Member Login

You are not currently logged in.

» Register
» Lost your Password?
Article Archives


planet-placement“How big is the sun?

We just heard right this minute

A million of our earths

could all fit right in it.”

Those words can be found in Dr. Seuss children’s book There’s No Place Like Space: All About Our Solar System.

About what you’re about to read, it won’t be a statistical or scientific argument supporting or disdaining the theory that is global warming. No such skills exist to make either, but even if they did exist, the view here is that statistical arguments about anything involving personal freedom are loser arguments.

Think back to the spring of 2020 and the coronavirus to see why.

Back then those who were properly against the taking of freedom frequently employed statistics to make their cases against lockdowns. They would cite information regularly published in the New York Times revealing that nearly half of those who died with the virus were in nursing homes. Countless others cited CDC stats about those who died with the virus having frequently had multiple illnesses of the lethal variety.

The arguments were compelling at first glance, at second glance senseless, and at third glance dangerous. Think about it. They implied that if viruses were lethal enough, and killed enough babies or adults in the “crucial” 18-34 demographic, that lockdowns would be justified. Hopefully readers can see the danger. Statistical arguments about matters involving freedom imply that the latter can and should be given away if enough of the mob feels we’re in trouble.

The theory that is global warming is no different. Those who reject the theory, or those who accept the theory but not the draconian solutions to it, fight with statistics and tenths of a degree. As with the debates about the political response to the virus, statistical arguments about warming are compelling at first glance, at second glance they’re senseless, and at third glance they’re dangerous.

As with the virus, statistical arguments shift the terms of the debate onto the premise of the warming theorists, and much worse, they imply a willingness to hand over living standards and freedoms said to the be the cause of the theory that is global warming. No thanks.

Freedom and the ability for free people to progress in how they live can’t fall victim to theories and/or statistics. Which is why no argument will be offered here. Freedom isn’t something to be negotiated. The view here is that Dr. Seuss provides a better answer as is. See above.

The sun that warms Planet Earth could house a million earths. Please stop and think about that. Planet Earth is pretty vast, yet the sun could fit something like a million earths? Sorry, but the vastness of the sun thoroughly mocks not just those who employ statistics to support their hysteria about a warming earth, but it also mocks those who fancy themselves the betters of the warming hysterics by employing statistics that reject the hysteria.

More realistically, the sun stands down to no individual, or collection of individuals. To presume that the giving up of freedom or living standards will somehow alter the course of an earth warmed by something as vast as the sun brings new meaning to fatal conceit. Sorry, but that which is a millions times the size of the earth will in no way have its impact altered by the near, near-term inhabitants of the third rock.


John Tamny is editor of RealClearMarkets, President of the Parkview Institute, a senior fellow at the Market Institute, and a senior economic adviser to Applied Finance Advisors