Being anti-energy is being anti-humanity

By |2014-11-13T08:56:35+00:00November 12th, 2014|CFACT Insights, Guest Insights|15 Comments

AA - Power towersEverything you need to know about how perverse and dangerous the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is, is summed up in its latest report. Released on November 2, it issued the same tired, old and untrue claims of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”

The IPCC wants the world to stop using coal, oil and natural gas, saying that they must be “phased out almost entirely” by the end of the century. The report reeks of their contempt for humanity.

Losing electricity, no matter where you live, is losing every technology that enhances and preserves your life. You lose the ability to cool or warm your home, apartment, or workplace. You lose the ability to keep food safe in your refrigerator and freezer. You most certainly lose the lighting. You lose the ability to turn on your computer or television. Indeed, to use everything you take for granted.

Since the discovery and generation of energy with coal, oil, and natural gas, generations have lived lives not only different from all who preceded them, but better in so many ways, not the least of which is extended life expectancy. Nations with energy are places where people live longer, healthier lives. They are also wealthier nations where the energy translates into industry, jobs, transportation, and all the other attributes of modern life.

Although we usually don’t associate energy with morality, Alex Epstein has. His book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels ($27.95, Portfolio, an imprint of the Penguin Cover - Moral Case for Fossil FuelsGroup), is the finest case for the role coal, oil and natural gas has played in our lives and the positive, emancipating impact they have had on humanity. Everyone should read it.

“I hold human life as the standard of value,” says Epstein. “I think that our fossil fuel use so far has been a moral choice because it has enabled billions of people to live longer and more fulfilling lives, and I think the cuts proposed by the environmentalists in the 1970s were wrong because of all the death and suffering they would have inflicted on human beings.”

“Eighty-seven percent of the energy mankind uses every second comes from burning one of the fossil fuels: coal, oil or natural gas.” That has not stopped environmentalists from denouncing coal and oil as “dirty” or because their use generates carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. What they never tell you is how small those emissions are and that they play an infinitesimal role to influence the Earth’s weather or climate. They never tell you that the Earth has centuries more of untapped reserves. The modern world could not exist without them.

“In the last 80 years, as CO2 emissions have most rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide fell by an incredible rate of 98%. That means the incidence of death from climate is 50 times lower than it was 80 years ago.”

Epstein points to “the power of fossil-fueled machines to build a durable civilization that is highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on” to demonstrate the foolishness of those who oppose their use. Primary among them is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As part of its 40th session, in early November the IPCC adopted the final “synthesis” report of its Fifth Assessment Report.  This full-scale update calls for the reduction of energy worldwide. They base this on the claim that “human influence on the climate system is clear.”

CFACT NY air banner no global warming 17 years yIt is not clear. Despite the CO2 emissions, the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for the last 19 years, during the same time the IPCC’s “climate experts” and others were telling us the Earth was going to become dangerously warm.

Epstein reminds us that, “In 1972, the international think tank, the Club of Rome, released a multimillion-copy-selling book, The Limits of Growth, which declared that its state of the art computer models had demonstrated that we would run out of oil by 1992 and natural gas by 1993 (and, for good measure, gold, mercury, silver, tin, zinc, and lead by 1993 at the latest.)

It is essential to understand that every one of the “global warming” predictions made in the 1980s and the decades since then has been WRONG. Every one of the computer models on which those predictions were based was WRONG.

A younger generation graduating from high school this year has never spent a day when the overall temperature of the Earth was warming. The Earth’s natural cooling cycle is based on a natural low cycle of solar radiation. The Sun is generating less heat. Indeed, the Earth is nearing the end of the Holocene cycle, one of warmth for the past ten thousand or more years that has given rise to human civilization.
Epstein’s book is more than just philosophical opinion. It is based on documented facts regarding fossil fuel use. At one point he quotes Paul Ehrlich who, in his 1968 Ehrlichbook, The Population Bomb, declared that “the battle to feed humanity is over.”  Epstein notes that in 1968 the world’s population was 3.6 billion people. “Since then it has doubled, yet the average person is better fed than he was in 1968. This seeming miracle was due to a combination of the fossil fuel industry and genetic science…” Farming today is mechanized and that requires fuel!
The claims that Epstein debunks are accompanied by the fundamental truths about fossil fuel use and science. His book, comprehensible to anyone whether they have any knowledge of science or not, should be on everyone’s reading list.
At the heart of environmentalism and its “save the Earth” agenda is the reduction, if not the elimination, of humans from planet Earth.



  1. Scottar November 12, 2014 at 2:12 PM

    I’ll stop using fossil fuels when the IPCC stops brain farting out it’s pie hole!

    • midpath May 25, 2015 at 7:23 AM

      An offensive ignorant comment, and 6 months later it remains here. Obviously no moderation here? Will my comment stay up. This is a poor article, quoting rubbish like Epstein’s book.

      • Scottar May 27, 2015 at 4:56 AM

        Disqus comment does not comeup on Cfact. Can’t respond on that website at all

      • Scottar May 30, 2015 at 3:59 PM

        What are you, IPCC’s attack poodle? Epstien’s views are supported by many credible sources. Here’s one:

        (5/22/15) reports: “Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former IPCC lead author. Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century. What Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius– higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century.”

        There are many more of his caliber.

        What are your sources? NASA’s crony Real Climate?

        • midpath June 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM

          So you accept trash info from incredibly biased sources. I go by science confirmed by the majority and proven by the test of time. You are a believer of garbage, and Epstein is distributing garbage at an offensive rate.

  2. Peter Osborne November 13, 2014 at 1:29 PM

    The UN-IPCC charter assume anthropogenic warming and wants the IPCC to so “prove”. All this is based on a faulty computer model that assumes CO2 is the driver of climate change. The program , which originates with the Dr. Michael Mann era, treats the Earth as if it were a disc facing the sun at an angle. How can these models be other than incorrect?

    • midpath May 25, 2015 at 7:20 AM

      Nonsense, not true at It is a proven reality that CO2 causes warming, only the science illiterate would not get that. The models are a spherical grid of cubes coupled to the ocean. The theory is not based on the models, but instead help to understand what will happen and what might have an influence on it. .

      • Peter Osborne May 26, 2015 at 8:59 PM

        You might try reading actual scientists papers on the subject, like Dr. Don Easterbrook, Roy Spencer, Willie Soon, ad many others. The CO2 accounts foe less than 4% of the so called greenhouse effect WATER VAPOR accounts to 95% of the effect. MOST of CO2 is completely natural. When you do the math, our addition to the effect is about 0.28%. Hardly the driving force imagined by the warmist crowd. Further, there has been no warming as predicted by warmists since 1997. Why is that? Just saying that sinceCO2 is a greenhouse gas so it drives climate with no empirical evidence whatever does not make a valid case. CO2 is a trailing indicator that the climate has warmed, not tb]he cause of the warming. Check the Vodstok ice core graphs. They clearly show an 800 year lase. The Holocene maximum, the Ro an Warm period and the Medieval Warm period were all as warm as today and warmer. Yet CO2 levels were lower. If CO2 drives climate, explain how that was possible? It ids the SUN that drives climate, it always has, it always will as long as we have a climate.
        CO2 is also plant food. If it is cut back, plants growth slows, if it is reduced past a certain point, plant growth stops, and then everything dies. If we were to increase CO2 in the atmosphere, plants would thrive , growth and crop yields would be uo 30 to 100%, plants require less water and less fertilizer. There would be less starvation, better nutrition , and , as a result, less conflict.

        BTW, I was referring to Computer models, not a graphic model. An as “gradational waves” despite 50 years searching have never been detected , how is it possible to build a model using them is a climate model. Also, why are CLOUDS not included in that model?

        • midpath June 5, 2015 at 12:16 AM

          You seriously expect me to read the nonsense and rubbish produced by those lunatics, some of who are fossil fuel funded. It would be like going to Tiny Tim for music composition advice.

          • Peter Osborne June 6, 2015 at 4:12 PM

            I expect you to read and understand the science. Unfortunately, you have proved only that you are closed minded. Goodbye.

            • midpath June 14, 2015 at 4:09 AM

              I have read huge amounts of the rubbish and insanity distributed by the stupid and self serving climate deniers. They and those like you are the closed minded ones…

      • Scottar May 30, 2015 at 4:02 PM

        Proven?, you obviously don’t understand electromagnetic particle energy physics.

        The Warmists could gain credibility if they could explain the Younger Dryas, the Flandarian Transgression, or the Dalton Minimum. All of these events occurred in the last 400,000 years and are recorded in Greenland and Antarctica ice core proxies.


        The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) lasted for 100,000 years where most of the northern and southern hemispheres were covered in thousands of feet of ice, ocean levels were 400 feet lower than today. Then 21,000 years ago these huge masses began to suddenly melt, then refreeze, then melt, then refreeze. The final freeze, the Younger Dryas,

        began approximately 13,000 years ago. The final violent thaw began 11,000 years ago. Coincidently 90% of all large North American mammals disappeared at this time.

        To explain the Earth’s energy flow involves 2 science subjects, Thermodynamics and Particle Physics. Completely identifying the forces and interactions is a complex subject for those with lifetimes of scientific study. The heat flow that is in question is Infrared (IR) emission of electromagnetic energy. The warmists claim that this energy is captured and re-radiated by CO2 as a primary factor that warms the planet. The term ‘greenhouse’ is an incorrect word for Earth’s warming factors, the correct term is insulation, which does not warm you, but only slows the rate of temperature change.

        Professor Nasif Nahle of the UA de Nuevo Leon has calculated that outgoing IR energy is delayed at most by 22 milliseconds, that is the total extent of CO2 driven global warming, the 97% from natural and the 3% from man. This ‘delayed’ heat transfer is NOT radiated back to Earth, it’s leaving the Earth at night at the speed of light for the cooler outer space and is only delayed ~22 ms.

        GCMs are based on computer algorithms that don’t really reflect the real climate. They are at most just research-study tools and not real predictors. The authors have admitted so. That’s why the present hiatus of temperatures were not predicted by the IPCC heads

        • midpath June 5, 2015 at 12:12 AM

          The delayed heat is obviously re-radiated equally in all directions, so half of it is directed back at earth. Changes in the solar constant since measurements began are minimal compared with warming observed. You are writing too much nutty nonsense to deal with here, read a reasonable acceptable book, take some courses, but no you want to collect and repeat silliness.

Comments are closed.