On June 1, President Trump sent the globalists into an uproar withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Accord. After his move, many commentators and environmentalists mourned and screamed that “the sky was falling.”
The president was wise in his action. He was also extremely courageous to stand up to Global Mob Think and and declare:
“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris…The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world. It is time to exit the Paris Accord — and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens, and our country.”
Since I believe in the reality of the Satanic world (the unseen presence of the devil and his fallen angels), I am constantly on the lookout for lies and untruths that are meant to hurt human beings.
Jesus the Messiah, whose birth we celebrate in two weeks, alerted us to Satan’s methods when he said, “He (the devil) was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44).
Jesus also told us two chapters later that “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). Thus Satan’s motive is to hurt people through deception.
There are many lies circulating in our world right now. One is that many US police are racist and unfairly target minorities. Another is that the CIA routinely used barbaric torture during the War on Terror.
This week let’s look at the lie of man-made global warming and share some good news.
By many accounts, the northern hemisphere is beginning one of the coldest winters in recent memory. I was in Wyoming in mid-November when the temperature was 15 degrees below zero and the countryside blanketed with early snow pack. That week the United States saw 1000 cities and towns experience their lowest-ever recorded temperatures–and Europe wasn’t much better.
Yet, liberal progressives have been telling us for decades that human pollution is warming the planet and that a catastrophe lies in front of us if we don’t do anything about it.
As I’ve pointed out in prior articles, the lie about climate change has a number of different elements:
1. MONEY: Some climatologists and business people make billions of dollars in research grants and development funds by pushing the theory of global warming. Follow the money trail.
2. POWER: Forcing nations to unreasonably curtail greenhouse gases and the like, such as the USA’s recent “deal” with China, is a fashionable form of tyranny, i.e. controlling people’s lives via the environment. As Jonah Goldberg points out, it is the preferred brand of liberal fascism in the 21st century.
3. POVERTY: If we do all the things that the radical environmentalists desire, then mankind will go back to the Dark Ages–which wasn’t a pristine existence. It is the surest ticket to poverty and misery.
In other words, deceiving us about an impending demise of Arctic ice is a very clever way of destroying the true progress that human beings have made on the earth in the past five hundred years.
Recently, Alex Epstein in The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels has articulated what we all should have known since grammar school–that for thousands of years people on earth feared the power of nature and lived in subjection to it.
But then came along the rise of the biblical worldview of stewarding and improving the planet.
In the past few centuries, not only have millions of people been pulled out of poverty, but far less people have been subject to the unharnessed forces of nature. In fact, a powerful, positive case can be made that the wise use of fossil fuels has been the greatest deterrent to climatic catastrophies in the history of man.
Yes, you read that line right.
Finally, some common sense about climate change.
I will let famous journalist John Stossel set the record straight.
By John Stossel
People argue about whether the “consensus” of scientists is that we face disaster because of global warming. Instead of debating whether man’s greenhouse gasses will raise temperatures, we should argue about how we gauge disasters.
If you take most environmentalists and climate scientists at their word, the Earth heated up about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century, not much more than it heated up the century before that. Warming may increase, but no one can be certain of that.
Let’s agree for the sake of argument that this recent warming was partly caused by humanity. Let’s also agree that there are some negative effects, including more frequent coastal flooding or longer droughts.
If we agree that those are costs, shouldn’t we also look at the benefits? Much of modern civilization owes its existence to our use of the fossil fuels that produce the greenhouse gasses.
I don’t see that civilization as misfortune. I wish climate alarmists would weigh its accomplishments against the relatively small downsides of climate change. One of industry’s biggest accomplishments is creating a world where far fewer of us are likely to die because of weather.
Alex Epstein’s book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” documents the rapidly shrinking number of human beings killed by storms, floods and other climate events thanks largely to ever-growing industry, fueled mainly by oil, natural gas and coal.
On my show this week, he argues that if we compare conditions a century ago to conditions last year, we shouldn’t obsess about how much carbon dioxide is in the air — or whether earth is warming — we should look at how much safer life became.
In 2013, “Climate-related deaths were at a record low — in supposedly the worst climate in history — under 30,000,” says Epstein. In 1931, bad weather killed 3 million people. You can argue that we get some things wrong as a civilization, but thanks to our use of fossil fuels, we get something very right.
Epstein points out that humanity owes its current ability to survive harsh winters, arid deserts and other naturally dangerous environments to the same fuels that activists now condemn: “We have the luxury of being able to absorb a certain amount of climate-related damage so we can live in all of these cool places.”
His argument is unusual because environmentalists spread the idea that, without human interference, the planet is perfect.
But by what standard?
“If you went to someone 300 years ago and asked them, do you have a perfect climate?” they would think you were crazy, says Epstein. “They were terrified of climate, because climate doesn’t give you the resources that you need. It doesn’t give you water when you need it. It doesn’t give you the temperature when you need it.”
It was once common to say that humans change their environment. That shouldn’t offend people today, says Epstein. We should be thrilled that humans “create technology to master climate. … That’s why so few people today die from climate.”
Epstein correctly says that instead of talking about “climate change” — of which there will always be some, with or without human influence — we should focus on “climate catastrophe,” weather that actually kills people. Those catastrophes, measured in lost lives, are getting rarer.
Most of the changes humans make to our environment are desirable changes that help us live longer and more comfortably. “The dogma that man is ruining the planet rather than improving it is a religion, a source of prestige and a career for too many people.”
If we regard nature as pristine and think it must never be altered, we will have big problems. We will die young and lead miserable, difficult lives.
I think of industry as something that is mostly very good for us, with a few minor side effects that aren’t. Fossil fuels are a little like antibiotics, says Epstein. It’s good to draw attention to minor side effects, but it would be crazy to abandon all treatment because of them.
Fossil fuels are no catastrophe. They contribute to health and a better life.
When gas prices edged up fifty cents a gallon during the George Bush years, the mainstream media cried bloody murder trying to smear the Administration.
Yet under the Obama administration, gas prices have DOUBLED–with hardly a peep from those same news outlets.
Because it was never about prices. It was about bringing down a conservative president then, and propping up a liberal (socialist) one now.
The leftist media actually want gas prices to rise because they desire to take Americans out of their cars and into centrally-planned light rail systems the people don’t want to use. They want to promote wind, solar, and other renewable resources to “save the planet.”
It’s a huge “con” which is about nothing but control.
Controlling people. Limiting freedom.
America has plenty of energy resources to power everything we use–at far lower prices:
- We have vast oil reserves, including ANWAR, which if it had been developed ten years ago, would be making a significant contribution to lower fuel prices now.
- We have immense shale oil deposits that could be harvested.
- We possess the world’s greatest largest reserves of natural gas.
But there’s been a conspiracy in the past twenty years in this nation to place so-called environmental concerns over the future of powering America. Most of those”concerns” are just plain bunk.
It’s time we called the charade and demanded that American energy companies be allowed to do what’s necessary to bring down gasoline prices and provide complete energy independence from a chaotic Middle East.
The following article by the Heritage Foundation is right on the beam. Read it and let your voice by heard. RB.
“Obama’s Anti-Drilling Agenda Costs Jobs Across America”
President Obama’s hometown of Chicago is nearly 1,000 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. But like many other communities across the country, it is suffering the consequences of his Administration’s anti-drilling agenda.
Illinois accounted for $376.2 million in shallow-water drilling expenditures over the past three years, according to an analysis by 14 oil and gas companies that spend money on vendors and subcontractors. The bulk of that money—$242.2 million—was spent in the Chicago district represented by Representative Danny Davis (D–IL).
It’s fresh evidence that Obama’s anti-drilling agenda is having a ripple effect across America since last year’s oil spill, claiming jobs not just in Louisiana and Texas but also in communities far removed from the shipyards in the Gulf of Mexico.
The study from the Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition paints a picture of the nationwide economic ramifications. Obama can’t even be blamed for playing politics. Five of the states that benefit most from shallow-water drilling backed him as a candidate in 2008. And Democrats represent many of the congressional districts that stand to lose millions.
The cost in jobs is startling. A new analysis by Louisiana State University professor Joseph Mason projects national job losses at 19,000 from the drilling moratorium, with wage losses at $1.1 billion. About one-third of those jobs are located outside the Gulf region.
Nearly a year after imposing his anti-drilling agenda, it’s quite clear that Obama is carrying out misguided policies causing widespread harm.
And job losses aren’t the only consequence. The Obama Administration’s deliberate delay in issuing permits for both deepwater and shallow-water drilling has led to a sharp decline in oil production for the Gulf of Mexico this year. The U.S. Energy Information Administration puts the figure at 240,000 fewer barrels every day.
With gas prices hovering around $3.56 per gallon nationwide, now is not the time to lower production. The only way to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil is to produce more of it here at home.
The recent approval of new drilling permits for the Gulf of Mexico is a welcome and long overdue move by the Administration, but it’s nothing to celebrate. The pace of permitting is far below the historical average, and there’s no indication that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) has any desire to return production to a pre-spill level.
Until that happens, expect more grim news like the unfortunate circumstances facing Seahawk Drilling, which was forced to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a direct result of the bureaucratic delays at BOEMRE. Seahawk’s president and chief executive Randy Stilley, writing in The Washington Post, painted a dire picture:
The government’s drastic slowdown in the issuance of permits for shallow-water drilling operations—in which companies work in familiar geological formations, typically in less than 500 feet of water, mostly seeking to produce natural gas—has all but crippled the industry. The survivors (for now) like Hercules are staying afloat largely thanks to revenue from operations outside U.S. waters. Put another way, a once-proud industry born in the gulf during the Truman administration can no longer survive on operations in its own back yard.
Unless things change soon, Seahawk Drilling won’t be alone. Businesses located in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, California, and New York—top recipients of shallow-water drilling spending—will all face economic consequences as well.
It’s time for lawmakers to take notice. Representative John Sullivan (R–OK), who represents a district with $87.2 million in shallow-water expenditures over the past three years, recognizes the impact. He told us: “Continuing to keep American sources of energy under lock and key by failing to issue drilling permits only serves to place American jobs at risk, drives up costs at the pump and deepens our dependence on foreign oil.”
Things don’t have to be this way. The House of Representatives must continue to conduct rigorous oversight of the Obama Administration, challenging the Administration’s excuses and applying pressure when necessary. America’s energy future depends on it.