I spent the last ten minutes reading articles about global cooling, Mann's infamously propagandist "hockey stick", and climate science in general. Links:
Orson Scott Card's two cents
Then I read this:
...and thought, "What energy crisis?"
Is there an energy crisis? Was there? When was it? Did I miss it? I know they're not talking about the one touched off by the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973, so--
Oh. They're talking about gasoline costing more than $3 per gallon. Okay.
Earth to ignorant people: an energy crisis is occurring when you can't get the energy you need because no one can supply it. During the entire time that gas averaged above $3 per gallon there were times when I had to wait in line at the gas station because every pump was in use...and most were filling large four-wheel-drive trucks. (SUVs.) There was no rationing, there were no shortages, there was nothing impeding the generation of electricity and flow of fuel around the country. There was plenty of gasoline to go around...at $3 per gallon.
An "energy crisis" is what you get when there is not enough energy to go around. Like in California, when they have to have rolling blackouts. That is an energy crisis. (I could add an explantion of how price controls limit supply, but I don't really need to. Right?)
The oil companies were accused of maniuplating supply in order to make "record profit"--where are their accusers now that the average price of gasoline is closer to $2 per gallon?
Oh. Electon in a few days--the oil companies are watching out for their buddy, George Bush.
It has nothing to do with the fall in world crude prices; nor has it anything to do with the ongoing rebuilding taking place in New Orleans, where a significant percentage of the US' refining capacity is. Nor has it anything to do with the end of "summer driving season" and the end of the EPA's federally-mandated "summer blend" nonsense which does more to drive up the price of gasoline than any other three government mandates combined....
* * *
Christopher Monckton's article, linked above, is an interesting and thorough scientific analysis of the science of global warming and climate change; and it makes points that no one else has mentioned, or even bothered to look for.
The anecdote he relates regarding David Deming receiving an e-mail from a colleague which said, "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period", is telling. If true, it exemplifies global warming as religion rather than serious science.
If the Medieval Climate Optimum didn't exist, then the case made by the "global warming consensus" crowd would be that much clearer and dire: without that warm period, suddenly the current temperature is the warmest that Earth has been for millennia, rather than centuries, and the last warm period is comfortably--for the anointed--in the distant past, long before Man had his act together sufficiently to have any serious global effect on the ecosystem.
But there is a danger here, one which is apparently not obvious to many the global warming advocates:
When you eliminate inconvenient data, you are no longer doing science.
...or perhaps they just don't care that what they're doing is not science. I don't honestly know.
What I do know is that by trying to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period", rather than understand what it means to climate science--what caused it, what ended it, what the atmosphere and sun were doing at the time and how it affected global temperatures--they are no longer scientists, but acolytes; adherents to a faith which deifies Anthropogenic Global Warming, making a dark god out of it, and simultaneously converting their discipline from science into Jihad.
A real scientist understands that not all the data will prove his theory. It is the scientist's job to understand the data he's collected and explain why the data proves his theory. The elimination of data which disproves the theory had better have a damned good explanation behind it; if it is simply removed and ignored, it should arouse suspicion.
Why does the Medieval Climate Optimum (or Medieval Warm Period--I use them interchangeably) present such a problem? After all, it peaked about 800 years ago.
The problem is, 800 years ago, there were no SUVs, no petrochemical industry...no industry at all, really. Life was very simple, and the only widely available power was muscle power. (There were some limited uses of air and water power.) People burned wood to heat their homes and to cook; but there were a lot fewer people around and they tended to die rather young because there was no real medicine worth speaking of.
The idea that the Earth could have been from 1.6° to 3°C warmer back then is anathema to Anthropogenic Global Warming, because if the Earth could be that warm without SUVs and petrochemicals and so forth, the case being made that human activity is causing the current warming is not as strong.
Besides, the minimum of 1.6°C is about three times as much as warming as we're seeing right now...and can reasonably expect to see in the next fifty years.
And, of course, the great unwashed masses are too stupid to understand the issue, anyway, and the cause is too important, so it's perfectly all right to lie about it in order to get them to vote the way you want them to.
I think Randy Milholland said it best in one of his recent strips: "'The end justifies the means' is a coward's way of sayin' 'I know it's wrong but I did it anyway and I don't want to face the consequences.'"
But the problem is that the "great unwashed masses" are not a bunch of stupid sheep. People are smarter than many clever people give them credit for being; that's the problem with clever people: they think everyone else is stupid; and the malarkey can only go so far. Eventually the truth will out, and when it does, people are going to want explanations.
Already we are seeing signs of a cooling global environment; none of the computer models predicted the things we are seeing (such as cooling oceans) and none of the "experts" have managed to make so much as one correct prediction. Thanks to Mann et al we have seen that the "science" these predictions are founded upon is not worth the paper it's printed on.
People who defend the Warm-istas and their agenda will say, "Oh, but their intentions are good!" You know, the people behind the Spanish Inquisition thought their their intentions were good, too--eliminate heresy and help sinners reconcile their sins and go to be with God!
While I resist mightily the temptation to recite the old saw about a certian road, and how it's paved, think about this: the number of times that well-intentioned people have ended up causing misery and destruction are myriad, and exist in every history text you'd care to read. Incompetence cannot properly evaluate its ability to perform; well-meaning people can end up committing the most ghastly of atrocities all in the name of GOOD, and not understand why they are scorned by others when their actions come to light.
Was Pizzaro a religious zealot when he burned all the "satanic" texts of the Incas? Was he a rapacious destroyer of a civilization? ...or was he just trying to save some people from the eternal fires of Perdition while getting massively rich in the process?
We have been told time and again by people on the Left that no good cause can start with a lie (eg "Bush Lied, People Died") yet here is an example of a leftist cause which is based on a lie.