Obama’s Energy Gambit

Absurdities punctuated by contradictions

Apparently fooling no one, the Obama regime announced what it hoped would be seen as wide-reaching initiatives in the realm of not-so-green energy production.

It took about five minutes for critics to dissect and discredit the announcement. The only real mystery here is: What’s he up to this time?

On its surface, it appears an ill-conceived effort on Obama’s part. Proponents of expanded oil exploration (the “Drill, baby, drill” contingent) quickly pointed-out the most glaring shortcomings of his announcement: That it would take at least two years to have any effect, that it omitted the most-coveted reserves (notably the rich ANWR oil-fields)—and in fact excluded more areas than it identified as acceptable for exploration, and that the very use of the term “explore” doesn’t carry with it the promise of actual fuel production. In this supposed acknowledgment that “green” technology is not yet the panacea many would like for it to be, The Anointed One suggests an interest in resorting to less-trendy energy sources (“suggests” is the key word, here). He even gives a nod to coal as an acceptable energy source (did anyone notice a slight choking sound accompanying those words as they escaped his lips?). The notion that he’d publicly embrace (or appear to) fossil fuels is reported to have shocked tree-huggers so deeply that they found themselves no longer hugging; rather, they were clinging desperately for support as their knees went weak.

Be not afraid, wood-nymphs; had you been paying attention these past few years, you’d know to not believe anything Obama says. (On the other hand…had you been paying attention, he’d never have been elected in the first place.)

If there was a surprise in all this, it was that Obama would deign to even mention coal, at all. He’s clearly established himself as no friend to the coal industry (conveniently overlooking the simple fact that half the nation’s — and the world’s — electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants, and completely ignoring coal’s economic importance). Moreover, coal is anathema to his green-minded left wing; throwing genuine support to coal at this point would risk alienating a significant percentage of his liberal base.

He should re-think his position.

Public perceptions of coal notwithstanding, coal could well prove a boon for U.S. energy—if allowed to do so. It’s estimated that domestic coal reserves have the capacity to end dependence on foreign oil (can you say “national security”?)—and USGS surveys indicate that peak coal (the point at which maximum production has been reached—and a period of declining production begins) won’t be reached until about 2030. Contrary to the long-held image of coal as a dirty, pollution-spewing, outmoded energy source, current technology permits coal’s conversion to both liquid and gas fuels at a cost comparable to that of petroleum-based fuels—and “clean coal” power plants could easily supplant their smoke-belching ancestors. No, it’s not the ultimate, perfect energy source; it could do the trick, however, until “green” alternatives catch-up. (Something to think about while watching news video of “wind farms” in the northern U.S. rendered useless when their enormous turbines were frozen still by harsh winter weather.)

Petroleum experts, meanwhile, openly scoffed at this claimed shift in the White House’s position, correctly noting that no drilling has yet been authorized—and doubts were raised that even one oil platform would ever be established. A trademark Obama performance, the “announcement” was predictably long on vague, abstract aims—and just as predictably short on specific commitments.

Oh, and Obama also reminded us that he’d given the green light to building the first nuclear power plant to be constructed in this nation in three decades (no word yet on when that’ll actually come to pass—if it ever does).

At this point, it might be helpful to consider a few significant points:

 

Despite his new suggestions (and they’re just that: mere suggestions…hints—not hard commitments) of openness to further oil exploration, it must be remembered that throughout his campaign for the White House Obama opposed — consistently and firmly — any new drilling.

While seeming to be amenable to increased coal use, Obama’s EPA just a few months ago rejected seventy-nine mining permits. (It should also be noted that obtaining new permits is a slow process; one estimate places the interval between permit request to actual production at up to seven years.)

While outwardly encouraging the development of nuclear power, Obama terminated the Yucca Mountain (NV) project after the expenditure of nearly $10 billion—leaving the nuclear industry with no long-term repository for spent nuclear fuel.

 

To repeat the question posed above: What’s Obama up to this time? (Recall once again his own words: “I always have a plan.”)

The prevailing guess is that he intends to somehow leverage the salvation of his “cap-and-screw trade” proposal (currently languishing in Congress—bereft of supporters in the wake of the bitter health care reform scuffle). Given his reputation for employing varying combinations of smoke, mirrors, bribes, and blackmail…well, it certainly seems a reasonable conclusion. (One might be well-advised to put-off buying oil futures just yet.)

So…how should we regard the seeming contradictions posed by Obama’s momentous announcement?

Warily. Very warily.

________

Global Warming: Part Duh

As Obama might say: “Let me be clear.”

I was asked a few questions in conjunction with comments attached to the preceding posting. The first was whether I was “saying there is no man-made global warming dooming this planet?”…the second speculated as to whether I believed that “global warming was just a ruse?”…and the third solicited my opinion of Al Gore’s role in the climate change controversy.

I’ll take a shot at them all with this new posting.

There’s more than enough irrefutable evidence that global warming — and cooling — have occurred at various times over a period of millions of years. Some changes appear to be attributable to specific events (e.g., volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts that caused occlusive dust and ash clouds dense enough to block the sun’s rays), while others have yet to be explained—although a number of theories have been advanced, and some appear to be plausible.

As to whether we’re currently experiencing a warming trend…well, that’s another matter. Over a period of several years, I came to essentially accept — with some reservations, owing to persistent indications to the contrary — that we were; however, recent revelations have prompted me (and many others) to question that position. With the discovery of previously unknown climatological data, doubt has been cast. I consider it an unsettled issue—and very much open to debate.

The question then arises: Notwithstanding volcanoes and asteroids, is all other climate change caused by humans?

Hmmm. Another interesting proposition. Not long ago, there was broad support for the theory that global warming is actually caused by flatulent cattle releasing huge volumes of methane gas into the atmosphere, producing a greenhouse effect. (The last I heard, the jury’s still out on that one; if saving the world requires sacrificing methane-bloated cows, however, I insist that we start with the current Speaker of the House. Absent a prodigious bovine population, she’ll no longer have access to a ready source of Botox, anyway.) There’s yet another theory that there is indeed a warming trend—but that theory likewise excludes humans as the cause. Unless we’re also causing global warming on Mars—which seems to be inconveniently warming at a surprising rate, as well. (Actually, speculation as to the cause of Mars’ warming trend is focused mostly on two suspected causes—one of which may also be related to climate change on Earth http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html and http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html .)

However, I suspect that the primary thrust of my initial posting was overlooked, anyway. I shall now endeavor to clarify.

We look to science for answers—but we also expect science to do the single most important thing that science is supposed to do: to question. And science is expected to react as Ayn Rand advised: “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” (Which is why I cited Velikovsky—who reacted in this fashion to apparent contradictions. Though his work was highly controversial, he must be credited with having the integrity to discard his original postulates when faced with clear evidence of their inaccuracy.)

Indications of global warming are troubling—but no more troubling than the behavior of many prominent scientists. When presented with credible climatological data calling into question their growing acceptance of claims related to climate change (read: “apparent contradictions”), such data deserved their careful scrutiny; instead, they responded with a concerted effort to stifle dissenting voices and dismiss out-of-hand even the mere suggestion that their precious theories just might be wrong. Their only lament? That the revelation of such contradictions might lead to a loss of credibility among the general public (thus far the only claim that’s been proven correct), as revealed in the University of East Anglia e-mail scandal.

This is good science?

I’ve not suggested that assertions of climate change are without merit; to the contrary, I consider it a serious matter that warrants careful examination and research—examination and research that won’t be accomplished if a substantial percentage of the scientific community (that’s the folks who should be doing the examining and researching) insist on wearing blinders and smothering valid skepticism of as-yet unproven claims. Yes, some glaciers are melting—but they’ve also melted in the past. Yes, ocean current temperatures suggest external causes—but no definitive evidence has yet been presented. No, I don’t consider the snow on my driveway (in Alabama) an indication that we’re actually experiencing global cooling; some computer models developed to support claims of global warming actually predict such phenomena—and it’s snowed here before, anyway. Yes, I believe that we experience global warming…and cooling—but I remain unconvinced that such conditions aren’t cyclic; it follows, then, that I’d be uncertain whether mankind causes such fluctuations, either—a healthy skepticism shared by scientists and researchers who are a hell of a lot more qualified than I am to voice dissent.

Do I believe that “global warming was just a ruse?” Not necessarily. As I indicated, there’s sufficient evidence to warrant further study; the true gravity of the situation, however, I consider debatable. One must consider the stakes involved. Might a researcher be inclined to accentuate one finding over another in an effort to obtain (or hang onto) a lucrative research grant? Might a financier with extensive investments in “green” technology apply pressure to privately-funded research groups in an effort to produce findings favorable to those investments? Is it conceivable that a political figure might beat the drum for “green” legislation knowing the power that will be vested in the overseers of such changes?

Vast (and I mean really vast) sums of money and almost unimaginable power and influence hang in the balance. For the foreseeable future, he who controls the “green” agenda stands to hold sway over areas as diverse as government, manufacturing, finance, commerce,—… The list goes on and on—both domestically and (even more so) on the global stage.

Al Gore? An opportunist—and a very hypocritical one, at that (he wants me to lighten my “carbon footprint?” Take a look at his.). He’s shown that he’s not as knowledgeable as he’d have us believe. And he’s reputed to have accumulated an almost embarrassing level of wealth during his little crusade. Still, it’s possible that he’s sincere in what he espouses—though I’m much more inclined to view him as simply a well-compensated mouthpiece…and maybe even a mere stooge.

In summary, there’s surprisingly little about climate change or its suspected causes that we know for certain. I’ll reiterate my contention that responsibility for the lack of reliable information rests with the scientists who have allowed extraneous influences to get in the way of good science.

________

Global Warming, Ice Ages, Hot Air, and Snow Jobs

Will the real “scientific evidence” please stand up?

I retain dim memories now of a time ‘way back in my mis-spent youth (usually recalled only with the aid of regressive hypno-therapy) when someone figured out that the hazy, murky air that seemed to perpetually hang over southern California might actually present real hazards beyond the occasional burning sensation we felt in our eyes. I suppose we always knew deep down inside that it wasn’t as harmless as we had long presumed, but we didn’t really grasp until the late-1960’s the potential drawbacks to breathing-in all that tetraethyl lead (a common gasoline additive of the day) and the increasingly-dense concentration of hydrocarbons and various industrial pollutants; scientists had finally produced reliable data that clearly identified the threat.

Similarly, the Surgeon General had released a report several years previously that (as the warning that each pack of cigarettes soon told us) “cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health.” It still wasn’t a certainty (hence the “may be”), but decades of anecdotal evidence and related research finally identified tobacco as a likely culprit. Unable to definitively link smoking to various illnesses, however, good science mandated that — although researchers were pretty well convinced of the hazards presented — they had to be honest and ‘fess-up that it was still conjecture. Strong conjecture, to be sure—but conjecture nonetheless. And they kept digging—as good scientists do.

Going back much farther, noted 17th century astronomer Johannes Kepler built much of his work on predecessor Tycho Brahe’s foundation of astronomical observations. It’s been reported that Kepler found, however, that he was unable to reconcile a number of inconsistencies. Upon further investigation, he learned that Tycho — a respected researcher whose work had previously been confirmed — appeared to have taken some liberties with the truth; unable to substantiate his own theories but certain that he was correct, Tycho had substituted some of his research results with data that appeared to support his conclusions. Tycho’s data, unfortunately, proved to be flawed; as a result, much of Kepler’s work that had used this data as a foundation was necessarily scrapped and his own research begun anew. In a world that still viewed science warily, Tycho’s subterfuge certainly didn’t bolster confidence in scientific analysis.

It is against this backdrop that we must view the recent revelation that climatological research adduced as evidence of global warming is in fact suspect; eager to “prove” that the threat is real, overly-zealous scientists appear to have supplanted good science with political expedience, by turns selectively suppressing and over-emphasizing their findings.

They should be flogged.

It required hundreds of years for science to legitimize itself, rising from the level of alchemy and sorcery to establish itself as a trusted source of information. We long ago developed an affinity for the reassuring label “scientifically proven,” confidently hanging our hats on laboratory findings and using them as the basis for our own choices and decisions. We came to trust science as the way to better health, safer machines, improved living conditions, and the means to reveal long-hidden secrets of the world around us. We embraced in our minds the image of legions of white-coated purists dutifully plodding through reams of pristine data in the single-minded pursuit of the truth unfettered by outside influence or preconceived notions.

What we increasingly see, however, is a world rife with allegations of arm-twisting, influence-peddling, blackballing, pandering, butt-kissing, data manipulation, political influence, power brokering, and bribery that often relegates truth to the role of undesirable wallflower. Perhaps it has always been that way, a nether world carefully concealed behind laboratory doors, unseen by the general public. Perhaps later generations of scientists forgot the hard lessons learned by their predecessors. One might suspect that both possibilities come into play—as do others.

In any event, those who’ve forsaken the truth in furtherance of another agenda have betrayed their chosen fields—from medicine and public health to climate change to…who knows?

After the concept of global warming was first advanced, there appeared mounting evidence to support that claim—and our level of concern rose accordingly. As time went by, this cumulative evidence became more and more alarming; naturally, acceptance of the whole body of evidence widened. (Significantly, however, as far back as the early 1980’s there existed an entirely contradictory school of thought—one that warned ominously of a new ice age looming.) Though not universally accepted, belief in the phenomenon of global warming — and that it was caused by Man — had largely taken hold.

Until recently.

By now, most people are familiar with the scandal that grew out of the University of East Anglia. Though charges and counter-charges, denials, and disclaimers continue to fly, the validity of global warming claims (the current preferred expression is “climate change”—possibly owing to the current embarrassingly cold winter) has sustained a massive blow. Discoveries of collusion, suppression of data, and ruthless steamrolling of even respected voices of dissent within the scientific community have given rise to widespread skepticism over whether global warming is a problem at all—and (if it is) whether the condition is man-made. In addition, previously discredited studies are now the subject of closer scrutiny amid charges that they were too-brusquely dismissed.

Needless to say, confidence in the sanctity of scientific research has been shaken—a condition worsened by the involvement of “green” politics, cap-and-trade concerns, and the staggering financial implications.

Nor is climate change the only field under the microscope. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have long been criticized for overlooking clear health threats and selectively manipulating data to either focus or diffuse public concern—sometimes along purely political lines. And then there’s the noted researcher at Bay State Medical Center in Massachusetts who accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to conduct clinical research on the company’s anti-inflammatory drug Celebrex; he published several papers citing patient data—but it was later discovered that he’d never enrolled a single test subject. (He’s been dismissed from Bay State and is currently under indictment for fraud; as it turns out, he’s alleged to have fabricated research data for more than a decade.)

I do not for a moment purport to be a qualified research specialist. I have neither the credentials nor the experience to rival scientists. I’m reminded, however, of the popular television show CSI, when the character Gil Grissom counsels his investigators to “follow the evidence.” Immanuel Velikovsky (author of Worlds in Collision and Ages in Chaos) initially set out to buttress his earlier research—but gradually became convinced that his original premises had been flawed. He then did what any good researcher (or scientist) should do: he changed the direction of his work and followed the data where it led him, sublimating his own views in the quest for truth.

We should be able to depend on at least as much from those who are so influential in determining what drugs are safe, which diseases pose risks, and how we should be living our lives.

________