Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a three atom molecule that humans produce with every exhale. Over the past decade, the belief has been propagated that excessive CO2 in the atmosphere leads to intense global warming that, if continued unabated, would cause glaciers to melt, rising the seas and engulfing coastal cities from San Francisco to New York. Despite tens of thousands of scientists signing petitions and stating their cases against the correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures, the link has been advocated by politicians and celebrities alike. Many of global warming’s supporters have no background in science and have convinced others of the CO2-global warming relationship without adequate proof. Even as people begin to realize that these ideas lack credibility, as evidenced by the change in terminology from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change,’ politicians have continued to propose legislation to limit CO2 emissions erhaps it is important to address how some have come to the idea that limiting CO2 will have a positive impact on the environment. To reach this conclusion, one much first accept that global temperatures are rising, that human activity is responsible for the rise, and that limiting carbon emissions will alleviate this global warming. Many feel that limiting carbon emissions is a function that can only be performed by government. However, one should examine what types of interests would benefit from carbon emission limitations. Environmental groups have a bias towards findings of environmental damage and often rely on university research to endorse their claims. Research universities are predominantly funded by government, and in order to continue receiving grant funds, have an incentive to produce research that supports ideas maintained by government officials, such as the connection between CO2 and global warming. Intervention follows as a way to expand the federal government’s control over a large swath of the economy.