Category Archives: Politics

Alex Epstein’s “Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less”

Posted on by
Reply

I am a scientist (psychology), so I know how science works even though I am not a climatologist. But for many decades I have read widely in many fields including the physical sciences. I have read about twenty books and scores of articles on climate issues. For many years I suspected that something seemed wrong. There were so many contradictions. Everyone seemed to report findings, using selected data, which supported their side but not findings that contradicted it. It seemed that a political agenda was constantly mixed in with a science agenda.

Soon one view became dominant: that fossil fuels were destroying the earth, maybe even in the next ten years, and needed to be abandoned to prevent a worldwide catastrophe. People who disagreed with this could be harassed, mocked, and even risked job loss. Scientific findings could only be published in some journals if they came out with the “right” results. Organizations were pressured to sell their oil stocks. Reporters for many leading newspapers learned quickly that only certain types of articles were acceptable. Opposing oil became a moral crusade, a virtual dogma. Eminent catastrophizers included: Paul Erlich, Al Gore, James Hansen, Paul Krugman, Bill McKibben, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

There have been many distortions of scientific data. But since our Constitution says we have a right to freedom of speech, all critics of the anti-oil crusade could not be silenced. Some catastrophizers openly advocate being dishonest in order to further their agenda. Epstein refutes all the critics. He presents a list of recommendations for evaluating climate claims.

Epstein’s book is a brilliant antidote to the assault on fossil fuels. Its theme is that fossil fuels are one of the greatest benefits to human civilization ever and that there is, for now, no viable substitute. Epstein covers all the relevant issues from every angle, so I will only give a brief summary here.

  1. The earth, absent the benefits of machines powered by fossil fuels and electrical energy created by fossil fuels is a very dangerous place, characterized by mass poverty, recurring starvation, death from the cold, poor medical care, poor sanitation, exhausting manual labor, bad water, inadequate shelter, devastating natural disasters, and low life expectancy.
  2. The nations that suffer the most today are those that lack such technology. Without fossil fuels, people who lack them will keep suffering because they will stay poor.
  3. Coal, oil, and gas are responsible for almost all the energy created today– about 80%. Solar and wind provide only about 3%. Fossil fuels have allowed humanity, insofar it has advocated reason, to master nature (following the laws of nature and science) thus enabling the human race to multiply and thrive.
  4. Fossil fuels are abundant in nature: plentiful, cheap, and reliable when production and transportation are not opposed by government regulations. They supply on-demand electricity.
  5. The championed substitutes for fossil fuels are: wind, solar, and batteries. Epstein notes, as have others, the many problems with these sources. Windmills do not work without wind. Solar panels do not work without sunlight. Batteries are nowhere near cost-effective enough or efficient enough to store and provide sufficient energy when the wind isn’t blowing enough and the sun isn’t shining enough. So in practice, solar, wind, and batteries are not replacements for fossil-fueled grids, they are inefficient, cost-adding add-ons to fossil-fueled grids.
  6. Epstein calls the idea that all power would be created by wind, solar, and batteries to be divorced from reality, just from the aspect of cost alone.
  7. What about pollution? Epstein shows that it has been decreasing for decades thanks to technology. Further, he identifies the ways that side effects can be mitigated.
  8. What other alternatives are there for power? Epstein favors two: waterpower from dams and nuclear. Both are safe, dependable, non-polluting, and do not take up much land or harm birds and animals. Unfortunately, both are roundly opposed by the public. He shows that biomass and geothermal are at least decades away from becoming even significant supplements to fossil fuels, let alone replacements.
  9. There is a long section on dealing with climate side effects including evidence that fossil fuels lead to fewer storm-related deaths, e.g., floods. Sea level rise today is radically less than in previous history (and can be coped with) and the danger has been greatly exaggerated as with the case of ocean acidification.
  10. The book ends with a call for freedom of production and a critique of companies, including oil companies, which have conceded the anti-fossil agenda.

I consider this book to be, by far, the best—most honest, most accurate– statement of the fossil fuel issue written so far. But each reader will have to decide what to believe by using their own rational judgment.

Explore Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas–Not Less.

Failing Isn’t Always Failure

Posted on by
Reply

Success is great. We all want it. But the road to success can be blocked by failure. Detouring around those roadblocks can be a challenge, but it’s not without its rewards.

In her article “Inspirational Stories of Famous Failures and Their Future Success” at associatedcontent.com, Janeen Elite writes about how the Vice President of Columbia University told a young actor that he would never make it in the business. That actor was Harrison Ford. Another example is John Grisham, whose first book was rejected by 12 publishing houses and sixteen agents. Years ago a record company passed judgment on a young rock band, saying, “We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.” The band was The Beatles.

When people are discouraged, I always suggest that they watch or read biographies. There are few better ways to see how failure can actually set the stage for success. Successful people don’t achieve everything they attempt on the very first try. In fact, they often have more failures, simply because they take more risks. Risks (at least well-thought-out risks) are the key to living life to its fullest. They also come with setbacks and disappointments. It’s all part of the package.

Families, friends and teachers can sometimes be emotionally and verbally abusive. But that won’t stop a truly successful person. Elite goes on to write about how Charles Darwin was told by his father that he would be a disgrace to himself and his family. Beethoven was told by a music teacher that he was “hopeless” as a composer. Walt Disney was fired from a newspaper because he “lacked imagination and had no original ideas.” Albert Einstein wasn’t able to speak until he was almost 4 years old and his teachers said he would “never amount to much.”

Success usually evolves gradually. Most successful people don’t walk around thinking, “I’m successful.” They’re too busy doing what made them that way in the first place; namely, concentrating on doing the things they love. Success begins the moment you commit to something valuable: being an entrepreneur, an artist or musician, advancing a cause, or whatever your passion.

Thomas Edison was told by a teacher he was “too stupid to learn anything.” Winston Churchill failed the sixth grade. Isaac Newton did poorly in school and failed at running the family farm. Michael Jordan was cut from the high school basketball team, went home, locked himself in his room and cried. Marilyn Monroe was told by a producer she was “unattractive” and could not act. Julia Roberts auditioned – unsuccessfully – for “All My Children.” Obviously, rejection has little to do with eventual success.

The authors of the book series, “Chicken Soup for the Soul” were told by publishers that “anthologies didn’t sell” and that the book was “too positive.” It was rejected 140 times. It has now expanded to over 65 different titles and has sold more than 80 million copies. Philosopher Ayn Rand’s novel “The Fountainhead” was rejected by 12 publishers before being accepted. It became a classic, followed by the author’s landmark novel, “Atlas Shrugged.” Library of Congress surveys have ranked it as the most influential book in people’s lives, second only to the Bible. Richard Bach’s “Jonathan Livingston Seagull” was rejected 18 times before it was published and sold well over a million copies.

Rejection doesn’t prove anything. In fact, it often proves the opposite. Successful people take risks and are undaunted by rejection. If you like what you’re doing and you know it’s of value, then it’s only a matter of time before you’ll find others who feel the same way. You might use that wisdom to abandon a floundering project in favor of a better one, but never give up on yourself.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

Secession Talk….in 2022

Posted on by
Reply

And so it begins:

“The delegates of the Republican Party of Texas voted overwhelmingly to add a plank to the party platform calling for a statewide vote for returning to an independent nation. Texas GOP officials told Breitbart Texas the plank received approximately 80 percent of the delegate votes cast at the June state convention.”

William Hartung: Call it the National Insecurity Budget

Posted on by
Reply

Yes, Afghanistan went down the drain and Washington’s global war on terror ended (more or less) in disaster 20 years after it began. But the urge to militarize the planet? Not a chance in an American world where, as TomDispatch regular William Hartung lays out in striking detail today, the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex plan to continue ruling the roost in Washington for time eternal.

So, war, what is it good for? Absolutely something! In that sense, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a horror of the first order, has been anything but bad for the Pentagon. Just in case you hadn’t noticed, three decades after the old Cold War ended, with a distinct helping hand from Russian president Vladimir Putin, the Biden administration has been playing its part admirably in ramping up this country’s newest version of the old Cold War into an ever more militarized set of confrontations.

It’s not just the CIA operatives in Ukraine or the sending of U.S. troops to neighboring Poland early in the Ukraine war. Only last week, at a NATO summit, President Biden announced that this country would ramp up its military presence in Europe yet again on land, sea, and in the air. (Keep in mind that, since the war in Ukraine began, Washington had already dispatched an extra 20,000 troops to Europe, raising its forces there above 100,000.)  At least 3,000 more combat troops are now heading for Romania, two F-35 squadrons for Great Britain, U.S. naval ships for Spain, and the U.S. 5th Army Corps will establish a sizeable permanent base and headquarters in Poland, while there will be unspecified “enhanced” deployments in the Baltics and American forces will be upped in Germany and Italy, too.

And this isn’t just happening in Europe to face down an outrageous Russian invasion of Ukraine. An increasingly militarized commitment to Asia, especially Taiwan, and a new Cold War with China has been in the cards for a while now. I’m sure you remember our president upping the ante there by responding to a reporter’s question about whether the U.S. would ever get militarily involved in defending Taiwan this way: “Yes, that’s the commitment we made.” True, his aides walked him back on the subject, but from sending American naval vessels through the Taiwan strait and into the South China Sea to ramping up naval war exercises with allies in the Pacific, everything seems to be getting colder and colder in ways that seem hotter and hotter.

The world may look more ominous to some of us, but not, it seems, to the Pentagon. In terms of what matters to our military leaders, things — think: funding — are only (and eternally) on the upswing.  Keep all of this in mind as you read Hartung’s latest yearly look at our national (in)security budget and how, in a world with so many other problems, it continues to go through the roof. Tom

Singer Macy Gray Stating the Obvious

Posted on by
Reply

If you want me to call you a ‘her,’ I will, because that’s what you want. But that doesn’t make you a woman, just because I call you a ‘her’ and just because you got a surgery,” singer Macy Gray said.

“Women go through just a completely unique experience. And surgery or finding yourself doesn’t change that. Being a little girl is a whole epic book, and you can’t have that just because you want to be a woman,” Gray affirmed.

After Piers Morgan pointed out that she might get called “transphobic” for saying these things, the singer said, “But it’s the truth, and I don’t think you should be called transphobic just because you don’t agree.”

“There’s a lot of judgment and throwing stones at people for just saying what it is,” she added.

Source: Breitbart [7-6-22]

What Were Good Germans Doing in Germany, say 1933 ?

Posted on by
Reply

Outlaw guns, and there will be no gun violence. Just as outlawing drugs ended drug abuse. Got it? Government succeeds at everything it tries.

**************

Are the RINOs and DemComs evil and lawless enough to arrest Trump and imprison him so he cannot run and win again in 2024? Yes, they are that evil. Watch them try.

**************

Who is John Galt?

**************

Liz Cheney won’t rule out a presidential run in 2024.

It seems like the more unqualified and wretched you are, the more likely you are to run for President. It shows how worthless that once esteemed office has become. This twit, Liz Cheney, will end up on MSNBC.

**************

America is an occupied country. Everything our present federal government is doing is exactly what an invading enemy would have done upon taking over. It’s not a theory. It’s an out-in-the open FACT.

**************

John Pavlovitz, @johnpavlovitz on Twitter:

“Dear Good Americans,

Whatever you wish more good Germans were doing in Germany in 1933 — you need to be doing that now.”

Frank Meyer: from “In Defense of Freedom”

Posted on by
Reply

This is the principle of collectivism; and it remains the principle of collectivism even though the New Conservatives who speak of “community” would prefer a congeries of communities … to the totalizing and equalizing national or international community which is the goal of the collectivists. This is to their credit…. But what the New Conservatives will not see is that there are no solid grounds on which the kind of “community” they propose as the end towards which social existence should be ordered can be defended against the kind of “community” the collectivists propose…. Caught within the pattern of concepts inherited from classical political theory, they [the New Conservatives] cannot free themselves from the doctrine that men find their true being only as organic parts of a social entity, from which and in terms of which their lives take value. Hence the New Conservatives cannot effectively combat the essential political error of collectivist liberalism: its elevation of corporate society, and the state which stands as the enforcing agency of corporate society, to the level of final political ends.