Forum

America’s energy crisis is mostly US liberals/democrats’ fault. libs/dems spent the last 3.5 years liberating US oil and gas investment, production, and transport instead of strangling them, energy would be far cheaper. America is experiencing our worst energy crisis since the 1970s. The US is experiencing a dangerous shortage of diesel fuel. Blame our anti-fossil-fuel politicians, who: Prevented us from importing Canadian oil well-suited to our refineries Prevented or shut down diesel-producing capacity in the US Threatened new investments in diesel. biden’s use of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to temporarily lowering prices to win votes during a midterm election is actually far more than unethical. The root of our global energy crisis is Green Energy Fascism—the idea that government should have total control over the energy industry (fascism) used for the “green” goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels and nuclear. The solution is Energy Freedom. America is taking a “punish America” approach to reducing CO2, making our energy more expensive and less reliable while China, Russia, and others increase their emissions. We need a “liberate American innovation” policy instead. The Reality The only moral and practical way to reduce CO2 emissions is innovation that makes low-carbon energy globally cost-competitive. 

Europe has extreme dependence on Russian natural gas because Europe has foolishly restricted fossil fuel and nuclear energy production on the false promise that unreliable solar and wind could replace it. America's grid is in decline and about to get far worse due to policies that 1) reward unreliable electricity, 2) prematurely shut down coal plants, 3) criminalize nuclear, and 4) force electric vehicle use. 

 

All, because we’re lied to and told, to solve a climate crisis!

 

Meanwhile, looking at the official NASA global temperature data from February 2016 through February 2018 global average temperatures dropped by 0.56°C. That is the biggest 2-year drop in the past century. A similar event from February through June 2018 brought global average temperatures below the 1980s average.

 

But the UN’s World Meteorological Organization defines climate as a 30-year average. Changes in weather from one year to another do not constitute changes in climate. One can get almost any trend one wants depending upon which interval they choose. Such a cherry picking of data is quite common in the liberal media and occasionally in scientific assessment reports when the goal is to persuade. But if the goal is to inform, it is crucial to present and discuss the entire data set, Which includes all the ups and downs that are significant. A few unusual years do not mean a change in climate.

 

Sadly, weather has morphed into climate for those desperately needing to blame humanity for any severe weather events. Indeed, it’s a pretty easy since disaster sells! But the science tells a different story. Observations extending back over a century indicate that most types of extreme weather events don’t show any significant change and some such events have actually become less common or severe. In the US, which has the world’s most extensive and highest quality weather data, the daily high temperatures are no more frequent than they were century ago. The record from 725 US stations beginning in 1895 clearly shows the warm 1930s, but there is no significant trend over the next decades of observations, or even since 1980. In contrast, the number of record daily cold temperatures declined over more than a century with the trend accelerating in 1985. Temperature extremes in the contiguous US have become less common and somewhat milder since the late 19th century. The UN’s IPCC reports confirms that, giving “low confidence” ratings to any increasing trends.

The lying-liberal media. however, ignores much of the actual evidence and instead Justifies much of their lying on what’s called event attribution studies. These studies, which almost always focus on disasters not benign occurrences, attempt to bend and twist to fit their theories of impending manmade crisis to an event after the fact. That’s equivalent to a spiritual advisor claiming her influence helped you win the lottery, AFTER you won it! If their theories were correct they would make their prediction prior to the event and eliminate the need for attribution studies in the first place.

Another justification is the failure of assessment reports to be transparent, or occasionally even correct, about what the science actually says. For example, a recent US government assessment report entitled Climate Science Special Report is not just misleading but wrong. The actual recorded data shows that the average coldest temperature of the year has increased since 1900, while the average warmest temperature has hardly changed and is about the same today as it was in the year 1900. Yet, instead of absolute numbers, the report uses the running records method, a statistical ratio trick that any knowledgeable statistician knows is guaranteed to show a dramatic variation as the record ages, creating the impression of large changes in recent times, even when not present, and has almost nothing to do with how temperatures are actually changing.

How can reports that proclaim to designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change so mischaracterized the data. After all, in this case the CSSR was subject to multiple peer reviews, including one by an expert panel convened by the national Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine?

The consequence of the false notion of more frequent US high temperature records pollutes subsequent assessment reports, which invariably cite prior reports. This should matter for those who care about the quality and integrity of scientific input to societal decisions and the process by which it’s generated. It should also matter to those who proclaimed the unimpeachable authority of assessment reports. And it should matter to those in the media who give voice to such misleading conclusions. And this is but one example.

The demands for drastic, radical destruction of our society in order to fight climate change make it sound as if reducing human influences will keep the climate from changing. At worse, the climate has been getting milder as the globe appears to be getting warmer. The earth has warmed about 9°F starting some 20,000 years ago. The relatively warmer and stable temperature over the past 10,000 years supported the rapid development of civilization. What is uncertain is to what extent this warming is being caused by humans. We need to understand the larger parts of the climate system with a precision better than 1%. Small natural influences must be understood to the same precision and we’ve got to be sure they’re all accounted for.

“There have been some changes in temperature extremes across the United States. The annual number of high temperature records set shows no significant trend over the past century or over the past 40 years, but the annual number of record cold nights has declined since 1895, somewhat more rapidly in the past 30 years. Temperatures getting milder in this way makes for a very different and less alarming story.”—Stephen E. Koonin