-made global warming, or climate change, or whatever the phrase du jour is, and that means it’s a result of the use of fossil fuels.

The most vociferous proponents of government intervention in the private sector to solve the current climate crisis are not scientists, and, perhaps not surprisingly, a large portion of the experts who comprise the revered “97% of scientists consensus” who agree that climate change is mostly man-made, are not climate scientists (I’m no climatologist either, which is why I blame that stupid gopher Punxsutawney Phil for the erratic temperatures).

Those on the Left are so preoccupied with the horrors of climate change that it blinds them to the potential innovation, technological advancement and wealth creation that could be spurred by climate change. Necessity is the mother of invention, and nothing better illustrates this maxim than this YouTube clip. The past routinely informs the future; any solution to the dangers of climate change will be provided by the private sector.

Somewhere along the line, the Left decided that it is immoral to derive profits from the private production of anything they deem a “human right.” This includes not only food, water, shelter, and clothing, but now healthcare, education and an environment free from fossil fuel pollution and any other carbon footprint. Government must be the arbiter of what is right, and must provide the basic necessities of life, because, rest assured, government will do such an inefficient job in providing these commodities that no profit could possibly be made. If they had their druthers, the Left would confiscate your tax dollars to fund any and all “positive rights.” In a perverse way, you will be “investing” your capital, via wealth stolen through taxes and regulatory capture.

This, of course, is one of the most destructive concepts eroding modern civilization. If Leftists truly wanted these commodities and services to be “affordable,” they’d advocate removing government-imposed barriers to their production.


When there is a profit to be made by selling any commodities or services, including these necessities of life listed above, vendors will enter the market and compete for your dollars, thus driving down prices. Market competition is what makes food affordable, not legislation titled “The Affordable Food Act.”

We see this everywhere there is a government-mandated “solution” to a societal ill and/or threat to the lives, liberty and property of American citizens. This is where the vague phrases “do something” or “something must be done” originate: the solution doesn’t matter, it only matters that something is being done.

The private sector is results-oriented; employers & employees, and customers & vendors, demand a return on their investment of time and capital. They expect to receive something they perceive to be of equal or greater value in exchange for that which they are willing to trade away. Any government policy designed to right a wrong or alleviate a threat, from national security to public health to environmental concerns, should operate under the premise of being reasonably certain the policy will leave Americans better off. Unfortunately, we all know this is not the case. Knowing government’s poor track record of providing a return on investment, can we trust government to resolve all of the supposed life-threatening aspects of climate change?

A government solution to global warming will inevitably be driven by a manipulation of data, and/or a utilization of only the data that supports a desired outcome. Private citizens won’t have a say in this because any market based solution will be eschewed by politicians, bureaucrats and their donor enablers.

In fact, would anyone who pays attention to the inefficiencies and ideological motivations of government actions be surprised if the environment suffered a net loss, or if a government solution to global warming/cooling, or climate change, left the environment in worse shape? Government typically sweeps attrition from bad policy under the rug. You know, it’s what MSNBC talking heads call “the cost of living in a civilized world.”

It’s time we treat global warming/climate change for what it really is: an opportunity for technological advancement which will lead to wealth creation, which benefits the rich, the poor, and everyone in between.


And that’s the way it is, as far as you know.



Photo Credit: SMETEK/Science Photo Library/Getty Images
The following two tabs change content below.
Dillon Eliassen is a former Managing Editor of Being Libertarian. Dillon works in the sales department of a privately owned small company. He holds a BA in Journalism & Creative Writing from Lyndon State College, and needs only to complete his thesis for his Master’s of English from Montclair State University (something which his accomplished and beautiful wife, Alice, is continually pestering him about). He is the author of The Apathetic, available at He is a self-described Thoreauvian Minarchist.


  1. Seems like a bit of a dangerous mindset to throw all cautions to the wind with climate change and focus solely on how we can benefit from it. It’s an interesting thing to think about but this definitely isn’t the most moderate of opinions on the matter. Though I guess moderate isn’t a common quality among libertarians.

  2. I mean this is clever but does the flaw in the reasoning need to be spelled out? The market is great for solving some problems, not all; a dogmatic belief that it is the best mechanism for addressing every human issue is just as dogmatic as any other dogmatic belief.

  3. Setting efficient prices for consumer goods is not really analogous to preventing, minimizing or addressing the long term effects of agw on the habitability of our planet.

  4. Let’s try it without the link.
    “a large portion of the experts who comprise the revered “97% of scientists consensus” who agree that climate change is mostly man-made, are not climate scientists”
    That’s a lie. Please read “Expert credibility in climate change” (Anderegg et al 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States) which is the most widely cited source of the “97%” figure. The 97% refers to about a thousand researchers with recent peer-reviewed publications on climate. That is, climate scientists currently publishing in their own field of expertise. Surveys of “all scientists” would include non-experts, and they produce a figure around 90%.

Comments are closed.