"With his references to Murray Rothbard, individual liberty and minimal government,"

LAWLZ. Like its a bad thing.

"Radical libertarianism has many of the characteristics of a religion" 

...it's funny, the same could be said for all the 'warmers' out there. 

As far as 'Radical Libertarianism', in contrast to what he believes, i'm sure it is! Liberty! How Radical, oohhh!

Bardon says "Climate experts the world over would be ecstatic if someone showed that climate change doesn’t exist or isn’t a problem. No one appreciates better than they do what great news that would be." He is actually incorrect here, at least to some extent.  The ClimateGate emails show the top scientists of the IPCC actually want the most alarmist notions regarding climate change to be true.  Apparently, Bardon either hasn't read those emails, or is lying.

"
Radical libertarianism has many of the characteristics of a religion: it is internally incoherent, in that it is founded on a notion of absolute property rights that is indefensible according to its own moral principles," - Bardon.  This is a rather unique claim - most observers, whether libertarians or not, grant that libertarianism is uniquely internally consistent.  Also, the claim that libertarianism's moral principles contradict... its own moral principles is dumbfounding."

"The column in question describes a vast conspiracy among all the world’s national and international climate research centers, tens of thousands of individual scientists and the United Nations to consolidate power over those who love freedom." - Bardon.  Actually, all he claims is that humans react to incentives.  And, with the dozens of climate scandals and inaccurate IPCC claims being withdrawn, it seems that the IPCC scientists have indeed been swayed by the incentives of prestige and power.

"

The essay claims that the evidence for warming and climate change has been debunked." - Bardon.  Actually, the essay claims that the hockey stick graph has been debunked, which is true.

Most shocking in general is Bardon's ludicrous, sanctimonious, and demeaning writing style.   But it can't cover up Bardon's lies.

Libertarianism is radical compared to what we have now. Climate change IS being used for political leveraging; however, to avoid the fact that the glaciers are receding and ocean level rising is foolish. Likewise though, the glaciers have been receding for thousands of years have they not? Was North America not covered by ice? Ice that then melted with very little human activity and "emissions"?

The idea that man is causing the glaciers to melt is the problem that is proposed. The solution: throw trillions of $$$ at the problem to fix it!

Deforestation and the lack of precipitation is a major problem. If hippies stopped sitting around in the woods hugging stumps and shedding salty tears in fresh water, and started earning income to buy property and protect that property I bet libertarianism and this notion of absolute property rights wouldn't be so radical.

I can't believe the University of Massachusetts gives out PhD's to people who like express their views with out checking the facts from both sides. Isn't the whole point of earning a PhD to demonstrate that you can methodically present your argument with evidence obtained via a rigorous criteria that adequately addresses criticisms? Here's a counter-argument that is sourced-http://thefreepressfsu.blogspot.com/2010/02/climate-gate-all-about-science-or-just.html

Uhhh, hello professor, have you noticed the religious fervor and blind obedience that runs rampant in the global warming crowd?

That is not an ARTICLE.

Couldn't resist myself:

I find absolutely remarkable the tone of derision and condescension that permeates the article (the more so because of the "maturity" and position of it's author).  Such scorn is indicative of genuine contempt for those possessing opposing views.  This, in turn, reflects a more disturbing, because broader, problem with this type of political polemic: it proceeds from the belief that opponents of its view are incapable of reason, and so directs itself to ridiculing them for the benefit of third parties.  That is, the basic premise from which it proceeds is that there is in fact no evidence controverting claims of climate change.  As any good professor of philosophy knows, this is "begging the question": assuming as a premise that which requires proof.

Of course, this requires our goodly professor of philosophy to cast his “radical” student in with the likes of other, more qualified “climate deniers” (as though global is akin to the holocaust), including professors of atmospheric science, meteorology, oceanography, etc.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Believe or (as is more likely for some) not, these credentialed, gentle folk raise real objections based on considered opinions!  Perhaps we might dismiss these positions as part of a vast “anti-global warming” conspiracy.

It is, of course, much easier (if much less intellectually honest) to resort to the vague "appeal to authority" implicit in the derision of view points as "conspiratorial" and devoid of logic (while hypocritically engaging in a few conspiratorial assertions of his own about nefarious Republicans in the service of evil corporations).  Claiming there is none, one needs not address what logic a position might hold.  Rather, simply talk over its adherents as quaint articles of irrationality.  We might hope that a professor writing in a student paper would show more interest in engagement than ridicule.

Let me end with a few excerpts from the noble professor's article which, I think, speak for themselves, yet deserve a little good-natured illumination:

"Radical libertarianism has many of the characteristics of a religion [including that] its followers often exhibit the blind fervor of those in the grips of religious mania."

"I don’t want to beat up on a student, whose views, I hope, are still in the process of development. But attempts to obscure or deny the facts about our environmental crisis are no joke."

One wonders if, though there are valid scientific hypotheses in support of anthropogenic climate change, the advocates might have among their numbers their own frothing partisans?

One might suspect that, precisely because these matters are “no joke,” they call for more sincere, deliberative exchange, and not the nauseating bile that so commonly confront the “skeptics.”

One might think that “skepticism” is a scientific virtue such that those sundry Ph.D.s in atmospheric science and the like who demur at too-hasty conclusions would escape the vituperation of a incensed professor of philosophy.

I have noticed one thing in recent years that seems to be growing more and more and that is the wide separation between generations.  It's actually a wonder that Ron Paul says what he says because a majority of the generations born in the 20th century have worked on the expansion of government (thats not to say that they weren't full of people agaisnt it as well, but just that, from what I've seen, the majority act this way).  I'm assuming that the professor who wrote the article is a baby-boomer and they seem to have the biggest problem with Generation Y/Milenials.  I mean, Bill Kristol literally came out and said because young people said something, by voting for Ron Paul in the straw poll,  its irrelevant.  They also seem like the most proud, I can't count the amount of times I've argued with my Grandpa and his argument was "you're just young so I'm right".

I just point this out because I wonder how  much of this professors motive for attacking Elliot's article is a "how dare you question your elders" motivation.  He does have a line in his article where he says, "I don’t want to beat up on a student, whose views, I hope, are still in the process of development."  So, in other words, I disagree, but hopefully as you realize how much better your elders are you'll grow into their opinions.

Hahaha!  This is why I love YAL!!!  Bardon is getting ripped apart on the article's comments page!!

I was about write an article length response.. but in reading your article I realized a good response is already in very capable hands.

Adrian Bardon says:

"A key point, so often ignored, is that one side has a gigantic economic interest in confusing the issue, while the other side would like nothing better than to be proven wrong!"

Thus Engstrom's mention of the symbiotic relationship between public intellectuals and the government.  When most of your research funding comes from the government... you'd better find a problem in order to perpetuate your funding.  

This research is far more bias than even the Tobacco industries research concerning their product.  The relationship of a public intellectual's research to the mechanism of theft that funds his research tends to justify the mechanism of theft's existence.. even romanticizing it.  

That being said, any real intellectual battle must be fought with evidence and not just "bias" mudslinging.  Though Dr.Bardon himself may be paid largely in part from the institution he is defending, his arguments must be defeated on an empirical and logical basis.

Unfortunately, there is no empirical or logical arguments made in this argument.  It is largely straw men and accounts of Dr. Bardon's recent television watching experience.  

The debate should be well defined.  We are not debating whether there is global warming or whether carbon dioxide causes warming.  The latter is an established fact while the former could be questioned only using statistical hypothesis testing rather than the simpleton use of raw date.  The real issue is as follows:

"Is Global warming caused by man?  Can it be reversed?  Is government an institution that is capable of handling such complicated problems?"  

Instead of attempting to embarrass a truth seeking student through some major logical fallacies (all those straw men)try addressing the issue as defined above.  

George, you say "The latter is an established fact"... but  a government review found that there was no significant warming from 1895-1989: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?pagewanted=1&pagewanted=print

And there also has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years (1995-2010). This has been admitted by the IPCC's Phil Jones.

So... there must have been a lot of warming between 1989 and 1995!

Of course, if there were warming, it would be predictable - the Earth could be recovering from the "little ice age" which went from 1500s - 1800s.

But anyway, the point of whether there is an ongoing trend of higher temperatures is still unclear.  It certainly hasn't happened the last 10 years. (and the data itself is very controversial - see the "urban heat effect", and scientists massaging data by adding in unrealistic modifiers, then destroying raw data).