This is fabulous and very much worth following.
Peter
Google’s Landsat Video of EarthJuly 25, 2012 | Earth Engine
Google has prepared a video that describes the Landsat program and includes some spectacular views of earth. Now, Google Earth Engine allows scientists, researchers and the public to easily view and analyze this treasure trove of planetary data.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Biofuels Lead To Food Crisis
This is unfortunately so predictable. It has been said here by me, and others all along, that using food crops to make fuel is insanity. What is worse is it being done in the name of "stopping global warming" (now they call it climate change) by using less of those evil fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal). And these people call this being "green".....and call themselves "Progressives". They're not progressive in any way. To put it politely, they are regressive. They would have us living in the stone age, or using horses and buggies, if that.
It is becoming painfully clear that solar power and wind power and geothermal energy can not meet the demand either. Thank goodness we've discovered what can be done with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling to increase the production of oil and gas, the only fuels that can meet the world's demand. See here for more information on oil and gas: http://geopetesview.blogspot.com/
Peter
The Biofuels Disaster: ‘Green’ Politicians Cause Another Food Crisis
A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity. The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger. The growth in the production of biofuels has helped to push the price of some crops to record levels. It was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel. --Grant Ferrett, BBC News, 27 October 2007
The world is running short of corn. That is the message being delivered by the market, where on Thursday prices pushed above $8 a bushel for the first time. With no obvious abundance of international suppliers to make up for the drought-ravaged US corn crop and stocks close to record lows, traders and analysts believe demand must be pegged back.The biggest potential for a reduction in corn demand comes from the ethanol industry, which is using roughly 5bn bushels of corn, or nearly 40 per cent of the US corn crop, each year to make fuel for cars and animal feed. -- Financial Times, 19 July 2012
read the remainder of the article here:
It is becoming painfully clear that solar power and wind power and geothermal energy can not meet the demand either. Thank goodness we've discovered what can be done with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling to increase the production of oil and gas, the only fuels that can meet the world's demand. See here for more information on oil and gas: http://geopetesview.blogspot.com/
Peter
The Biofuels Disaster: ‘Green’ Politicians Cause Another Food Crisis
| July 20 2012
A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity. The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger. The growth in the production of biofuels has helped to push the price of some crops to record levels. It was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel. --Grant Ferrett, BBC News, 27 October 2007The world is running short of corn. That is the message being delivered by the market, where on Thursday prices pushed above $8 a bushel for the first time. With no obvious abundance of international suppliers to make up for the drought-ravaged US corn crop and stocks close to record lows, traders and analysts believe demand must be pegged back.The biggest potential for a reduction in corn demand comes from the ethanol industry, which is using roughly 5bn bushels of corn, or nearly 40 per cent of the US corn crop, each year to make fuel for cars and animal feed. -- Financial Times, 19 July 2012
read the remainder of the article here:
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Doomsday Environmental Fearmongers Will Not Go Away
These "scientists" and the United Nations make a living from instilling fear in people, coercing them to pay higher taxes giving them more control. The late, lamented Michael Crichton was "spot on" with his book "State of Fear". Nature will pretty much take its course, no matter what us "insignificant" humans do. Giving money to these self-serving "scientists" and the United Nations is a total waste.
Do a search for Michael Crichton on this blog for much more information on his expose' of environmental fear tactics.
Peter
Do a search for Michael Crichton on this blog for much more information on his expose' of environmental fear tactics.
Peter
Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists
People walk together in a city …
Climate change, population growth …
The Khumbu Glacier at Everest-Khumbu
Climate change, population growth and environmental destruction could cause a collapse of the ecosystem just a few generations from now, scientists warned on Wednesday in the journal Nature.
The paper by 22 top researchers said a "tipping point" by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century.
The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.
The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.
The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.
The factors in today's equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinctions.
Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.
To support today's population, about 43 percent of Earth's ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.
On current trends, the 50 percent mark will be reached by 2025, a point the scientists said is worryingly close to the tipping point.
If that happened, collapse would entail a shocking disruption for the world's food supply, with bread-basket regions curtailed in their ability to grow corn, wheat, rice, fodder and other essential crops.
"It really will be a new world, biologically, at that point," said lead author Anthony Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California in Berkeley.
"The data suggests that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest products and clean water. This could happen within just a few generations."
The authors stressed it was unclear when this feared tipover would happen, given blanks in knowledge about the phenomenon.
And they said there were plenty of solutions -- such as ending unsustainable patterns of growth and resource waste -- that mean it is not inevitable.
"In a nutshell, humans have not done anything really important to stave off the worst because the social structures for doing something just aren't there," said Arne Mooers, a professor of biodiversity at Simon Fraser University in Canada's British Columbia.
"My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the Earth's history are more than pretty worried," he said in a press release. "In fact, some are terrified." (Yes, they're terrified they're going to lose their funding and government pensions.)
Past shifts examined in the study included the end of the last Ice Age, between 14,000 and 11,000 years ago, and five species mass extinctions which occurred around 443 million, 359 million, 251 million, 200 million and 65 million years ago.
Earth today is vulnerable to fast change because of the growing connectedness between ecosystems, voracious use of resources and an unprecedented surge in greenhouse gases, the authors concluded.
In a report on Wednesday issued ahead of the "Rio+20" summit, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that burgeoning populations and unsustainable patterns of growth were driving Earth towards "unprecedented" eco-damage.
Environmentalists Screw It Up Down Under
It is not just in the U.S.A. that "environmentalists" and their liberal elitist enablers screw things up in their ignorance of science and basic economics. I won't even mention their lack of knowledge about human nature. The utterly absurd and unfounded belief in the myth of man-caused global warming has led and is leading to disasters such as this in Australia, and is being repeated around the world.
Let your politicians know enough is enough. End the nonsense!
Peter
FLOODS? On Gippsland's Mitchell River? Again? What a surprise to anyone stupid enough to trust the warmist politicians who recently ran this sorry state.
Remember how the Bracks and Brumby governments refused to build a cheap dam on the Mitchell River for a quarter of the price of their $5.7 billion desalination plant?
Remember how Labor even turned the dam reservation on the Mitchell into a national park to stop anyone else from building a dam on Victoria's fastest-flowing river - a dam to harvest cheap water for booming Melbourne and minimise the flooding you're now seeing downstream?
Remember premier John Brumby insisting global warming was drying up our rains, so a new dam would be useless since "we don't lack for storage, we lack for rain"?
Remember Melbourne Water parroting the same warming creed, arguing against a dam on the Mitchell because a "rainfall-dependent water source in the face of rapidly changing climate patterns is very risky"?
Yeah, right.
Now let's remember what came next.
Let's remember how the undammed Mitchell flooded in 2007, sending a year's worth of drinking water for Melbourne down to the sea.
Let's remember how pigheaded Labor nevertheless ploughed ahead with its desalination plant, now hopelessly behind schedule and over budget.
Read rest…
Let your politicians know enough is enough. End the nonsense!
Peter
| June 06 2012
Upstream on the Mitchell Rive (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Remember how the Bracks and Brumby governments refused to build a cheap dam on the Mitchell River for a quarter of the price of their $5.7 billion desalination plant?
Remember how Labor even turned the dam reservation on the Mitchell into a national park to stop anyone else from building a dam on Victoria's fastest-flowing river - a dam to harvest cheap water for booming Melbourne and minimise the flooding you're now seeing downstream?
Remember premier John Brumby insisting global warming was drying up our rains, so a new dam would be useless since "we don't lack for storage, we lack for rain"?
Remember Melbourne Water parroting the same warming creed, arguing against a dam on the Mitchell because a "rainfall-dependent water source in the face of rapidly changing climate patterns is very risky"?
Yeah, right.
Now let's remember what came next.
Let's remember how the undammed Mitchell flooded in 2007, sending a year's worth of drinking water for Melbourne down to the sea.
Let's remember how pigheaded Labor nevertheless ploughed ahead with its desalination plant, now hopelessly behind schedule and over budget.
Read rest…
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Big Brother Is Watching, And Listening...And Who Knows what Else?
I guess I can safely assume I'm on the Deparment Of Homeland Security's watch list. This is almost comical were it not so serious.
Peter
Peter
Don’t Say That! Just Don’t Say It!
As the result of a Freedom of Information Act request, the US Government has released the list of words that will trigger the Department of Homeland Security to start monitoring your online contributions and conversations. The list is divided into sections by subject matter.
Figure 1. You can call it a thunderstorm, but under no circumstances should you call it “extreme weather”
I was greatly amused to find a section for words about “Weather” on the list, which contains the following terms.
Lest you think I’m making this up, the list of words is on page 23 of the “Analyst’s Binder“, which describes the situation for those doing the analysis …
w.
Figure 1. You can call it a thunderstorm, but under no circumstances should you call it “extreme weather”Weather/Disaster/Emergency Emergency Hurricane Tornado Twister Tsunami Earthquake Tremor Flood Storm Crest Temblor Extreme weather Forest fire Brush fire Ice Stranded/Stuck Help Hail Wildfire Tsunami Warning Center Magnitude Avalanche Typhoon Shelter-in-place Disaster Snow Blizzard Sleet Mud slide or Mudslide Erosion Power outage Brown out Warning Watch Lightening Aid Relief Closure Interstate Burst Emergency Broadcast SystemLooks like WUWT is going to be front and center 24/7/365 at the Department of Homeland Security, no matter what we do …
Lest you think I’m making this up, the list of words is on page 23 of the “Analyst’s Binder“, which describes the situation for those doing the analysis …
w.
The More Science One Knows, The Less They Believe In Man-Caused Global Warming
www.climatechangedispatch.com
Combating the alarmist nature of the mainstream media and the climate change zealots who have turned man-made global warming into a profit-driven industry and not a scientific endeavor for answers. We seek to explore the notion that the fractional increase in temperature is primarily caused by man a...(continued here)
2012-05-29 18:29
Ignorance is not bliss, it is servitude.
Well said Gator!
Grade-school teacher known as "Evil Mr. Methane" teaching (brainwashing) children about the grave dangers of fossil fuels that "cause global warming". This guy is what is known as a useful idiot by central control advocates.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Winning The War Over The Madness Behind The Myth Of Man-caused Global Warming And Climate Change
We have not totally won this war, but we're making progress. Much depends on our ultimate victory; our economy, jobs, the environment itself, on even the integrity of science. Unfortunately this whole sordid affair has become all too political and is now one major reason Obama must go. The following article is excellent. Share it.
Peter
“We are winning the war,” was a phrase I heard repeatedly this week. Congressman Sensenbrenner, Vice Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, said: “We won on these issues because we were right.”
Which war? The war that brought together more than 60 scientists from around the world—including astronauts, meteorologists, and physicians; politicians—comprising the Congressman, a head of state, and a member of the European Parliament; and policy analysts and media for two-and-a-half days in Chicago, in a battle over climate change and the belief that there needs to be real science—more “about honest debate than ideological warfare.”
Assembled by the Heartland Institute, the seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7) provided the second opportunity for Congressman Sensenbrenner to address the group. In his opening comments, Sensenbrenner said, “We’ve come a long way.”
He recounted: “When I last spoke, the House of Representatives was poised to pass the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill; the United Nations was promising the extension and expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and President Obama was touting Spain as our model for a massive increase in renewable energy subsidies. Three years later, cap-and-tax is dead; the Kyoto Protocol is set to expire; and Spain recently announced that it eliminated new renewable energy subsidies.”
Sensenbrenner told about the behind the scenes wrangling that went on to get the Waxman-Markey bill passed. “I was on the House floor on June 29, 2009, when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi desperately pulled Members aside to lobby, beg, and bargain for votes for the Waxman-Markey bill.” It did pass. But “the electoral consequences for the proponents of these policies was severe.” Just 16 months later, in the 2010 elections, “over two dozen of the Members she convinced to vote ‘yes’ lost their jobs.”
It wasn’t just the Members who suffered harsh political ramifications for their support of the Waxman-Markey bill—which was supposed to nullify the impact of manmade global warming through a cap-and-trade scheme. Sensenbrenner contends that support of the manmade (anthropogenic) global warming position (AGW) also cost Al Gore the presidency back in 2004. He explained: “West Virginia’s 5 electoral votes would have tipped the election for Gore, and Gore’s near-evangelical support for climate change easily cost him the 42,000 votes he would have needed to win there.”
While there is little debate that the climate does change, there is debate as to what causes it. The camps are divided into two general groups along the line of human’s role—with Al Gore’s camp believing that the “science is settled” concluding that man’s driving of SUVs burning petroleum products that emit CO2 (and other symptoms of the developed world) is the cause, and the other disagreeing. The “other” is who gathered in Chicago last week amid the thousands of NATO protestors. The “other” not only disagrees with Al Gore’s AGW position—but they disagree with each other.
I attended session after session where sunspots were addressed, deep ocean circulation changes were discussed, the CO2 contribution of volcanoes was brought up, and the health impacts of a warmer planet were touted—just to name a few. I brought home reams of documentation, some of which are, frankly, beyond my comprehension.
Whether or not the documentable climate change—cooler in the seventies, warmer in the nineties, stable for the last decade (just to point out some recent changes)—is due to the sun or the sea, or myriad other causes, the key take away is that the science is not settled.
Four former NASA employees presented at ICCC7—two astronauts: Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7) and Dr. Harrison “Jack” Schmitt (Apollo 17). They talked about a letter sent to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., in which they requested that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) “refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites.”
The March 28 letter, signed by 49 former NASA employees, declares that they “believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
It is the “unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change” that should concern you and me—and, it is not just coming from NASA. It is coming from the White House and the EPA, from environmental groups and protestors.
The belief that CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change is the driver for today’s energy policy.
Based on a supposed “consensus,” politicians, and the nonelected bureaucrats they appointed, have, and are, making risky investments with taxpayer dollars (think Solyndra, et al); subsidizing “alternative” energies such as wind and solar that are not effective, efficient, or economical; blocking access to resources that are abundant, available, and affordable—which raises gasoline prices and punishes those who can least afford it; and regulating America’s most cost-effective electricity out of commission. The increasing energy costs are hurting all of America—individuals and industry—and our competitive edge.
Roger Helmer, a member of the European Parliament, offered these comments regarding wind energy and the entire green project in his presentation at ICCC7: “Wind plus gas back up results in virtually zero emissions savings. So, we are desecrating the countryside, we are wasting huge amounts of money, we are impoverishing our children, we are choosing poverty over prosperity—and after all that, we are not even achieving what we set out to achieve. This is madness, madness, madness writ large.”
Once you remove the manmade climate change/CO2 concerns, the foundation for expensive, intermittent “renewable” energy goes away—and there is a huge investment, emotional, ideological, and financial, in keeping the ruse alive.
In comparing the manmade climate change scheme to the European single currency, Helmer said: “Both of the projects are falling apart before our very eyes. But, as they fall apart, the true believers, especially the people with a financial interest—let’s not forget that these projects have attracted vast political and intellectual capital, but they’ve also attracted vast numbers of rent seekers and hangers on, and people whose jobs depend on these projects, and these people do not want to see them go away so these people are coming forward and—are thinking of every possible excuse which might explain what has gone wrong with the projects.”
No wonder there is a war. One side wants to “defend its findings,” while the other wants to “find the truth.”
While America is in an economic war, “advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers, is inappropriate.” In this election season, all candidates would do well to remember the fate of Al Gore and his many AGW supporters. Sensenbrenner offered these wise words on energy policy: “Going forward, we must continue to oppose bad ideas and continue to support technological development the only way it works—by allowing markets to determine the technological winners and losers.”
Echoing the war theme, Helmer offered encouragement in his closing remarks: “This is a battle that we must win. We must win it for America. We must win it for Europe. We must win it for our children and grandchildren. And, we must win it for all mankind. I’ll tell you why we will win it, because, we have two weapons in our armory that the bad guys don’t have. The first weapon is the truth, and the second weapon is the climate.”
Whether scientist or politician, policy analyst or media, one message that came through loud and clear at the ICCC7 is that we’ve come a long way in the climate change war, and we are winning, but we haven’t won yet! The climate change battle is at the center of global energy policy, and the countries that have the ability to develop their natural resources to produce cheap energy will be the victors.
Peter
Al Gore's act is coming to an end.
Climate "Deniers" Winning the War
By Marita Noon
5/28/2012
source: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2012/05/28/climate_deniers_winning_the_warWhich war? The war that brought together more than 60 scientists from around the world—including astronauts, meteorologists, and physicians; politicians—comprising the Congressman, a head of state, and a member of the European Parliament; and policy analysts and media for two-and-a-half days in Chicago, in a battle over climate change and the belief that there needs to be real science—more “about honest debate than ideological warfare.”
Assembled by the Heartland Institute, the seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7) provided the second opportunity for Congressman Sensenbrenner to address the group. In his opening comments, Sensenbrenner said, “We’ve come a long way.”
He recounted: “When I last spoke, the House of Representatives was poised to pass the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill; the United Nations was promising the extension and expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and President Obama was touting Spain as our model for a massive increase in renewable energy subsidies. Three years later, cap-and-tax is dead; the Kyoto Protocol is set to expire; and Spain recently announced that it eliminated new renewable energy subsidies.”
Sensenbrenner told about the behind the scenes wrangling that went on to get the Waxman-Markey bill passed. “I was on the House floor on June 29, 2009, when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi desperately pulled Members aside to lobby, beg, and bargain for votes for the Waxman-Markey bill.” It did pass. But “the electoral consequences for the proponents of these policies was severe.” Just 16 months later, in the 2010 elections, “over two dozen of the Members she convinced to vote ‘yes’ lost their jobs.”
It wasn’t just the Members who suffered harsh political ramifications for their support of the Waxman-Markey bill—which was supposed to nullify the impact of manmade global warming through a cap-and-trade scheme. Sensenbrenner contends that support of the manmade (anthropogenic) global warming position (AGW) also cost Al Gore the presidency back in 2004. He explained: “West Virginia’s 5 electoral votes would have tipped the election for Gore, and Gore’s near-evangelical support for climate change easily cost him the 42,000 votes he would have needed to win there.”
While there is little debate that the climate does change, there is debate as to what causes it. The camps are divided into two general groups along the line of human’s role—with Al Gore’s camp believing that the “science is settled” concluding that man’s driving of SUVs burning petroleum products that emit CO2 (and other symptoms of the developed world) is the cause, and the other disagreeing. The “other” is who gathered in Chicago last week amid the thousands of NATO protestors. The “other” not only disagrees with Al Gore’s AGW position—but they disagree with each other.
I attended session after session where sunspots were addressed, deep ocean circulation changes were discussed, the CO2 contribution of volcanoes was brought up, and the health impacts of a warmer planet were touted—just to name a few. I brought home reams of documentation, some of which are, frankly, beyond my comprehension.
Whether or not the documentable climate change—cooler in the seventies, warmer in the nineties, stable for the last decade (just to point out some recent changes)—is due to the sun or the sea, or myriad other causes, the key take away is that the science is not settled.
Four former NASA employees presented at ICCC7—two astronauts: Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7) and Dr. Harrison “Jack” Schmitt (Apollo 17). They talked about a letter sent to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., in which they requested that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) “refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites.”
The March 28 letter, signed by 49 former NASA employees, declares that they “believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
It is the “unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change” that should concern you and me—and, it is not just coming from NASA. It is coming from the White House and the EPA, from environmental groups and protestors.
The belief that CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change is the driver for today’s energy policy.
Based on a supposed “consensus,” politicians, and the nonelected bureaucrats they appointed, have, and are, making risky investments with taxpayer dollars (think Solyndra, et al); subsidizing “alternative” energies such as wind and solar that are not effective, efficient, or economical; blocking access to resources that are abundant, available, and affordable—which raises gasoline prices and punishes those who can least afford it; and regulating America’s most cost-effective electricity out of commission. The increasing energy costs are hurting all of America—individuals and industry—and our competitive edge.
Roger Helmer, a member of the European Parliament, offered these comments regarding wind energy and the entire green project in his presentation at ICCC7: “Wind plus gas back up results in virtually zero emissions savings. So, we are desecrating the countryside, we are wasting huge amounts of money, we are impoverishing our children, we are choosing poverty over prosperity—and after all that, we are not even achieving what we set out to achieve. This is madness, madness, madness writ large.”
Once you remove the manmade climate change/CO2 concerns, the foundation for expensive, intermittent “renewable” energy goes away—and there is a huge investment, emotional, ideological, and financial, in keeping the ruse alive.
In comparing the manmade climate change scheme to the European single currency, Helmer said: “Both of the projects are falling apart before our very eyes. But, as they fall apart, the true believers, especially the people with a financial interest—let’s not forget that these projects have attracted vast political and intellectual capital, but they’ve also attracted vast numbers of rent seekers and hangers on, and people whose jobs depend on these projects, and these people do not want to see them go away so these people are coming forward and—are thinking of every possible excuse which might explain what has gone wrong with the projects.”
No wonder there is a war. One side wants to “defend its findings,” while the other wants to “find the truth.”
While America is in an economic war, “advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers, is inappropriate.” In this election season, all candidates would do well to remember the fate of Al Gore and his many AGW supporters. Sensenbrenner offered these wise words on energy policy: “Going forward, we must continue to oppose bad ideas and continue to support technological development the only way it works—by allowing markets to determine the technological winners and losers.”
Echoing the war theme, Helmer offered encouragement in his closing remarks: “This is a battle that we must win. We must win it for America. We must win it for Europe. We must win it for our children and grandchildren. And, we must win it for all mankind. I’ll tell you why we will win it, because, we have two weapons in our armory that the bad guys don’t have. The first weapon is the truth, and the second weapon is the climate.”
Whether scientist or politician, policy analyst or media, one message that came through loud and clear at the ICCC7 is that we’ve come a long way in the climate change war, and we are winning, but we haven’t won yet! The climate change battle is at the center of global energy policy, and the countries that have the ability to develop their natural resources to produce cheap energy will be the victors.
Marita Noon
Marita Noon is Executive Director of Energy Makes America Great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)