City Journal: The Left's War on Science

Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? Prager University

From YouTube:

Published on Jul 11, 2016
Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the "97%" figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.

Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, merchandise links and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru

You can support PragerU by clicking here: https://www.classy.org/checkout/donat.... Free videos are great, but to continue producing high-quality content, contributions--even small ones--are a must!

Pope Francis: Environmentalism and Mercy

A response from Michael Matt at Remnant TV:

Prager U: Are Electric Cars Really Green?

(photo from Wikipedia)

Are Electric Cars Really Green?: Are electric cars greener than conventional gasoline cars? If so, how much greener? What about the CO2 emissions produced during electric cars' production? And where does the electricity that powers electric cars come from? Environmental economist Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, examines how environmentally friendly electric cars really are.

Climate Change: Is it starting to dissipate?

Francis Menton, who blogs at Manhattan Contrarian published some good news recently, in a post in which he offered the following query:  "Is The Mass Hysteria About Climate Change Starting To Dissipate?"

GAS HOAX

FROM YOU TUBE:

Published on Oct 1, 2015

A new short film by Phelim McAleer that debunks another fracking health scare by Josh Fox, director of GASWORK. 

GasHoax highlights how many of Fox's claims have been proven false, and it criticizes journalists for continuing to report new claims despite Fox's record of unethical and misleading journalism.

To watch a trailer for FrackNation, go HERE.

Michael Crichton: Environmental Religion

The late Michael Crichton M.D., a man of many talents, spoke to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco in 2003, and the sum and substance of that speech was recorded today in the Wall Street Journal's Notable & Quotable section.  Al Gore would no doubt take strong exception to the following quote:

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe. . . .

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

Words of Relevance: Owen Paterson and "The Green Blob"

That's Owen Paterson, who recently left his post as British secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs.  He was not a big favorite of the green lobby, because he never bought into their  hysteria (which made many of them very rich).  Today's quote is from a piece he wrote in The Telegraph last month (reprinted today in the Wall Street Journal).  It could be said he left his post 'not with a whimper, but a bang.'

Here's the quote:

It has been a pleasure to take on the challenges of the rural economy and environment.  However, I leave the post with great misgivings about the power and irresponsibility of - to coin a phrase - the Green Blob.

By this I mean the mutually supportive network of environmental pressure groups, renewable energy companies and some public officials who keep each other well supplied with lavish funds, scare stories and green tape.  This tangled triangle of unelected busybodies claims to have the interests of the planet and the countryside at heart, but it is increasingly clear that it is focusing on the wrong issues and doing real harm while profiting handsomely. 

Paterson's relationship with the green lobby was never cordial as can be surmised by this addendum to his above remarks:

I soon realized that the greens and their industrial and bureaucratic allies are used to getting things their own way.  I received more death threats in a few months at [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] than I ever did as secretary of state for Northern Ireland. 

The Obama Volt: What a Car!

There's more good news: GM is losing a mere $49,000 on each Volt they're able to sell.  Fortunately for us, they're not selling too many.

H/T: jpa1948

American Energy Resources

(Click to enlarge)

From Energeopolitics.com:

The US has more energy available in its oil shale alone than the entire global reserves of conventional oil.  This is on top of the trillion cubic feet of natural gas and the world’s largest reserves of coal.

(Click to enlarge)

Bjørn Lomborg: The Voice of Reason on The Environment

Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish scourge of the environmental wackos, discusses the ongoing U.N. sponsored Environmental Summit, in Rio de Janeiro.

"The thing that blows my mind is that we spend so much money on feeling good," says author and activist Bjorn Lomborg about "feel-good" environmentalist measures like recycling and wind turbines, "I would like us to do stuff that actually works."

The Reason Foundation hosted a conversation with Lomborg and the New York Times' John Tierney at the Museum of Sex in New York City, where they discussed how free trade and innovation could help alleviate the suffering of the third world and improve the environment, if only people could be convinced these "unsexy" ideas were of greater benefit than sorting the glass and plastic in their garbage.

Lomborg, the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and the subject of the documentary film "Cool It," is also the founder and director of the Copenhagen Consensus, a Danish think-tank focused on finding the "the best ways for governments and philanthropists to spend aid and development money."

For more Reason coverage of the Copenhagen Consensus go here: http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/04/reasontv-bjorn-lomborg-the-cop

Trifecta: More on Obama's Oil Scarcity Myth

It would be difficult to name the greatest scandal of the current administration in Washington, but the continuing lies being put out by the president and his people - especially Energy Secretary Steven Chu - about our oil reserves would have to rank pretty high on the list.  As Bill Whittle makes clear: Obama will not even admit the existence of our vast amounts of oil let alone actually drill for it, but it will still be there when he's gone.  Keep that in mind on November 6th.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=105&load=6956

Obama's Oil Scarcity Myth

(click to enlarge)

From Powerline on Saturday:

America has more fossil fuel resources than any other nation. Russia is second, Saudi Arabia is third. On Thursday, a representative of the Government Accountability Office testified before the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment that the Green River Formation alone–it is located at the intersection of the states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and mostly underlies federal lands–contains as much oil as the entire proven reserves of the rest of the world combined. America is uniquely blessed in its energy resources. Two questions remain: 1) will Obama finally abandon his moronic two percent claim, and 2) will Obama, in a possible second term, block the development of the resources that can assure America’s economic supremacy for generations?

And this is from a Research Brief of The Rand Corporation:

The Oil Shale Resource Base

The Green River Formation, which covers parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, has the largest known oil shale deposits in the world, holding from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. Of that, roughly 800 billion barrels are recoverable — more than triple Saudi Arabia’s proven oil reserves. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day, so 800 billion barrels would last for more than 400 years if oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand.

So, the next time a Liberal environmental wacko tries to tell you the United States is sitting on only 2% of the world's oil supply, feel free to call him a liar.

Afterburner: "Love of Theory is the Root of all Evil"

Bill Whittle goes on a tear deconstructing theories (such as global warming) that cannot stand up to facts on the ground.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=6888

"If I Wanted America to Fail."

This is from FreeMarketAmerica.Org.

Fracking for Energy Independence is a Good Thing

John Sexton posted this video on his website, Verum Serum, last night and, after viewing it, I decided to join John and contribute $20 to the cause of TRUTH.

Today, the Heritage Foundation posted this podcast on the same topic on The Foundry Blog.

If you're at all interested in Energy Independence for the USA, please spend a little time listening to Ann McElhinney on the above video and to her partner, Phelim McAleer, on the podcast.  You'll be delighted to learn that our state department is backing the other side.

"Terrestrial Energy" by William Tucker

William Tucker published his book, Terrestrial Energy in 2008, and it hasn't garnered a lot of attention to my knowledge.  Must be a reason for that.  The video provides a good introduction to the book, which you can purchase at Amazon.com.

Here are some of the testimonials about the book:

Love it or hate it, the serious citizen should be aware of the often obscure and confusing intricacies of nuclear power not the weaponry and Tucker s new book makes this task easy and interesting. --Ted Rockwell, former technical director of Admiral Hyman Rickover's nuclear navy, and author of The Rickover Effect and Creating the New World: Stories and Images of the Dawn of the Atomic Age

Nuclear power can cure energy dependence, pollution, high fuel bills and...BOOM! Just kidding. William Tucker takes the boom out of the atom and chases away the cancer, the giant mutant insects and the Three Mile Island residents who claim to glow in the dark. Read Terrestrial Energy and help high-binders, hacks and eggheads take a hike. --P.J. O'Rourke, author of Peace Kills and On the Wealth of Nations: Books That Changed the World

William Tucker is one of those rare contrarians who exists on a plateau far above politics. One can take the time to absorb his thoughts now, at leisure as in the case of this book about Neo-nuclear Energy or wait a long time and try to find them in a whadud he say panic. --Tom Wolfe author of The Right Stuff and The Bonfire of the Vanities

In Terrestrial Energy, Mr. Tucker argues that nuclear power is the best option realistically available to us to reduce our national dependence on foreign oil and address the nettlesome matter of "greenhouse" gas emissions. About the other alternatives he is skeptical, believing that they will deliver too little energy at too high a cost. Mr. Tucker, a veteran journalist, has been writing about energy and the environment for some 30 years and knows whereof he speaks.--Wall Street Journal, December 2008

Powerfully written, Terrestrial Energy is a remarkably accessible book that should convert any number of skeptics with its pro-nuclear sermon. However, its strength lies not in the zeal this preacher brings, but in the dispassionate way he makes the case for nuclear in the context of all our energy options. More than just filing a brief for nuclear power, Terrestrial Energy really offers a first-rate primer on energy.--American Spectator, December 2008

Clean Energy: Is it Clean & Does it Work?

John Hinderaker over at Powerlineblog.Com posted some very interesting stuff (especially for would-be investors) today from the Science and Environmental Policy Project:

Someone experienced in analyzing potential investments in innovative industries may be surprised by the lack of hard data on the performance of solar and wind in generating electricity. Certainly, it is understandable that solar and wind companies may wish to keep certain trade secrets from the public, such as manufacturing design and techniques. But if the results are as solid as the promoters claim, than one would expect the promoters would give the hard data on performance. Yet these are being withheld on the claims that such data is proprietary – confidential.

Slowly, information is leaking from nations that have spent heavily on wind and solar, such as Germany. This information should give pause to those touting solar and wind, including politicians. England is pulling back from wind, Germany has announced drastic cut-backs on its subsidies to solar, and Spain has announced the elimination of subsidies for renewable power. These actions are not the result of success. The erratic nature of these sources is well established. Further, electricity is rather unique among energy types – it cannot be stored on an affordable, commercial scale. 

Those proclaiming the virtues of wind and solar should be compelled to reveal actual output data from these sources, the required back-up, and data on the actual reduction of carbon dioxide and other emissions when alternative sources are used. 

Unfortunately, as long as solar and wind companies are getting lots of our tax money to  fund their businesses, they have all the investors (albeit, for the most part, unwitting investors) they need.

Ramirez: Our Green Navy of The Future

(Click to enlarge)

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/13/navy-buys-biofuels-for-15-per-gallon-from-stimulus-linked-firm/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Progressives Hate Natural Gas. Why?

Jon Entine, a Senior Fellow at George Mason University wrote a piece on The Enterprise Blog today in which he explains why the Environmental Left has entered into "bizarre alliances" with "the Russians and Iranians who thought they were going to corner the gas market in the coming decades," and now "demonize natural gas, and shale in particular, as a 'bridge to nowhere.'"

As they did in their previous quest to demonize carbon because it was heating the planet, these environmental wackos ignore the work of "independent researchers from across the ideological spectrum who have found shale gas to be environmentally safer than coal or oil."

 Here's a short video of Jon Entine: