Posted on 10/26/2001 7:48:27 PM PDT by concerned about politics
Environmentalists Message: We Need Oil
Over the course of the many years that I've hosted this program, you heard me mention a man by the name of Pat Michaels. He is a reasonable and very sensible environmentalist and he has taught on the faculty at the University of Virginia. He's now with the Cato Institute, and authored a great book on the global warming myth titled The Satanic Gasses.
Michaels has a brilliant column in Thursday's Washington Times on energy and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's bid to block a vote on exploring for our own sources of oil. Daschle knows he'll lose the vote, because enough Democrats support it to get it passed, so he's standing in the way of it. There's a lot of domestic politics that has been going on not being reported because of all the attention that's being focused on the war.
Mr. Michaels is a former member of the University of Virginia faculty, and he's one of the most sensible, reasonable anti-environmentalist whackos ever. He does not subscribe to the insane global warming theories and the ozone "hole" theories that abound. He is a voice of calm, cool reason. He makes total sense and is himself a scientist.
I've always said, "For all these people that can produce scientists saying global warming is real and will destroy us, I can produce just as many scientists who say it's not real, or that if it is, we're not causing it. It's natural."
Even the pro-global warming crowd will tell you that they can't prove it yet - which is what makes me so suspicious. Their trick is painting all these doomsday scenarios, the solutions to which are radical, anti-capitalist and anti-American. Then they say, "We don't really know for sure, but what if? Let's go ahead and assume that it's happening and make economic and societal changes so as to be prepared for it." Pat Michaels says this is stilly and stupid.
In the midst of this war, the effort to restrict our own ability to produce energy independently of anybody else, gives rise to serious questions of what is the real motivation here. Many Democrats are behind drilling in that tiny, out-of-the-way corner of ANWR, for instance - because they have rejected the lie that you must destroy the environment to get oil. That's just not true. So Daschle stopped the vote. This leaves us at the mercy of people who control our Middle Eastern oil.
The more I think about it, this energy business has been bothering me long before it started. I've linked to this article below, and I urge each and every one of you not only to read it, but to forward it and my brilliant commentary here on to your friends. It's so important that we get the true message out on just how dependent we are on sources of energy we do not control. If you think you're always going to have enough gas to fill your car, heat your home and do all the other things that petroleum is used for, I urge you to think again.
This whole ANWR thing has been bothering me. I do not understand the fear that people have of being energy-independent. I don't understand the lack of fear so many Americans seem to have at being dependent on energy from parts of the world where we could end up in a conflict. The spigot could be turned off, all because these environmentalist wackos have gotten people convinced that getting new sources of energy is going to kill us or make things dirty or what have you. It just boggles the mind. The lack of common sense in some people's brains just frustrates me. I just want to grab their heads and knock them together.
The IPCC, consisting of a couple of thousands of the world's best climate scientists, think global warming is real. That means the characterization "insane" is crap.
The fact that there are competing views and that global warming can't be "proved" is normal in human affairs and in science. In fact nothing can be proved beyond all doubt because there's no guarantee that the future will repeat the past (nothing, except thousands of years of experience, proves that physical laws will remain immutable). There are only degrees of proof.
The IPCC, consisting of a couple of thousands of the world's best climate scientists, supported by liberal organizations, think global warming is real.
BUT, a couple of thousands of the world's best climate scientists, not supported by liberal organizations, think global warming is not real. I believe the later 50%.
Liberals lie.
You exagerate. You cannot find a couple of thousand of the world's best climate scientists who oppose the findings of the IPCC. There are a few...notably one from MIT whose work is reviewed in this month's Scientific American.
Once again, disagreement is normal in the scientific world. Proof cannot be absolute. Anyone who uses a political filter, as you are doing, to try to decide which scientific theories best fit the facts, is a fool.
You would THINK that after the so-called spectre of 'Global Warming' appeared OVER TEN YEARS AGO that a more certain determination COULD HAVE BEEN MADE by now, but no, it hasn't been.Despite all the SCREAMING by the looney left, simply hounding an agenda won't make it come true.
And when it comes to *increased* levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere - can you explain why if it's DUE to the burning so-called "fossil fuels" (a giant misnomer, for a substantial part of the make-up of the Earth is carbon or carbon compounds!) -
- why hasn't the level of Oxygen in the atmosphere decreased? (That's what concerns ME.)
Is all this 'global warming' stuff just bunk?
Yes.
If you want to say that liberals have made more of the issue than the facts warrent you'll get no argument from me.
"You would THINK that after the so-called spectre of 'Global Warming' appeared OVER TEN YEARS AGO that a more certain determination COULD HAVE BEEN MADE by now"
No. Wrong. It often takes a very long time to verify a theory that is fundamentally new. The problem is what to do at this stage...where the facts point in a certain direction, but the theory is still not all that strong...and the consequences of being wrong are quite terrible.
I was unaware of this petition. It may take me awhile to look into it. I'll reply when I am satisfied that I understand it.
Carefully read the supporting article in the Economist. You'll see there are a lot of assumptions made. Will there be enough land to support 11 billion people? How firm is that estimate? What will be the effect on biodivirsity of such a large population? Forest cover is said to have decreased radically in one part of the article but not decreased in another part. Long-term data are used in one part and short-term in another part, depending on what sort supports the argument the authors are making. Greenhouse gases are a problem. The extent of it and its best solution are disputed. And so. And that's just my impression, as a non-specialist, on first reading.
In this article Dr. Seitz is cited as saying the IPCC altered it's report to, falsely, indicate a consensus of opinion. I remember reading somewhere that the IPCC denied this charge and cited evidence to the contrary..
Take a look at this month's Scientific American. They review the work of another distinguished Global Warming opponent - rather unfavorably.
I don't know who's correct. I just cite these as examples of why it's so difficult for non-specialists to make sense of it all.
I haven't done similar work yet on the IPCC members.
http://www.api.org/edu/factsoil.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.