Guest essay by Eric Worrall
President Obama, on the eve of a 3 day flying tour of Alaska, to highlight the effects of global warming, has been forced to defend his decision to allow drilling for oil in the Arctic.
According to Obama;
“Our economy still has to rely on oil and gas. As long as that’s the case, I believe we should rely more on domestic production than on foreign imports.”
However, green groups have gone on the attack, accusing Obama of hypocrisy, and of undermining his own global warming vision (same article).
“There is a very obvious contradiction between meaningful action to address climate change and continued exploration for remote and difficult hydrocarbon resources,” said Michael LeVine, Arctic campaigner for Oceana.
“Moving forward with exploiting Arctic oil and gas is inconsistent with the Administration’s stated goal and meaningful action on climate change.”
Credo, another campaign group, accused Obama of “self-defeating hypocrisy”.
In my opinion, Green groups are once again demonstrating that there is no compromise with fanaticism. Either you support every line item of their radical agenda, or they treat you as the enemy. By any reasonable metric, President Obama is the best friend green groups have ever had in the White House. Yet rather than recognise that President Obama is a green president, environmental groups are on the attack, because Obama has not fulfilled every one of their economically destructive and environmentally pointless demands.
Even The New York Times is a bit edgy about the U.S. being a laggard in the Arctic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/world/united-states-russia-arctic-exploration.html
Okay, here’s my tinfoil hat moment.
At the beginning of April 2010, Obama opened new areas to offshore drilling http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033100024.html to the delight of drilling interests and the disdain of environmentalists. Less than three weeks later, the Deepwater Horizon blowout occurred and pretty much all offshore drilling was shut down for quite some time. Now Obama opens the Arctic to drilling. How long before some colossal spill up there that gets massive publicity?
@ur momisugly taph, but where is that oil that was spilled now? It seems nature took care of most it if not all of , tourism and coastal fisheries are back to normal. But I see New Orleans took a lot longer than DW Horizon to recover ( after Kathrine) and as a documentary showed it still is not recovered.
Katrina.
Exactly. The after effects of the Deep Water fiasco are gone, so a new crisis is needed to demonize oil drilling.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“Green groups are once again demonstrating that there is no compromise with fanaticism. Either you support every line item of their radical agenda, or they treat you as the enemy.”
And those green ‘fanatics’, the guardians of clickbait climate memes; “The science is settled”, “97% of all scientists”, “tipping point” etc etc
Buyer beware.
Obama seems to almost get it regarding oil and gas. Too bad he is clueless about coal. We still need that too.
We need nuclear. Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors. 200 times as efficient as light water reactors. All ready melted so no meltdowns and can be used to burn up transuranics in existing reactors. We really don’t need coal. See my post above.
David
I agree with nuclear, especially liquid fluoride thorium reactors, but coal is still needed in China, India, and even Germany. The key to abundant global prosperity is abundant energy production, and coal plants will be a big part of that for quite a while longer. There are several coal plants opening every month, sometimes every week.
Sounds great but meanwhile, back in Reality land, we still need coal, and probably will for quite some time. Without coal, as someone once said “electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket”.
Obama should now go to the Hudson bay area and Eastern Canada where they been having colder then normal temperatures for a while. Alaska has seen a warm trend for a while which is what they will see generally if they are not in a cool trend or an in between trend. I’ve heard a lot about the hysterical Alaskan claims of changes due to cagw like receding permafrost and coastal erosion on the Arctic sea due to of course climate change somehow. i remember Neil Degrasse had a film on it where also warned us of the ominous “tipping point.” I’ve seen the temperatures in Alaska over the last few years. They are not out of the ordinary historically if you go far back enough. I think leaving out the marine influence of Alaska’s climate when writing hysterical articles about it is key for climate journalists then of course just making up stuff too involved for the vast majority of people to ever investigate.
This site discusses the utter BS shoveled out by alarmists all the time. Most here are skeptics of the alarmism and skeptics of most of the published, pal-reviewed papers by the “experts”.
I am a skeptic in other areas also as I think “science” is dying as it has become totally corrupted. (don’t know if it was ever “clean”) So, I thought the following quote might entertain some folks here:
I see a sad state of affairs in many areas of “science”.
I dont believe science can be corrupted. Only people can become corrupt. Science will stay the same but good luck with people.
What does that even mean, Charlie?
Science has no life of it’s own.
yes exactly. Science can’t change.
Oh, now I understand
*eyelash flutter*
I was told a few months ago by a senior charity executive that the ‘scientists’ working for cancer charities and other research bodies across the world could have found a cure for cancer by now, but in doing so it would massively reduce their funding from the public and other bodies that service their grants and comfortable life styles. So ‘a cure is still some way off’ I hope it is not true, but it has crossed my mind that the global warming fraud might not be on its own when it comes to spending other peoples money on their pet research programmes. It is sad to think that excessive amounts of money available to research might now be having a negative effect on the purpose of the research. Does anyone have any proof of this in other directions?
It is a fact that Phil Spector refused to release 90% of the songs that the Ronettes recorded, including many that other people later had huge hits covering.
He was afraid that if they got too big, he would lose Ronnie Bennett.
If that is not a shame, I do not know what is.
BTW, the cousin, Nedra Tally, was the hottest Ronette.
marcstoval. Good post. I’m retried now, but I practiced Internal medicine for 33 years. In training, early on, we were advised, when reading a published study, to first check who funded the study. If it was a pharmaceutical company, the findings and conclusions could not be trusted, with rare exceptions. Nowadays, any climate study funded by an NGO or the US government (among others), is IMHO, corrupted. Eisenhower warned us of this in his 1/17/61 farewell address, right after he warned us of the dangers of the Military Industrial complex. “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
Amazingly (or not) new hydrocarbon deposits continue to be made, the latest BBC news from Egypt:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34102656
On the one hand, we have people saying that no one gives a damn about people’s opinions on this site. On the other hand though, there are people who don’t give a damn about those people’s opinions, and they’re happier than heck to extract “carbon” and burn it. So shove your “climate justice” BS.
Meanwhile back home , gritters and snowploughs prepare for winter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34096333
Anyone know if Obama has begun proxy investing in near bankrupt coal stocks a la Soros? Or, for that matter, how many members of Congress have done so?
Watch who buys up all the fracking companies down on their luck this coming month.
Seems interesting given rumors Soros buying up old coal entities
Interesting that Obama opens up drilling to non-American interests. Same as in the Gulf.