Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
“But when these data are related to environmentalists, there is no sense of relief. Instead, it makes them angry that they might be deprived of their primary excuse to make war on civilization.”
Jul 01, 2008
Deming: Getting Sensible on Energy
By David Deming, Washington Times
If the price of gasoline is around $4 a gallon, Americans have no one to blame but themselves. For decades, we have demonized the people and businesses who supply our energy. Energy fuels our economy and prosperity, but bad public policies have made it increasingly more difficult to develop our own vast resources. Americans are in danger of falling irreversibly into a dysfunctional culture and fading into the dust of history.
We sit on our own undeveloped energy supplies and complain about the high price of gasoline and imported oil. Public policy in the United States is not designed to facilitate the development of new energy supplies, but to stop it. The U.S. government has placed the Continental Shelves of the U.S. off-limits for drilling. Offshore drilling would have virtually no significant effect on environmental quality. But our energy policies are not determined by science, reason or facts. Energy policy in the United States is held hostage by a fanatical environmentalism based on emotion, fraud and deceit. The common-sense conservation ethics of Henry Thoreau, John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt have been supplanted by a radical ideology that is anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-human. In the 18th century, Rousseau argued that humanity had been ruined by agriculture and metallurgy. In the 21st century, it’s fossil fuels and technology. The exaltation of the primitive is rooted in a hatred of the human mind. This suicidal and nihilistic creed can only lead us back to the Stone Age.
Global warming is a fraud and a hysterical scare tactic. Recent warming trends are very modest, and well within the range of natural variation. Predictions of future warming are based on speculative computer models whose accuracy cannot be evaluated or even tested. Sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is at the highest level since satellite monitoring began in 1979. Last summer there was record low snowmelt in Antarctica. During April this year, 1,185 new all-time record low temperatures were recorded at U.S. weather stations. Given these facts, it is difficult to see how global warming can be real, or how we can be in the middle of a “climate crisis.”
But when these data are related to environmentalists, there is no sense of relief. Instead, it makes them angry that they might be deprived of their primary excuse to make war on civilization.
We need energy policies that actually produce energy. Fossil fuels, conventional and unconventional, are far from depleted and will remain our primary energy sources for many decades. The United States has enough oil and gas resources to meet our energy needs for hundreds of years. Nothing but our own ignorance stands in the way of developing them.
Xlp Thlplylp,
My point in posting these two articles is to demonstrate the futility of arguing the topic. The opposing “sides” see not only the topic presented, but the implications and policies that will naturally evolve if either camp emerges as dominant.
The global warming Alarmists will generally embrace the Socialistic mindset of the “solutions” to their problem.
Global warming Realists will oppose the theory and the erosion of liberties and freedoms.
I really don’t know what the answer is. It is clear that this argument is about political ideology that has adopted “science” as the catalyst. I don’t believe that there is such a thing as a politically neutral scientist…….(I could be wrong).
Both sides seem to have a strong marketing campaign in this arena to forward their respective political agenda.
Can we at least agree on this point?
If you want the links, let me know. I can post them.
Yes, please do.
Also, I was wondering if you plan on addressing this question which I posted previously:
"Do you think CO2 levels are unrelated to temperature?"
The problem is, we aren't just dealing with a difference of opinion. We are also dealing with a physical process the reality of which is now established.
My point in posting these two articles is to demonstrate the futility of arguing the topic. The opposing “sides” see not only the topic presented, but the implications and policies that will naturally evolve if either camp emerges as dominant.
Your point is to try to legitimize denial as simply one side of the argument. What this ignores is the science. The "debate" is based on either blatantly ignoring or finding reasons to disregard the consensus by the thousands of scientists who know most about what's happening in the atmosphere.
Yes, people can and will have very different ideas about about what the scientists say. And that's absolutely appropriate: we have lots of difficult choices to make.
But dealing with the science by (as Brute has done) saying the science is wrong, that the thousands of people who have devoted their lives to learning the tools and making the observations don't know what they're doing is insane.
The global warming Alarmists will generally embrace the Socialistic mindset of the “solutions” to their problem.
And Brute is relying on burying his head deeply in the sand with regard to the science. But capitalizing the A in Alarmist to show what a deep thinker he is.
The sun does not drive our climate?
Hey delosgatos,
Instead of relying on RealClimate or other AGW-fundie sites for your info on solar impact on climate, check out the many studies that show that solar activity reached an 8,000-year high in the late 20th century, and that this could account for a significant part of all the observed 20th century warming.
The data are out there for those who truly want to be informed.
For AGW-fundies that have their heads in the sand these studies may be disturbing, since they raise serious questions about their "belief" in AGW.
If you want the links, let me know. I can post them.
Hmm, googling around on this all the references I found seemed to point to a single study published in the October 28, 2004 issue of Nature. Are you sure it's "many studies"? Or do you mean "many articles"?
I can't find any of these "many" articles/studies that assert that the apparent high in sunspot activity of late "could account for a significant part of all the observed 20th century warming." In fact many of these articles explicitly state that the increased solar energy associated with the higher sunspot activity that the 2004 study found isn't sufficient to account for much of the recent temperature increase.
If you have links to studies that show otherwise, yeah, you'd better post 'em.
Oh, for the record - of course the sun is a driver of our climate. And of course natural variation could in principle explain current temperature trends. I'm not "burying my head in the sand", I've looked for studies on such questions many times and not from a limited set of sources. And I haven't found current studies that support the idea that solar activity explains a significant amount of recent warming. I have found current studies that suggest it does not. If you have examples of the former, please do post references.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
