Energy Independence

Guest post by David Middleton

Energy Independence

The Trump Administration will make America energy independent. Our energy policies will make full use of our domestic energy sources, including traditional and renewable energy sources. America will unleash an energy revolution that will transform us into a net energy exporter, leading to the creation of millions of new jobs, while protecting the country’s most valuable resources – our clean air, clean water, and natural habitats. America is sitting on a treasure trove of untapped energy. In fact, America possesses more combined coal, oil, and natural gas resources than any other nation on Earth. These resources represent trillions of dollars in economic output and countless American jobs, particularly for the poorest Americans.

Rather than continuing the current path to undermine and block America’s fossil fuel producers, the Trump Administration will encourage the production of these resources by opening onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands and waters. We will streamline the permitting process for all energy projects, including the billions of dollars in projects held up by President Obama, and rescind the job-destroying executive actions under his Administration. We will end the war on coal, and rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, the excessive Interior Department stream rule, and conduct a top-down review of all anti-coal regulations issued by the Obama Administration. We will eliminate the highly invasive “Waters of the US” rule, and scrap the $5 trillion dollar Obama-Clinton Climate Action Plan and the Clean Power Plan and prevent these unilateral plans from increasing monthly electric bills by double-digits without any measurable effect on Earth’s climate. Energy is the lifeblood of modern society. It is the industry that fuels all other industries. We will lift the restrictions on American energy, and allow this wealth to pour into our communities. It’s all upside: more jobs, more revenues, more wealth, higher wages, and lower energy prices.


The energy-related Great Again Transition team includes four people who are highly qualified to recruit candidates who will erase the past 8 years of regulatory malfeasance…


Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition

Choosing Myron Ebell means Trump plans to drastically reshape climate policies

By Robin Bravender, ClimateWire on September 26, 2016


Donald Trump has selected one of the best-known climate skeptics to lead his U.S. EPA transition team, according to two sources close to the campaign.

Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, is spearheading Trump’s transition plans for EPA, the sources said.

The Trump team has also lined up leaders for its Energy Department and Interior Department teams. Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna is heading the DOE team; former Interior Department solicitor David Bernhardt is leading the effort for that agency, according to sources close to the campaign.

Ebell is a well-known and polarizing figure in the energy and environment realm. His participation in the EPA transition signals that the Trump team is looking to drastically reshape the climate policies the agency has pursued under the Obama administration. Ebell’s role is likely to infuriate environmentalists and Democrats but buoy critics of Obama’s climate rules.


Ebell appears to relish criticism from the left.

In a biography submitted when he testified before Congress, he listed among his recognitions that he had been featured in a Greenpeace “Field Guide to Climate Criminals,” dubbed a “misleader” on global warming by Rolling Stone and was the subject of a motion to censure in the British House of Commons after Ebell criticized the United Kingdom’s chief scientific adviser for his views on global warming.

More recently, Ebell has called the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan for greenhouse gases illegal and said that Obama joining the Paris climate treaty “is clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate’s authority.”

He told Vanity Fair in 2007, “There has been a little bit of warming … but it’s been very modest and well within the range for natural variability, and whether it’s caused by human beings or not, it’s nothing to worry about.”

Ebell’s views appear to square with Trump’s when it comes to EPA’s agenda. Trump has called global warming “bullshit” and he has said he would “cancel” the Paris global warming accord and roll back President Obama’s executive actions on climate change (ClimateWire, May 27).

Leading the Trump DOE team: GOP hired gun McKenna.

The president of MWR Strategies is well known in Republican energy circles. He was director of policy and external affairs for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality under then-Gov. George Allen (R) and was an external relations specialist at the Energy Department during the George H.W. Bush administration.

His lobbying clients in 2016 include Koch Companies Public Sector LLC, Southern Company Services, Dow Chemical Co. and Competitive Power Ventures Inc., according to public disclosures.

And heading Interior’s transition effort is Bernhardt, co-chairman of the Natural Resources Department at the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.

He served as Interior’s solicitor during the George W. Bush administration after holding several other high-ranking jobs at the department.

In addition to the EPA, Interior and DOE team leaders, GOP energy expert Mike Catanzaro is also working on energy policy for the Trump transition team (Greenwire, Sept. 14).


Likely candidates for energy-related cabinet positions in the Trump Administration…


Who’s in line for Trump EPA boss, energy czar?

Robin Bravender, E&E News reporter

Greenwire: Wednesday, November 9, 2016


One thing Trump insiders stress: The next administration will mark a drastic departure from past iterations of the executive branch. While Trump is already relying on some veterans in the energy world, and could pick some for top government jobs, there will be plenty of fresh blood in the mix.

“When he has been on the campaign trail, when he’s been talking about the need to ‘drain the swamp,’ for example, he’s looking for people to come in and solve the problems,” said a source close to the Trump campaign. If the Trump team interviews candidates who say, “I’m not sure if we can actually do that,” the source said, “I think there’s a strong likelihood that they might look at the person and say, ‘Next, please.'”



Trump has appointed well-known climate skeptic Myron Ebell to lead his EPA transition team and has promised to overturn the Obama administration’s climate policies. Trump has even floated abolishing EPA entirely, although that would likely be an uphill climb politically. At the very least, he’s expected to pursue dramatic reforms at the agency.

Contenders for the highly politicized job of EPA boss include two top state attorneys who are helping to lead the legal charge to overturn President Obama’s Clean Power Plan in court. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt are rumored candidates to lead the agency under Trump.



At the Energy Department, some sources expect an energy industry insider to become secretary, while others are pushing for Republican lawmakers with a deep knowledge of the inner workings of the complex agency. Energy lobbyist Mike McKenna is leading Trump’s DOE transition team.

Trump adviser and oil tycoon Harold Hamm is often cited as a leading contender for the agency’s top job.

Other prospects include David Hill, executive vice president and general counsel for NRG Energy Inc., who was DOE’s general counsel during the George W. Bush administration; and J. Larry Nichols, co-founder of Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy Corp.


A broad range of Westerners and public lands insiders are rumored to be in the running to lead the Interior Department. Former George W. Bush administration Interior official David Bernhardt is leading Trump’s Interior transition team.

Idaho Republican Gov. Butch Otter is one possibility for the job. The former Idaho congressman told E&E News in September that he would “be proud to serve in a Trump administration.”

Other Western Republican governors floated as possible picks include Wyoming’s Matt Mead, South Dakota’s Dennis Daugaard and New Mexico’s Susana Martinez.

Current and former Republican members of Congress who might be picked include Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee; Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska; Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe; Rep. Don Young of Alaska; retiring Wyoming Rep. Cynthia Lummis; and Idaho Sens. Mike Crapo and James Risch.

Other names floated include Tony Clark, a Republican commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who was previously chairman of the North Dakota Public Service Commission, and Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma.


The top candidates for EPA Director are Republican State Attorneys General who have led the fight against the Obama Administration’s regulatory malfeasance…

The top candidate for Secretary of Energy is Continental Resources CEO Harold Hamm. Continental Resources led the way in the exploitation of the Bakken shale oil play in North Dakota…

The top candidates for Secretary of the Interior are Republican governors from western States who will fight to open up Federal lands and waters to oil, gas and coal exploitation and hopefully fight to cede control of Federal lands to the States….

Trump’s energy team will be able to quickly scrap almost all of Obama’s climate-related executive orders and agreements. The Paris climate agreement will be neutered, if not revoked. The Clean Power Plan and Climate Action Plan will be zeroed-out. Many other pernicious regulations will also be rescinded or modified. My personal hope is that the recent offshore well control rule will be modified to make compliance cost-effective.

The highest profile impact will be in Alaska and its OCS (Outer Continental Shelf)…

Trump presidency has big implications for Alaska oil development

By Elizabeth Harball, Alaska’s Energy Desk

November 9, 2016

Now that Donald Trump is set to take over the White House, big changes could be coming for Alaska’s oil and gas industry. But even though Trump will see Alaska through a very different lens than Obama, a 180-degree policy shift isn’t likely to happen soon.

Donald Trump’s unexpected victory could change the landscape for Alaska’s oil and gas industry. Robert Dillon, communications director for Senator Lisa Murkowski’s campaign, said with Republican majorities in Congress, a Trump presidency opens up new possibilities for resource development in Alaska.

“Certainly you are in a much better starting point than you would have been under Hillary Clinton,” Dillon said.

Dillon said a big issue to watch is drilling in federal Arctic waters. Hillary Clinton opposed Arctic drilling, and in its upcoming five-year leasing plan the Obama administration may still announce it won’t include the Arctic. But one conservative group that endorsed Trump isn’t worried about the permanence of that decision anymore. American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle, who is based in Washington, D.C., said President-elect Trump could reverse an Obama administration decision to halt drilling in Arctic federal waters.

“There’s still a lot of untapped energy potential in Alaska and I suspect that President-elect Trump will look at that very closely and put together plans that put the state back in the game,” Pyle said.

Another thing Pyle hopes Trump will accomplish is drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Republican leaders like Senator Murkowski have been pushing for oil and gas development in the refuge for years.


It will take time to open ANWR and other areas because the 5-year leasing plans will have to be rewritten, which may require some congressional input. Enviromarxist terrorist, Environmental activist groups will wage an unrelenting litigation campaign against President Trump’s energy policies. The current commodity price environment will also be an obstacle for OCS exploitation. However, ANWR Area 1002 sits right next door to the Prudhoe Bay oil fields. This area will be rapidly developed, even at $40/bbl.

Trump May Open Up Arctic Drilling

By Nick Cunningham – Nov 11, 2016[…]

No other place has been more contentious, more fought over, than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a large swathe of territory in northeast Alaska, east of Prudhoe Bay where much of the state’s drilling is located. As its name suggests, the refuge is home to scenic mountains, rivers and lakes rich in wildlife and biodiversity. But it is also thought to hold large volumes of oil and gas reserves, and has been the subject of heated debate since the late 1970s over whether or not oil and gas companies should be allowed to drill. Republicans have long sought to open ANWR up for drilling, but Democrats have stymied them for decades.

But that deadlock could be broken with the unusually brazen President-elect, who is hoping to deregulate large sectors of the U.S. economy. And he has the allies in Congress to take on hugely controversial items. Alaska Dispatch News reports that the Alaskan congressional delegation, led by the powerful Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was shocked on election night (as was everyone else), and quickly thought to put ANWR on the table for President Trump’s agenda in his first 100 days. When asked about ANWR by a reporter on election night in Anchorage, Sen. Murkowksi voiced cautious optimism. “Well, as you know, we have been working to advance ANWR for decades now. And we need to have the support of the Congress,” Murkowski said. “But if the numbers continue for us with the Senate and you have a president who has expressed support, I will be chairing the energy committee again, and I am going to look to push that early on,” she added.


Featured image source.



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rick K
November 14, 2016 7:10 am

One wonders where Gore and his merry band of state attorneys-general will go from here…

Reply to  Rick K
November 14, 2016 7:58 am

Gore and his merry band of thieves will get louder and angrier and blame more naturally occurring events on people. We will see more pictures of natural disasters labeled “climate change” than ever before.
In the next day, the moon will reach its closest approach to earth since the 1940s, and you can count on the high tides being blamed on climate change (coupled with pictures of flooding during hurricanes as though it is the same thing).
It’s scary how stupid that approach is.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
November 14, 2016 8:56 am

Trump and his advisers should not cede the high ground to climatists. Instead this administration should announce that it is serious about protecting the American people against future climate extremes, especially the cold: By Building robust infrastructure and ensuring reliable and affordable energy.

Bloke down the pub
November 14, 2016 7:12 am

Quite likely that the most important appointment will be to the supreme court, as the warmists will fight Trump at every opportunity in order to hang on to their boondoggle.

November 14, 2016 7:20 am

Brave words, I hope it works. But we know the Green Blob won’t go down without a fight.

November 14, 2016 7:25 am

YES!!!….elections have consequences…..and this time I’m glad the butt hurt is on their side and not mine
Can you imagine what they would have crammed down our throats if they had won?

Reply to  Latitude
November 14, 2016 7:27 am

Report: Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Latitude
November 14, 2016 7:30 am

I am still pinching myself. Are we sure this isn’t all a dream?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2016 7:48 am

…and what we would be talking about right now if Hillary was our president
Wordpress won’t let me post a link to Info wars…..they are saying they found 3 million votes cast by illegals

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2016 9:50 am

Latitude —
Read that article this morning — 3 million Democratic votes cast by illegals. I will wait for further revelations but I would not be surprised if it were true.
The Democratic party has always steeped itself in voter fraud. People forget that the phrase “The Solid South” referred to the fact that, after the Civil War, the entire South elected no one but Democrats for damn near a hundred years. It was Democrats who stood in the school house door. George Wallace, upon losing an early election, said — “I was out-niggered by John Patterson. And I’ll tell you here and now, I will never be out-niggered again.”
(The Old Democratic South used to have literacy tests for voting and one of the sad joke was that white voters were given a first grade book to read from and blacks a Chinese newspaper. When asked what the Chinese paper said a black voter answered — No black folks going to vote in this election.)
And then, after being driven out of the South by Republicans, the Jim Crow Democratic Party spread its fraud and corruption to the North and West. And what was interesting was that many of the Democratic faces in the inner cities were black. And what that showed about the Democratic party was that racism was always just a means to obtain “power”. The Democratic Party values one thing and one thing only — Power.
The fraud and corruption the Democratic Party brought with it to the West and North are as real and just as flourishing as they were in the post-civil war South.
I could go on forever but I think I will stop.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2016 2:18 pm

Democrats like to claim that the Democrats push for equal rights that caused Democrats in the south to switch to the Republican party.
This claim is trivially easy to disprove.
1) Civil rights started in the 60’s, but the South didn’t convert to solid Republican until Reagan was president, almost 20 years later.
2) If you examine the Demographics, even up to today, it’s the old that vote Democrat, the young are much more Republican.
3) New comers are much more likely to vote Republican than are natives.
That is, It’s not that the racists switched from Democrat to Republican, it’s that they remained Democrat but were outvoted by new voters.

Ken L.
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2016 9:52 pm

Roger Pielke, Jr. , a moderate warmist and political progressive, tried to point those who are worried about CO2 and its effect on climate, in the direction of a reasonable and pragmatic political approach to energy, emphasizing conservation of our carbon resources, but they not only did not listen, but viciously attacked him. The alarmist ideologues deserve every bit of what they are getting. I do hope that a Trump administration will take some of the wasted “me too” climate research funding, and put it into, not only a broader spectrum of climate research, but also climate adaptation, and affordable, safe “new” nuclear technology.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 15, 2016 2:32 pm

While it is true that Wallace said that, I know personally and knew plenty of older people who worked with Wallace to end Jim Crow. Wallace was not a segregationist. His predecessor was, though. Wallace played one on TV.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 15, 2016 2:45 pm

, yeah Civil Rights movements began in the 60s alright, the 1860s, and a bit before that, if I am remembering correctly. Who was it that segregated the US Army in the 20th C? Woodrow Wilson did that, I think. When the USAAF was made stand alone after WW2, it was desegregated. Thank Truman and Ike for that, I think. The Republicans had for years attacked Jim Crow. In the 1920s, they pushed anti-lynching laws. Republicans helped desegregate the schools (remember Ike and Orval Faubus?) [That was something Wallace did not want to happen in Alabama, so he played the media for all it was worth (Foster Auditorium door at the University of Alabama), yet quietly sought protection for the black students that were quietly enrolled after the theater was over. The bombing that killed Condoleeza Rice’s friends? Wallace and others that followed him never let that investigation die. It took a while but some justice did get served. By the mid 70s, there were thousands of black and international students studying at the U of A.] The 1965 acts would not have passed had it been up to the Democrats. Sure, not all of the Republicans supported the acts (some thought them unnecessary and would be misused by racial grievance mongers).

Tom Halla
November 14, 2016 7:25 am

The thing that the new Trump administration should do is systematically go through and eliminate Carter era nuclear policy decisions. Many of the problems with the US nuclear industry are the result of those policies, and they have been proven unjustifed.
Jimmy Carter was apparently sold on the notion of setting “a good example” by not using reprocessing, so it would dissuade other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons by starting with power plant plutonium. Many of the other nuclear polices are equally stupid, and need to be reversed.

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 14, 2016 7:29 am

Tom….That would be a good step

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 14, 2016 12:31 pm

Indeed. He also needs to push legislation to fast-track legal challenges to new nuclear plants.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 14, 2016 7:15 pm

Powerplant plutonium by breeding is not “weapons grade.” it is contaminated with plutonium isotopes that would cause a premature reaction in the “pit” of a compression-type bomb. Weapons grade plutionium (Pu-239) is produced in special reactors that are run at high power to convert U-238 to Pu-239, and then shut down to remove the fuel for reprocessing. The short runs inhibit the production of Pu-240 and Pu-241.
But the non-weapons-grade plutonium bred in a power reactor is perfectly serviceable as reactor fuel. It can be reprocessed into “mixed fuel” (plutonium and unenriched uranium).
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
November 14, 2016 7:22 pm

Pu-240 is perfectly suitable for an implosion type device. It is not suitable for a gun type device due to spontaneous fission.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
November 14, 2016 7:45 pm

Either that pious twit Jimmy Carter “nuclear engineer” knew that and was lying, or didn’t,or did, and was just incompetent. Either is almost as bad.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
November 14, 2016 7:50 pm

Bad copy editing! please omit the second “or did”

November 14, 2016 7:27 am

Stop wasting money and defiling the landscape with wind and solar.

November 14, 2016 7:28 am

Although a sane environmental and energy policy that’ll create millions of jobs, save corporations $trilliins in regulations costs, make the US 100% energy independent, and greatly lower everyone’s power bill is music to the ears of freedom-loving Americans, it may have a slightly different effect on the totalitarian enviro-wackos:

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 14, 2016 7:33 am

Lol. Yes, it’s fun to get a visual of greenie heads exploding. Good idea having those plastic bubbles around those heads. Could get messy otherwise.

November 14, 2016 7:31 am

The Left is learning a hard lesson, live by executive order, die by executive order. Not running things through Congress as required by law makes your “legacy” at the mercy of whoever gets elected next, and you won’t always be in power. If Trump accomplishes this, I’ll be a happy camper, these EnviroNuts have hamstrung this country for far too long.

Reply to  Severian
November 14, 2016 7:49 am

The totalitarians were counting on Hillary to win, pass an Amnesty Bill, and securing 20 million new Democrat voters, who would have guaranteed Democrats held the executive branch for the next 100 years..
We came so close to losing our limited-government constitutional republic for good.
It’/ scary to think about it…

TheLast Democrat
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 14, 2016 9:06 am

Influx of dem voters would mainly work in California, where the politics of open borders and allowing illegal immigrants to vote have little opposition.
All that would be needed would be to get rid of the electoral college…

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 14, 2016 9:15 am

You said it best, SAMURAI.
We got real lucky on election day. We need to work very hard to make sure next election day doesn’t require so much luck. We have a long way to go. A successful Trump presidency will help immensely in that regard (which is why the Left will try their best to make it unsuccessful).
The Right needs to get as organized as the Left, in order to take back society’s essential infrastructure, from the radical Left. The Left has hijacked our society and we need to take it back.

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 14, 2016 10:04 am

The Last Democrat-san:
The Democrats were being VERY strategic in targeting Red states with illegal aliens in: Texas, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona. If they turned these states solid Blue, they’d have and electoral lock on all future presidential elections, because they already have NY and California solid blue.
The Democrats were also carefully placing DACA immigrants, 3rd-world “political asylum” applicants, and Muslim refugees in Blue states to switch the demographics over time.
It was a very detailed and well executed plan that would have worked had Trump not been elected president.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Severian
November 14, 2016 8:20 am

The only legacy that Obama will have is that he turned a Country with a history of peaceful transition of power into a banana republic where losers will not accept the outcome of the vote.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 14, 2016 9:19 am

BTW, where are Obama, and Clinton and Pelosi and Reid and all the other Lefties on these demonstrations in the street? Why aren’t they out there condeming the violence? The answer is because they approve of what is going on. They like it. They like making it look like Trump is universally hated.
It doesn’t matter though. Nothing they do will change the fact that Trump is the next president. March all you want, it won’t change a thing, except maybe putting your arachist butt in jail.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Severian
November 14, 2016 11:27 am

From the “Learning from Other’s Mistakes” Department comes this suggestion: once the onerous executive orders have been rescinded, enshrine their opposites by getting the House and Senate to enact them legislatively. As long as the Republicans can keep at least one of the two legislative houses it will be very difficult for some future Shrillary or Obutthead to reverse them.

November 14, 2016 7:37 am

Trump is appointing “sceptics” into heading the EPA and DOE. I can only imagine these offices are stacked with environmental graduates that truly believe the dooms day scenario. I’ve seen these ‘scientist’, in one photo crying over a dead penguin washed ashore, not knowing the cause of death means that all semblance of impartiality has been washed away. It will be very interesting to see if the rank and file employees will revolt, you can’t fire them all.

Reply to  Duncan
November 14, 2016 10:02 am

I just hope that the new administration uses proper science to explain, in words that non-scientists can understand, why they believe that AGW is not important or significant, rather than just calling it a hoax, b****hit, etc.
They need to prove the wolf-calling is just that.

Reply to  Oldseadog
November 14, 2016 10:50 am

How much more explanation do you require than has already been delivered in the posts from this web site alone? If you are interested in the science I suggest you read some past posts.

Reply to  Oldseadog
November 14, 2016 11:25 am

@ Oldseadog – They don’t need to disprove anything, the “science is already settled” (their words not mine), why does any scientist, researcher, university, government department, etc need more money to study climate change? Claw it all back. You could not possibly disagree with that, could you? The EPA, DOE can be made half the size and the departing employees thanked for their contribution.

Reply to  Oldseadog
November 14, 2016 2:52 pm

Rocketscientist and Duncan,
I don’t need any more proof.
What I mean is that your new administration needs to prove, with the science which is available here for everyone to read, to all the politicians, and more importantly to the MSM, that AGW is not caused by CO2 and is not important.
Everyone, well almost everyone, here knows this but we find it difficult to persuade the MSM to publish it.
If your new administration can achieve that then with luck the politicians in other countries may start to take notice.
Only then will it be possible to start to put the whole “AGW is dangerous and due to CO2” meme to rest.

Reply to  Oldseadog
November 14, 2016 8:55 pm

What? Why?
The great catastrophic global warming scam has been in active play since 1988, and it would have started earlier, if anyone sincerely listened to Hansen earlier.
After 28 years of doom, gloom and many many reasons why their dreadful predictions weren’t working; when the real reason was the lack of quick political action acceding to demands. Hansen was/is a tool.
Once budgets are cut, I’d expect a lot of knowledgeable people to suddenly see the light and come clean. Either they were forced to find AGW to keep their job, or they had always remained honest and kept assiduous notes and saved emails and messages of the colluders.
Loss of budgets coupled to well managed cuts of people and programs at NOAA and similar will eliminate gross adjustments currently skewing temperatures;
• e.g. use of shipboard engine inlet temperatures used to modify (raise) sea surface temperatures, or the use of isolated temperature stations to smear warmer temperatures over 1200km,
• or NOAA happily splicing together different data sets and presenting them as one continuous dataset,
• or establishing a true dispersion of modern surface stations, representing all latitudes and altitudes properly,
• or measuring and applying error rates from thermistor level through presentation.
Once the data is clean and honestly presented, then scientists can judge real temperature trends without worrying about activist influences.
In any case, honest science may be able to decipher some of the reasons for rising and falling temperature trends. Seriously, if the northwest temperature trend is dropping, while the southwest temperature trend is rising; isn’t it more important to understand the regional or locale changes? Then to summarize both and claim a slight increasing trend as cause for catastrophic doom?
With so much attention focused on higher temperature presentations, bad models, misuse of science, misuse of funds for bad research; actual improvements in weather predictive power has been incremental improvements. With focus back on weather, maybe there can be some dramatic improvement.

Reply to  Oldseadog
November 15, 2016 2:09 am

“Once the data is clean and honestly presented …. “.
That is what I am trying to say, but you don’t need to do it for the scientists, you need ty do it so that MSM publishes it so that non-scientists can understand it.
Only then will the majority of people world-wide understand what has been going on.
Until that happens politicians will carry on as they are doing at the moment.

Reply to  Duncan
November 14, 2016 11:42 am

Oh yes you can “fire them all”
Ask any PATCO Air Controller from around 1982.
Pres.Reagan fired EVERY striking ATC worker.
Then the FAA hired new ones.
I’ll bet though, that there are more skeptics among the EPA rank-and-file than we think.
To defy the CAGW belief would have cost them their positions at EPA. So they cowtowed to the power. They can come out into the light now.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  RobRoy
November 14, 2016 12:43 pm

It may be easier to just get rid of the EPA.

Reply to  RobRoy
November 14, 2016 2:20 pm

He was able to fire them, because they were in violation of their contract.
The same tactic can’t be used against the rest of the bureaucracy.

Reply to  RobRoy
November 14, 2016 2:27 pm

This is what interests me. Now that people like EPA employees will no longer be terrified of losing their jobs – how many of them might turn whistle-blower?

Reply to  RobRoy
November 14, 2016 9:14 pm

Firing can certainly be used against all career senior staff, think gavinator positions; no prior notice, no reasons, just a pink slip. Extreme cases can involve guards escorting ex employees to their desk, then out of the door.
Eliminating rank and file civil servants must follow a specific process. Even if it takes a few years, rank and file can be reassigned or riffed (Reduction in Force). Simplified, if a civil servant refuses reassignment, they will be let go; or they can find another position elsewhere in the Federal Government.
With so much warning, 3 months minimum; many Federal employees in targeted departments/budgets are already calling and writing other agencies, e.g. EPA personnel calling Homeland Security and studying daily for job postings.
Others will contact their Human Resources departments to evaluate their retirements or severance payments.

Reply to  Duncan
November 14, 2016 8:26 pm

Duncan: yeah, and they said Reagan couldn’t fire the air traffic controllers ….

November 14, 2016 7:40 am

I still wonder after nearly 40 years how much “Energy” the US Department of Energy has actually produced? I think is has been little to none and little more than make-work spending. Maybe time to think about ending this government boondoggle.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Лазо
November 14, 2016 7:19 pm

About as much crops as the Dept. of Agriculture has produced.
Or as much justice as the Dept. of Justice has produced?
(not sure whether /sark applies)

Jim G1
November 14, 2016 7:43 am

I like Cruz for SCOTUS. Was a delgate for him at our state convention along with most other delegates here but note that we voted 70% for Trump in the popular vote when the chips were down. Of course we would have voted for just about anyone to avoid Hillary, but I think Trump may end up being better than even Cruz at getting things done. Still think Scott Walker would have been best but he was already gone by the time we convened.
Energy will be a huge contributor to improving our economy nation wide if we do this right.

Reply to  Jim G1
November 14, 2016 12:37 pm

Cruz would be great SCOTUS Justice, as would Mike Lee.
It seems like Mike Lee is the best bet as Cruz has hinted at preferring to remain in Senate and l would likely make another run for president in 2020.

Jim G1
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 14, 2016 1:11 pm

Don’t know Mike Lee. Is he a strict constructionist?

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Cruz was born in Canada and is not eligible to be President. He is not “natural-born”.

Tom Halla
Reply to  BobM
November 14, 2016 3:49 pm

That chestnut again! There is a concensus that the phrase “natural born” means born a US citizen, as in not naturlalized.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 14, 2016 7:22 pm

Born of a Canadian mother (gave up her US citizenship) and a Canadian father in Canada.
“Natural born” was a term of international law when it was used in the Constitution. It signified that both parents were citizens of the United States. The object was to preclude any foreign loyalty (or subjection to foreign sovereignty) owing to one’s parentage.

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 14, 2016 9:25 pm

“Helpfully, the Congressional Research Service gathered all of the information relevant to Cruz’s case a few years ago, at the height (nadir?) of Obama birtherism. In short, the Constitution says that the president must be a natural-born citizen. “The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that ‘natural born Citizen’ means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ including any child born ‘in’ the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements,” the CRS’s Jack Maskell wrote. So in short: Cruz is a citizen; Cruz is not naturalized; therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and in any case his mother is a citizen.”

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 15, 2016 10:35 pm

Qualification to be a citizen by birth is not the same thing as qualification to run for president.
What is relevant is the usage of the terminology at the time of writing, not what latter-day pundits would like to make of it.

November 14, 2016 7:48 am

“Energy is the lifeblood of modern society. ”
What they should also mention is that undeveloped countries are the worst polluters because the people are focused on survival. It is in developed countries in which a high standard of living provides the people with the time, wealth, and interest in cleaning up pollution, not introducing more pollution, and protecting the environment. If we fostered cheap energy supplies in underdeveloped countries and helped them with relevant technology, we could help them skip some of the mistakes developed countries made as they developed.
For instance, we went through a period using the telegraph, then the telephone, and now cell phones. Underdeveloped countries can skip right to cell phones and skip the temporary and extensive infrastructure we had with Ma Bell and such.
Unfortunately, it is the UN’s self-serving attitude that the environment is better off with humans living much closer to nature, mostly subsistence living, scratching the earth with hand tools. Such living is very inefficient and does not help the environment. In the UN plan, the real help to the environment lies in their plan to eliminate around 90% (numbers mentions range from 86–93%) of the population (500 million to 1 billion people left).
They want to make humans just another cog in the ecosphere, with no advantages allowed by using our intelligence. They want to demote the human race to a basically simple-minded (a la Common Core), agrarian society living in small human “settlements” with no livestock (those left are all vegans), no machinery (we are using rakes and hoes, not even animal-drawn ploughs), and no firearms (no hunting for meat and no ability to defend ourselves). To manage this, the UN governance must be socialist and totalitarian by the oppressive UN’s elitist ruling class, who will be living large in their selected cities, using mankind as their slaves. Socialism is slavery, when a (large) class of people have no individual rights, which under the UN are not considered natural rights (as in our Constitution) but state bequeathed rights that can be given and revoked at the state’s whim.

Reply to  higley7
November 14, 2016 9:15 am

On one hand, they want to crowd everyone into cities.
On the other hand they want everyone to be closer to nature.

Reply to  higley7
November 14, 2016 10:58 am

Ah yes, a nostalgic look back to the good ol’ days when life was “nasty, brutish and short.”
A great way to get the populace quickly back to nature…6 feet under.

Reply to  rocketscientist
November 14, 2016 2:21 pm

A lot of their leaders have been consistent in wanting to get the human population under 1 billion. Preferably under 100 million.

Russ Wood
Reply to  rocketscientist
November 15, 2016 7:49 am

In South Africa, the ANC government and one of the opposition parties (the Economic Freedom Fighters, better known as the “Everything For Free”) are pushing for ‘land restitution’ – returning the land that the ‘colonists’ ‘stole’. I.e, they really would like to get all their voters back to subsistence farming, where they can’t bother the kleptocracy.

November 14, 2016 7:55 am

You can be sure that the enviro-loser groups ( GreenPeace, EDF, Sierra Club etc.) will howl like scalded cats and a compliant media will do their best to make it sound like Trump is “raping” the environment to give money to the Koch brothers.
I expect that the same idiots that are currently engaging in hissy fit marches to “protest” the legitimate election will be duped into marching to “save the planet” from Trump and chaining themselves to various bits of energy infrastructure while weeping for Gaia.
James Hansen is probably looking for his coat as we chat.

Gary Meyers
Reply to  Lancifer
November 14, 2016 9:09 am

If my memory is correct, the Koch brothers did not support Trump.

Reply to  Lancifer
November 14, 2016 2:22 pm

If they start rioting and vandalizing the way the Trump protestors have been, they will lose everyone who isn’t already a member of the cult quite quickly.

November 14, 2016 8:11 am

Gavin, Trenberth, et. al. looking for work?

November 14, 2016 8:20 am

Freaks freak out at EPA, and need play Doh and/or plush toys, and perhaps a bit of safe space.

U.S. EPA employees were in tears. Worried Energy Department staffers were offered counseling. Some federal employees were so depressed, they took time off. Others might retire early.
And some employees are in downright panic mode in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Roy Denio
November 14, 2016 8:28 am

Are crocodile tears saltier than regular tears, I wonder?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2016 8:36 am

Good question. I’ll bet Al, Weepy Bill, Leonardo, as well as the rest of the ecozealots could tell us.

Anthony S
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2016 12:26 pm

Sea turtle tears are, at least.

Reply to  Roy Denio
November 14, 2016 9:17 am

After sitting on the applications for 7 years, the IRS under court order finally made a ruling on 5 Tea Party groups. 3 were denied and 2 accepted.
The good news is that now that the IRS has actually ruled, the decisions can be appealed. As long as the IRS sat on them, they were effectively denied without possibility of appeal.

Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2016 9:37 am

The IRS needs a good Trump housecleaning, too.

November 14, 2016 8:27 am

“Energy independence” is a false goal. Just as “food independence” would be.
Perhaps energy independence comes under Trump’s international trade phobia. Foreign trade in energy is good, though Trump is correct to want to avoid critical dependence.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  David Middleton
November 14, 2016 8:46 am

Which we already have, but I suppose even more would be good. OPEC is biding their time, waiting for demand to go back up, which it most certainly will, especially if our economy starts to take off under a Trump presidency. Increasing our supply, or potential supply will block that.

Reply to  Gamecock
November 14, 2016 8:47 am

If energy independence is achieved Trump should thank the Obama administration for the progress made during his administration.×439.jpg

Tom Halla
Reply to  Phil.
November 14, 2016 8:54 am

Phil–what policy did Obama put in place that directly led to that gain in oil production? Oh, it sort of happened despite Obama’s policy of jacking up energy prices. I think this is more an example of Obama’s general incompetetence than anything else.

Reply to  Phil.
November 14, 2016 8:57 am

U.S oil production soars in spite of Obama and the democrats…they are still trying to stop it

Reply to  Phil.
November 14, 2016 9:19 am

Phil, all of that occurred on private lands and occured despite the actions of the current administration.
On public lands, exploration and new drilling has been all but banned.

Reply to  Phil.
November 14, 2016 9:40 am

Phil wrote: “If energy independence is achieved Trump should thank the Obama administration for the progress made during his administration.”
Trump should thank private enterprise for the progress. Obama had nothing to do with increasing oil and gas supplies.

Reply to  Phil.
November 14, 2016 10:57 am

Furthermore, the increase in oil production referenced here marks the beginning of large scale shale oil and gas production and the hydofracking necessary to make shale production economically feasible. Thank the free enterprise system instead. Obama had absolutely nothing to do with any of this, in fact stifled it by banning exploration on federal lands.

Reply to  Phil.
November 14, 2016 11:01 am

The increase came despite Obama’s “help”.
With help like that who needs enemies?

Reply to  Phil.
November 14, 2016 5:36 pm

Just as in climate science, correlation is causation?

Reply to  Phil.
November 14, 2016 9:40 pm

Well! Just look at that!
Phil believes that correlation is causation!
Color us surprised… Hah!

Reply to  Phil.
November 15, 2016 8:16 am

ATheoK November 14, 2016 at 9:40 pm
Well! Just look at that!
Phil believes that correlation is causation!
Color us surprised… Hah!

ATheoK can’t understand plain english, no surprise there!
As I said oil production ‘during the Obama administration’, in fact it doubled making the target of energy independence in future much easier.
The main driver of oil production is the oil price and the oil price has been high during his administration which encouraged the investment in new oil production. The recent fall in oil prices has caused layoffs and reduced production. Interest in off-shore production has dropped because it’s relatively expensive.

Reply to  Gamecock
November 14, 2016 11:46 am

The Arab oil embargo of the 1970s was strong evidence that The USA should be less dependent on foreign oil.
Drill baby drill!

Reply to  Gamecock
November 14, 2016 12:41 pm

Especially with the insanity going on the Middle East, it’s more important than ever to be energy independent.
The US has sufficent fossil fuel resources to even export excess supply worth $trillions, which would be great to help balance our terrible $500 billion/yr trade deficit.

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 15, 2016 2:57 pm

When the USD isn’t the world’s reserve currency, the trade deficit (properly defined) may fall. As long as the US must export dollars so the rest of the world can use them in trade, we have to run a deficit. When China or whatever other nation’s currency takes over that function, then that country will be in the same position.

November 14, 2016 8:52 am

Ive been working in the Oil and Gas sector for the past 35 years. In the current price environment im not sure I see a whole lot of expansion in exploration right now unless many of the regulations that add burdensome costs are removed. I dont see Trump changing the price of oil or natural gas in a global market and if we keep adding more to the market that is already oversupplied, the price will just stay down. So the only way to spur exploration is to lower costs of exploration.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 14, 2016 9:12 am

I wonder why anyone thought offshore drilling needed more regulation?
*cough* Gulf oil spill *cough*

Reply to  David Middleton
November 14, 2016 10:51 am

I agree with you David, but I think regulatory relief is going to be a much harder hill to climb for the new administration than some of the other priority issues Trump has put on his agenda. What the Democrats cant win in Congress or the White House, they will tie up in legal battles thru well funded environmental groups.
At the end of the day there will still need to be a market for more Oil and Natural gas and I think the moment the price recovers, the additional drilling will keep the glut alive. Grow the economy, lower lifting costs and you can increase exploration.

Nigel S
Reply to  David Middleton
November 14, 2016 11:27 am

Griff what part of BP don’t you understand? Obama made it pretty clear that it was a massive shakedown (despite BP having a large USA based share ownership had he bothered to check).

Reply to  David Middleton
November 14, 2016 9:53 pm

Did you drink to much oil with your water? Or were you drinking too fast and inhaled water instead?
Maybe you should take a walk across the LaBrea tar pits, griffypoo. They’re what are known as natural exposures. As are a number of tar sands, oil shale, coal outcrops and oil seeps.
The ocean takes care of oil rapidly. All those eco-cries of Gulf Coast disasters, end of the gulf coast fishing, shrimping, crabbing, tourism, etc. Two years later, and the Gulf Coast is recovering quite well. A few years later, and the Gulf Coast is back to normal.
griffypoo, maybe you should double your dose of cod liver oil with your night time water. Three or four doses could help that cough of yours.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 15, 2016 2:59 pm

It may surprise you, Griff, but oil seeps into the ocean. It does it every day, whether we drill or not.

Reply to  Dobes
November 14, 2016 9:43 am

I paid $1.75 per gallon for gasoline yesterday. Gotta love it! That’s lower than when Obama took Office ($1.80 per gallon). All this despite Obama restricting oil production as much as possible.

David Smith
November 14, 2016 9:02 am

Griff in his bathroom right now, crying.

Reply to  David Smith
November 14, 2016 9:14 am

no I’m here on my coffee break…
and not impressed by the argument.
how can electricity generation from coal ever recover in the US?
solar/wind is cheaper to build: shale gas is going to get even cheaper as part of these reforms…
coal in the US is dead for electricity generation.

Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 9:24 am

Poor Griff, still delusional after all these years.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 4:07 pm

Poor ‘Griff’s shadow’ standing by ready to jump in and reply like some kind of Pavlovian dog.

Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 6:00 pm

tony mcleod*
November 14, 2016 at 4:07 pm
Poor ‘Griff’s shadow’ standing by ready to jump in and reply like some kind of Pavlovian dog.
*Said Pavlovian’s dog.

Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 9:58 pm

A coffee break from your bathroom break, griffypoo? Or are you just refilling the tank?
Why tell us you’re not surprised? We all know you have severe reading comprehension and learning issues.
Solar/wind are cheaper? Are you back with that false 2 cents claim again?
We’ll just drop back and ignore you as background noises again.

November 14, 2016 9:02 am

“Ebell is a well-known and polarizing figure in the energy and environment realm.”
Ebel is a well-known and polarizing figure TO THE PEOPLE ON THE LEFT. The people on the Left are not the only people in the world.
Ebel is not a polarizing figure to those on the Right.
Insinuating he is polarizing to everyone is inaccurate and untrue.

Reply to  TA
November 14, 2016 9:16 am

I think you are wrong to use political terms there as regards the opposition to Ebell.
All countries outside the US have governments which accept the science of climate change and are to some degree taking action as a result. (assuming we leave out N Korea and a few places wrecked by warfare)
all respectable scientific opinion is against him
The entire population of Germany is likely to consider Ebell deluded.

Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 9:25 am

Poor Griffy, he actually believes that the fact that a majority of politicians want to do things that will increase their personal power and wealth, proves that CAGW is real.

Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 9:37 am

All countries outside the US have governments…that benefit from penalizing the US

Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 10:49 am

For the thousandth time, Griff, exactly what is the science to which you constantly refer to but never cite? FYI, fear mongering and computer modeling are not science. If you are unable to explain to us here what your science is, perhaps you should peddle your wares at Real Climate where your unsubstantiated rantings will be appreciated.

Nigel S
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 11:33 am

No Tricks Zone suggests that you’re dead wrong, Griff, about the Germans. Even they are getting tired of being made to feel guilty about everything all the time (and the whoop whoop whoop of the windmills of course).

Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 12:02 pm

“All countries outside the US have governments which accept the science of climate change and are to some degree taking action as a result.”
“all (sic) respectable scientific opinion is against him (sic)”
Appeal to authority.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 4:09 pm


Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 7:31 pm

I might as well say that all countries outside the US have governments which accept the economics of Marxism and are to some degree taking action as a result. In this case, N. Korea would be an extreme example. Makes as much sense, logically speaking.
How would you know that the opinion against him is either scientific or respectable? I don’t mean to judge you unfairly, but that is the logic of someone who really is unfamiliar with the practice of science.
The entire population of Germany is liable to mass delusions. We spent about 4 years in the previous century beating their last major delusion to rest. (And I speak as one with a German grandfather. His family left because they didn’t want to be drafted by the Kaiser.)

Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2016 5:49 am

Not all People in Germany are brainwashed.
RIGHT side of IQ-Bell curve is still alive.
After Brexit and Trump, the reopening of old socialist concentration camps is probably postponed.

Reply to  TA
November 14, 2016 10:10 am

He causes the left and the right to be sharply divided and leaves no middle ground. One who is polarizing is the opposite of a diplomat. link
Having said the above, I would say that the ‘debate’ could not be much more polarized. The alarmists won’t even admit there is a debate. They want to jail the skeptics as thought criminals.

November 14, 2016 9:41 am

Trump needs to be very careful not to reinvigorate the environmental movement. With blatant disregard for appropriate regulation, this kind of a whole hog rush to open up Federal lands could backfire. In four years time we could be facing an environmental renaissance, at the local level at least. I’m willing to take that risk, to rid ourselves of this global climate change non-sense.

Reply to  Ockham
November 14, 2016 9:54 am

It would be best to see what Trump actually does, before leveling criticism.
This is especially important in this particular period of time where the Leftwing Media is going to do their best to twist the truth about what Trump is going to do. Ignore all that propaganda, and speculation, and just wait until Trump actually does something and *then* we can discuss it.
What Trump actually does and what the Leftwig Media claims Trump is going to do, are going to be two different things. They are not out to report the truth, they are out to try to damage Trump in any way possible.

John Peter
November 14, 2016 9:41 am

No mention of NOAA and NASA/GISS above. To me the most important issue is to get an authoritative commission established to look into the production of the NOAA and GISS global surface temperature records (land and sea). Such a commission will need to include seasoned and renowned statisticians without a history of advocacy in CAGW or the opposite. They should get access to all records and be able to call on anyone they would wish to interview (including Tony Heller and Judith Curry). We need a comprehensive review of how good the original recordings are and how they have been transformed into what we are presented with today. The same must happen to University of Columbia’s sea level charts and the lack of an overlap between sea level gauges and satellite measurements currently showing a steep increase from the point of satellite measurement start. Reference Judith Curry, realistic uncertainties should be included. Only if an independent group of scientific standing can show that 1. The current measurements are exaggerated and 2. the computer models show an even greater divergence from actual measurements can any move be made against this army of CAGW advocates. So we need new administrators and chief scientists in NASA and NOAA who can force this through as a starting point. That would also enable the Administration to choke off grants to scientists and institution touting CAGW. Just my opinion.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 14, 2016 10:43 am

…NASA [is] part of the Commerce Department.

Don’t think so. NASA is their own Independent Agency.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 14, 2016 5:12 pm

No problem. Dr. Christy for NOAA would be a great addition to the all-star lineup already in the works!

Reply to  David Middleton
November 15, 2016 6:18 am

How about a guy by the name of Anthony Watts? Is there a more honest person regarding the climate? Is there a more knowledgeable person? Could there be a better leader? Who could do a better of “calling” together the non-political, non-money grubbing experts in the field needed to set the record straight? Who better to create a sound, non-political curriculum on weather/climate for ALL educational institutions, not the least of which are SCIENCE museums across the country.

L Leeman
November 14, 2016 9:48 am

I’d like to see Ebell tap RIchard Lindzen for service as he’s certainly qualified, has been involved with 2 rounds of IPCC assessments and once served as an IPCC lead author no less.

November 14, 2016 10:32 am

A perfect opportunity to subsidize the development of molten salt nuclear reactors by three companies, each with excellent designs. One has claimed a (conservative) estimate of levelized power generation at LESS THAN 2 cents per kWhr. Those numbers win the energy production game. Period. Sheer economics and value will force the adoption of these reactors everywhere, and American companies selling abroad and at home would pay big dividends. This would likely be the most cost effective govt subsidy of all time. Lets win the race ahead of China, which is pouring money into the development of these technologically revolutionary reactors.

Reply to  arthur4563
November 14, 2016 11:07 am

There is a problem with your proposal, subsidize. Remove regulatory roadblocks making the development and implementation cheaper and then you would be on to something.

November 14, 2016 11:11 am

The wealth of a nation comes from it’s natural resources. If it is in the ground and available for extraction, it can only add value, whether from petroleum, mining, forestry, or agriculture. The regulations that have been enacted in the past 20 years are excessive burdens to the best, most-efficient, highly flexible, and lowest impact companies in the world. It should not take half of a person’s career to start up a new mine due to regulatory hurdles. The progressives have created policies in government that are impeding progress with little to no gains in actual protection of the environment, the holy grail of their natural resource mandate. The EPA was initially formed to address major pollution issues that have been by-and-large resolved; now it seeks to justify its existence with endless regulations that have little to no real-world effect on the environment. The result is guaranteed bureaucratic careers and unrealized improved quality of life for everyone else.

Reply to  CoonAZ
November 15, 2016 3:05 pm

The wealth of nations resides in the brains of their peoples. Stuff is the result of them using their brains to make what others find useful.

November 14, 2016 12:41 pm

I hope that from now on federal grants go to RESEACH dedicated to ONLY NATURAL
climate change, and not to research of “man-made climate”! !.

Robert from oz
November 14, 2016 1:25 pm

So Griff if one government head honcho wants to throw himself off a cliff and then other governments also jump this makes it a consensus , there is room for you on that cliff go on take the plunge jump please , show us your not a hypocrite.

November 14, 2016 2:03 pm

This entire notion of energy dependence/independence is a straw man, a red herring. It’s all about the price of oil and by extension gasoline. As long as foreign supplies are cheaper to buy and easier to refine they will continue to flow.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 14, 2016 7:35 pm

That logic works fine so long as there is no war, when petroleum becomes vital to the defense of the nation. Japan found out about this the hard way. This is why being self-sufficient is always prudent, even if not always economical.

Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
November 14, 2016 10:09 pm

North America internally consumes about the same amount we as it produces. We have to import oil from outside North America primarily so we can sell refined petroleum to the world. If we went to war, we could stop the exports.
ie. the US internally consumes 15.2 million barrel/day. We produce 9.5. Another 3.75 is imported from Canada and 0.75 from Mexico. That’s only a 0.7 million barrel/day shortfall at present.

Mike barminski
November 14, 2016 2:14 pm

Obamas war on coal inadvertantly fueled the energy price increase neccessary to capitalize the shale oil/gas boom. Further proof that his economic policies were/are misguided and unappropriate but amusingly serendipitist.

Kevin Angus
Reply to  Mike barminski
November 15, 2016 5:40 pm

Just as Hillary’s marching orders to the Media to take out those most likely to be a challenge for her to beat after the Republican primary leaving only the non-politician (Trump). That Trump could not only survive the media’s attacks but also the GOP’s is a testament to him and his family’s ability to survive. I doubt that any of the 22 republicans that ran for president could have survived the progressives, media and internal GOP back stabbing. We have Hillary to thank for her stupidity, thinking that DJT would be a pushover enabling Trump to emerge from the primary as the candidate. Hillary’s marching orders where in an e-mail from the Podesta collection….

November 14, 2016 3:06 pm

Anyone have thoughts on the Geopolitical impacts of the US dropping imports from the Persian Gulf from 1 Billion Barrels in 2001 to maybe zero in 2018? We only imported 1.5 million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf in 2015, so zero in 2018 is very doable it Trump sets that as a goal.
I asked the same question on Quara a minute ago if anyone wants to follow along:

November 15, 2016 4:04 pm

Federal Energy resources galore in an era of “Common Sense”… not lies and Socialism.
If I’m dreaming, don’t wake me.

%d bloggers like this: