Hillary Clinton Is No Hurricane Expert—But I Am

Photo of Neil L. Frank

Neil L. Frank
Former Director, National Hurricane Center

Daily Caller

As former Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987), I was appalled when, in a campaign rally at Miami-Dade College October 11, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.” That is false.

We were extremely fortunate that Matthew—category 5 through much of the Caribbean—weakened to category 2 before landfall in South Carolina. It could have been much worse.

In 1893 a much stronger hurricane followed nearly the same track. When its eye reached the Georgia and South Carolina coasts, a 15–20 ft. storm surge inundated the coastal islands. Though population was a small fraction of today’s, between 2,000 and 3,000 died, making that the second deadliest hurricane in U.S. history. The same year another major hurricane killed 2,000 in Louisiana.

All together five hurricanes hit the U.S. in 1893, something that’s happened only 4 times in over 150 years (1886, 1893, 1916, 1933)—all long before CO2 levels rose enough to theoretically cause rapid global warming.

Clinton wants us to believe CO2, emitted when we burn fossil fuels for electricity and transportation vital to life, health, and prosperity, causes global warming that causes more and stronger hurricanes. She’s wrong.

There has been a worldwide 30-year lull in hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones despite the simultaneous warming—manmade or natural. It has been 11 years since a major hurricane hit the U.S. Before that we expected, on average, 1 every 2 years. In the 7 years 1944–1950, well before the rapid rise of CO2, 6 hit Florida alone.

Clinton is ignorant about more than hurricanes. Based on computer climate models that fail test after test, predicting two to three times the observed warming, she claimed that because of rising sea level driven by manmade warming, “one in eight homes in Florida could be underwater by the end of the century.”

Empirical observation says otherwise. Since 1992 sea level in Miami has risen only a little over 1 inch—a rate of 4.2 inches per century, no faster than for millennia. Mrs. Clinton is wrong. It’s not time to move to the mountains.

Yes, Earth’s atmosphere is warming. It has been, off and on, for 150 years. What causes it? CO2, natural cycles, or some combination? Sun and ocean current cycles correlate better with global temperature than CO2.

If CO2 doesn’t control Earth’s temperature, why has our government spent some $150 billion on “green energy” alone—not to mention billions on research to bolster belief in man-made warming—over the last 15 years?

What do we have to show for it? We lost $500 million when solar panel maker Solyndra went bankrupt. In 2009 we subsidized 11 electric car companies for $2.5 billion. Six are bankrupt and 5 floundering. In 2015 Sun Edison, America’s largest “green energy” company, went bankrupt, costing us $3 billion. Abergeo, the largest international solar energy company, threatens bankruptcy costing us $2.5 billion. We’ve committed $3.5 billion toward a $100 billion climate fund for developing nations.

Projected future costs are staggering. Clinton wants to build and install 500 million new solar panels in the next four years. The Institute for Energy Research estimates this will cost $205 billion—plus higher electric rates for consumers. She wants all residential energy to be “green” by 2025.

A peer-reviewed study concludes that full implementation of the Paris climate agreement, which Clinton supports, would cost $1–$2 trillion per year ($70–$144 trillion from 2030–2100). The payoff? An inconsequential 0.3˚F reduction in global average temperature.

If climate alarmists want to protect life, why aren’t they as concerned about the 1.5 billion people without electricity and the 2–3 billion without pure water? Millions die each year from these two factors. At a fraction of the cost of fighting global warming, electricity from abundant, affordable, reliable fossil fuels, not diffuse, expensive, intermittent wind and solar, could prevent those deaths.

Neil L. Frank, Ph.D. (Meteorology), the longest-serving Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987) and retired Chief Meteorologist of KHOU-TV, Houston (1987–2008), is a Fellow of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

Advertisements

“Climate Science” Warned Us: More & Stronger Hurricanes Coming! Climate Didn’t Get the Message

NASA-Hurricane-Matthew-on-201630-at-2pm.png

October 25, 2016 By

On September 9, 2005, with much of New Orleans submerged by the failure of fifty levees and flood walls after Hurricane Katrina (category 1 at landfall) dumped 8 to 10 inches of rain, former Vice President Al Gore told the Sierra Club’s National Environmental Convention and Expo in San Francisco:

Ladies and gentlemen, the warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. … Last year we had a lot of hurricanes. … The scientists are telling us that … unless we act quickly and dramatically … [t]his … is only the first sip of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year ….

Gore wasn’t the only prophet of doom. In 2006 Nature told us, “Mega-storms are set to increase as the climate hots up.” In August, 2011, in an article headlined “Are Category 6 Hurricanes Coming Soon?”, Scientific American told us, “Tropical cyclones like Irene are predicted to be more powerful this year, thanks to natural conditions.” In 2012 The Independentwarned, “Global warming is ‘causing more hurricanes’.”

In November, 2012, CBS This Morning co-host Rebecca Jarvis asked, “As superstorms like Hurricane Sandy and Katrina in 2005, is this the new normal for our weather?” She continued, “They’ve long been considered once-in-a-century events, but researchers now say the frequency of such storms will at least double by the year 2030.” Ben Straus, COO of global warming advocacy group Climate Central, answered Jarvis’s question: “Sandy was off the charts. However, it is very much the new normal that we’re seeing more extreme weather, bigger storms more often.”

Okay, I confess, I find it kind of difficult to see how one could test, in under 18 years, a prediction that a once-in-a-hundred-year event would become a once-in-fifty-year event. But when it comes to global warming, testing hypotheses—the key to science—takes a back seat to spreading terror.

In 2013 U.S. News & World Report (drawing from the same study cited by The Independent) headlined a story, “Study: ‘Katrina-Like’ Hurricanes to Occur More Frequently Due to Warming,” but apparently the editors thought that wasn’t scary enough. They taglined the article, “Hurricanes the size of Katrina could occur much more frequently due to rising ocean temperatures” (emphasis added).

Meanwhile, slightly saner minds were a little more restrained. In March 2012 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a mixed message about tropical cyclones (hurricanes in the Atlantic, typhoons in the Pacific): its computer models predicted that global warming would likely make them stronger but less frequent. Nine months later, MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel submitted a paper to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (published another seven months later) that challenged that. He said his models predicted that warming would make tropical cyclones both stronger and more frequent. But both IPCC and Emanuel avoided alarmist language.

Ironically, by the time CBS’s Jarvis was saying the frequency of storms like Katrina and Sandy would double by 2030, it had already been 8 years since the last major (category 3 or higher) hurricane had made landfall on the U.S., though before 2005 they’d struck on average every 1 to 2 years, and in 1944–1950 Florida alone had suffered 6.

As of yesterday, that 8-year drought of major hurricane landfalls on the U.S. has stretched to 11 years. With the 2016 season almost over, it’s unlikely that the drought will end before next June. And it’s not just the United States that’s experienced this welcome break. There has been a worldwide 30-year lull in hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones, despite the (fairly slight) global warming over the period.

Yet, ironically, 18 days ago an editor at Scientific American added this note to its 2011 article predicting that global warming would make hurricanes more powerful: “Editor’s Note (10/07/16): As Hurricane Matthew barrels toward the U.S. coastline, Scientific American reviews some of the science involved in predicting, tracking and understanding these massive storms. This article—originally published on 08/23/2011—looks at whether we will soon be facing Category 6 hurricanes.” Never let a crisis go to waste! (Why, by the way, do hurricanes “barrel” and not just “move”?) Four days later Gore joined Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a rally at Miami-Dade College dedicated entirely to warning about climate change, during which Clinton claimed, “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.”

The truth is that there’s been no increase in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones or hurricanes over the period of allegedly manmade global warming, as this graph by Ryan N. Maue, formerly a researcher at the Naval Research Laboratory and meteorology professor at Florida State University and now with WeatherBELL Analytics, shows:

Maue-TS-hurricane-frequency_12months-as-of-161025-1024x504.png

Likewise, there’s no long-term upward trend in global accumulated cyclone energy:

Maue-global_running_ace-as-of-161025-1024x530.png

But if you love high drama, don’t despair. The climate alarmists will continue their Sturm und Drang, and we’ll continue debunking it!

Featured image: NASA satellite photo of Hurricane Matthew, showing track up to 11 a.m. EDT October 6.

Climate Progress, Joe Romm, outed as political operative by Wikileaks


/

WIKILEAKS: ThinkProgress Trashes A Climate Expert’s Career To Appease A Hillary Donor

Posted By Michael Bastasch (Daily Caller)

ThinkProgress Editor in Chief Judd Legum sent an email to a billionaire donor bragging how the liberal blog’s environmental writer targeted a climate researcher who challenged a major Democratic talking point on global warming, according to leaked emails.

The blog’s environmental arm, ClimateProgress, (run by Dr. Joe Romm) took issue with pollster Nate Silver’s 538 website, hiring Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. to write about global warming issues. Pielke is no skeptic of man-made warming, but he challenged a Democratic talking point that global warming was making extreme weather more severe.

Romm YouTube Image

Dr. Joe Romm of Climate Progress believes we are going to fry.

ClimateProgress immediately embarked on a crusade to discredit him “[p]rior to Pielke writing anything” for 538 — based solely on the fact they didn’t like his research on extreme weather.

“Pielke basically has made a career of ‘accepting’ climate change but disputing that we can really do anything about it or that it has much of an impact,” Legum wrote in a July 2014 email to hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer thanking him for his “support.”

Steyer is a major supporter of environmentalists and Democratic politicians. Steyer is a donor and bundler for the Clinton campaign, raising more than $100,000 for her campaign since 2015. He spent $73 million during the 2014 midterm elections.

ClimateProgress is part of the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), which was created by Clinton’s presidential campaign chair John Podesta. Podesta also created the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which gave CAPAF at least $1 million in 2015.

Legum’s email to Steyer was release by WikiLeaks from Podesta’s hacked Gmail account. It’s one of several emails involving the ThinkProgress blog.

ClimateProgress put out two articles attacking Pielke the same day he published a post on 538 headlined “Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change.” Pielke’s point was that extreme weather only does more damage today because there’s more wealth to destroy when hitting shore.

When economic growth is taken into account, “the overall trend in disaster costs proportional to GDP since 1990 has stayed fairly level,” Pielke wrote.

“Within hours, ClimateProgress published a comprehensive debunk, with quotes from many prominent climate scientists,” Legum wrote, chronicling Pielke’s eventual being forced to leave 538.

“Pielke was so upset with our piece, he called the scientists we quoted and threatened to sue them. Silver was forced to apologize,” Legum wrote. “Embarrassed, Silver was forced to publish a rebuttal to Pielke piece by an actual climate scientist, which was also devastating.”

Silver asked climate scientist Kerry Emanuel to rebut Pielke’s article. Emanuel wrote that he’s “not comfortable with Pielke’s assertion that climate change has played no role in the observed increase in damages from natural hazards.”

Silver never let Pielke publish any piece on global warming on 538 again — a fact Legum bragged to Steyer about in his email.

“I think it’s fair say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538,” Legum wrote.

“He would be providing important cover for climate deniers backed by Silver’s very respected brand,” he wrote. “But because of our work, he is not. I don’t think there is another site on the internet having this kind of impact on the climate debate.”

“Thanks for your support of this work. Looking forward to doing even more in the coming months,” Legum wrote to Steyer.


UPDATE: They are even worse – Climate Progess/Think Progress “making up stuff” as Joe Romm is so fond of saying:

 

@MikeBastasch Fine piece, but this is a lie: “Pielke was so upset with our piece, he called the scis we quoted and threatened to sue them”

There’s now this update to the Daily Caller article:

Update: Pielke told The Daily Caller News Foundation claims he threatened to sue his detractors was “a lie.” Reports that Pielke threatened legal action against two climate scientists came from The Huffington Post. Pielke says that’s false.

In fact, it was Legum who contacted 538 claiming Pielke had made legal threats against two scientists, according to HuffPo.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/20/wikileaks-thinkprogress-trashes-a-climate-experts-career-to-appease-a-hillary-donor/#ixzz4NeKFmFTD

UPDATE2:
In another Podesta email, outed by Wikileaks, Joe Romm is referenced to Podesta as somebody who could vouch for another political climate operation

Hi John: I am the cofounder of Climate Hawks Vote, whose mission is to >> build political power for the grassroots climate movement. Brad Johnson is >> the ED of Climate Hawks Vote. You can check us out w/ Joe Romm.

Readers may recall that Brad Johnson (who left Climate Progress to start the “forecast the facts” operation against TV weather presenters and meteorologists) made some pretty slimy political hacks in the past, such as blaming tornadoes on how state representatives voted in the spirit of “they deserved death and destruction for not being onboard with consensus based climate views”:

The graph that Joe Romm and Brad Johnson don’t want you to see: tornado deaths per million over the last century

Source: NOAA’s US Severe Weather Blog, SPC, Norman Oklahoma

http://www.norman.noaa.gov/2009/03/us-annual-tornado-death-tolls-1875-present/

Related:

Facts about the “Forecast the Facts” campaign – they’re just another paid mouthpiece of the Center for American Progress

Hillary Hypes Hurricane Hysteria—Cornwall Alliance Quells the Storm

When Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton teamed up with former Vice President Al Gore for a marathon campaign rally focusing exclusively on climate change, she trod on Cornwall Alliance’s turf.

And we responded! So far, scholars in our network—Fellows, Adjuncts, Contributing Writers, and Interns—have published eleven opinion columns, with another scheduled for publication, and two awaiting acceptance.

One of those, by Kyle Jorstad in “Hillary’s America: Renewable and Unsustainable” at our own EarthRisingBlog.com, began:

Having rallied the support of global warming mogul Al Gore, on Oct. 11th Hillary Clinton delivered an impassioned speech riddled with incomplete comparisons, red herrings, and hasty generalizations in an attempt to galvanize support for her energy program.

Amidst Mrs. Clinton’s politically and emotionally charged rhetoric can be found multiple cherry-picked examples of the triumphs of clean energy, such as the electric-powered Chevy Volt produced in Michigan. While a car boasting 53 miles solely on electricity may seem a laudable milestone, it turns out that the Volt’s technological breakthrough comes at a significant cost. The 2016 Volt’s sticker price is $15,000 higher than comparable compact cars (though this price is often reduced over $10K through federal grants and subsidies, meaning your tax payer money). Yet the Volt was only initially produced through millions in aid during production, with an estimated $250 million in government aid behind each 2011 Volt.

The crux of Clinton’s energy plan is the installation of 500 million additional solar panels and the expansion of the United States solar capacity to 140 gigawatts, all by 2020. According to the Energy Information Administration(EIA), the US currently rests at only 22.9 GW of solar capacity, a figure projected to expand to 57 GW by 2020. This leaves Clinton with an 83 GW deficit, which the Institute for Energy Research projects to cost over $200 billion. [Click here to read the rest.]

In addition to Kyle’s article, we’ve already published these:

  1. Economics Professor Bill Anderson’s “Can Hillary Clinton Bring Us Better Weather?” at WattsUpwithThat.com, the world’s most widely read science blog;
  2. Economics Professor Timothy Terrell’s “Clinton-Gore 2016: A Campaign of Bad Ideas on the Environment,” at The Stream;
  3. Meteorologist and theologian Charles Clough’s “Hillary Clinton and the Second Coming of Al Gore,” at Christian Post;
  4. International Affairs Professor Michael Hart’s “Fact-Checking Clinton’s Climate Change Speech: The idea of a planetary emergency is little more than opportunistic political posturing,” at The Stream;
  5. Dr. Beisner’s “Is Hillary Clinton the Real Science Denier?” at Townhall.com;
  6. Cornwall Alliance’s Research Associate for Developing Countries Vijay Jayaraj’s “Clinton’s Climate Change agenda: The death of science and humanity,” at RedAlertPolitics.com;
  7. Dr. Beisner’s “Hillary Clinton’s Climate Calamity,” at The Daily Caller;
  8. Physics Professor James A. Wanliss’s “Cleaning up After Clinton and Gore,” at Townhall.com;
  9. Certified Consulting Meteorologist and Geneva College Adjunct Professor of Meteorology Anthony Sadar’s “Hillary’s Hurricane Hysteria Blows an Ill Wind,” at Charisma News;
  10. Cornwall Intern Wesley Haverlah’s “Climate, Elections, and the Battle of Worldviews,” at our own EarthRisingBlog.com
  11. Dr. Beisner’s “Hillary Clinton’s Climate Catastrophe,” in Christian Post.

Accepted and awaiting publication is

  1. World-famous climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer’s “Hillary Boards the Climate Crisis Train to Nowhere,” in the prestigious Forbes magazine;

And awaiting acceptance are

  1. “Hurricane Matthew, Hillary Clinton, and Climate Change,” by Dr. Neil L. Frank, the longest-serving Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987) and KHOU-TV Houston’s Chief Meteorologist (1987–2008).
  2. “Hillary Clinton Is No Hurricane Expert—But I Am,” by Dr. Frank.

It’s crucial that Americans understand that Clinton’s climate and energy policy would do enormous harm to America’s and the world’s poor while achieving no climate-related benefits. Please read and share all our articles, and pray that thousands more will do the same, and millions more will read and carefully consider them.

Please also pray for our major financial needs at this crucial time, and consider donating. From now to the end of October, we’ll send you Dr. Roy Spencer’s A Guide to Understanding Global Temperature Data absolutely FREE as our way of saying “Thank you!” for a donation of any size. Just ask for it and mention Promo Code 1610. You can make your 100% tax-deductible donation at our secure online site, by phoning 703-569-4653, or by sending your check made out to the Cornwall Alliance, 9302-C Old Keene Mill Rd., Burke, VA 22015.

God Bless You,

E. Calvin Beisner
Founder and National Spokesman

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation seeks to magnify the glory of God in creation, the wisdom of His truth in environmental stewardship, the kindness of His mercy in lifting the needy out of poverty, and the wonders of His grace in the gospel of Jesus Christ. A coalition of theologians, pastors, ministry leaders, scientists, economists, policy experts, and committed laymen, the Cornwall Alliance is the world’s leading evangelical voice promoting environmental stewardship and economic development built on Biblical principles. The Cornwall Alliance is a non-profit religious, charitable, and educational organization. All gifts are tax deductible.

Stormy climate deception

Continued hype and deceit drive climate, energy agenda – clobbering poor families

Paul Driessen 

Despite constant claims to the contrary, the issue is not whether greenhouse gas emissions affect Earth’s climate. The questions are whether those emissions are overwhelming the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate fluctuations, and whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.

No Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar and biofuel projects) would threaten habitats, species, nutrition and the poorest among us.

And yet, as Hurricane Matthew neared Florida on the very day the Paris climate accord secured enough signatures to bring it into force, politicians, activists and reporters refused to let that crisis go to waste.

Matthew is the kind of “planetary threat” the Paris agreement “is designed to stop,” said one journalist-activist. This hurricane is a “record-shattering storm that is unusual for October,” said another; it underscores how climate change could “turn seasonal weather events into year-round threats.”

What nonsense. What hubris. Suggesting that humans can control planetary temperatures and prevent hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe weather is absurd. Saying an October hurricane augurs year-long chaos is either grossly ill-informed or deliberately disingenuous.

Matthew was a powerful storm that left destruction and death in its wake, especially in impoverished Haiti. Its slow track up the southeastern US coastline pummeled the region with rain, flooding and more deaths. But it was a Category 1 hurricane with 75 mph winds when it made landfall in South Carolina October 8, and a post-tropical storm as it moved offshore from North Carolina a day later.

Despite the rain and floods, that makes a record eleven years since a major (Category 3-5) hurricane last made landfall in the United States (Wilma in October 2005). The previous record major hurricane hiatus was nine years, 1860-1869, according to NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division.

Only a charlatan would suggest that this record lull is due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. But plenty of alarmist charlatans claim that any violent or “unseasonal” storms are due to “too much” CO2.

Since recordkeeping began in 1851, the US has been hit by 63 Category 3 hurricanes, 21 Cat 4 storms and three Category 5s (1935, 1969 and 1995). Of 51 hurricanes that struck in October, 15 were Category 3-4. Other significant gaps in major hurricane strikes on US coasts occurred in 1882-86, 1910-15 and 1921-26.

The worst periods were 1893-1900 (8 Category 3-5 ‘canes), 1915-21 (8 Cat 3-4), 1926-35 (8 Cat 3-5), 1944-50 (8 Cat 3-4), 1959-69 (7 Cat 3-5), and 2004-05 (7 Category 3-4 hurricanes in just two years).

There is no pattern or trend in this record, and certainly no link to carbon dioxide levels.

Even more obscene than the CO2-climate deception is the response to Matthew’s devastation. More than a week after the Category 4 version of this hurricane struck Haiti’s unprepared shanty towns, hundreds of thousands still had not received food, water, medicine or clothing.

Just as intolerable, United Nations “humanitarian and disaster relief” agencies were issuing “emergency appeals” for $120 million in “life-saving assistance” funds for the desperate Haitians. This after President Obama improperly diverted $500 million from an economic aid program set up to address disease epidemics – like the Zika and cholera cases that are rapidly rising in Haiti – to the UN’s Climate Action Fund. So Obama and the UN blame hurricanes and diseases on manmade climate change, but refuse to spend money they already have on a hurricane disaster, and instead beg for more money. Incredible!

It is clearly not climate change that threatens the poor. It is policies imposed in the name of preventing climate change that imperil poor, minority, blue-collar, farm and factory families.

A new study by the Institute for Competition Economics concludes that Germany’s “green energy transition” will cost €520 billion ($572 billion) by 2025 – just to switch from gas and coal to renewable electricity generation. These costs will keep accumulating long after 2025, and do not cover “decarbonizing” the country’s transportation, heating and agriculture sectors, the study points out.

This €520-billion bill amounts to a €25,000 ($27,500) surcharge for every German family – and 70% of it will come due over the next nine years. That bill is nearly equal to the average German family’s total net worth: €27,000. It is a massive regressive tax that will disproportionately impact low-income families, which already spend a far higher portion of their annual incomes on energy, and rarely have air conditioning.

Germany is slightly smaller than Montana, which is 4% of the USA, and has just 25% of the US population and 22% of the US gross domestic product. (One-fifth of US families have no or negative net worth.)

All of this strongly suggests that a forced transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar and biofuel energy would cost the United States tens of trillions of dollars – hundreds of thousands per American family.

The impacts of climate change obsession on developing nations would be far worse, if they bowed to President Obama’s suggestions and agendas. African nations, he has said, should “leapfrog” “dirty” fossil fuels and instead utilize their “bountiful” wind, solar, geothermal and biofuel resources. In practice, that would mean having expensive, intermittent electricity and growing biofuel crops on Africa’s nutrient-depleted, drought-stricken lands, with no fertilizer, mechanized farming equipment or GMO seeds.

That is racist. It reflects an elitist preference that the world’s poor should die, rather than emit carbon dioxide “pollution,” drive cars, build modern homes, or engage in other “unsustainable” practices.

Thankfully, few developing countries are listening to such nonsense. Instead, they are using oil, natural gas and especially coal, in ever-increasing amounts, to lift their people out of abject poverty – because the “climate-saving” Paris non-treaty imposes no restrictions on their use of fossil fuels.

But meanwhile, “keep it in the ground” pressure groups are redoubling their efforts to prevent Americans from using their own bountiful fossil fuels to create jobs and prosperity. Even though a new NOAA study confirms that rice growing and meat production generate far more methane than do oil, natural gas and coal production and use – with US operations contributing a tiny fraction of that – these groups use every legal and illegal tactic to block drilling, fracking and pipelines. (Methane is 0.00017% of the atmosphere.)

The dictatorial USEPA nevertheless stands ready to issue tough new methane rules for oil and gas operations, while Al Gore and assorted regulators advocate forcing farmers to control cow flatulence “to combat climate change.” Meanwhile, even Hillary Clinton has recognized that Russia provides millions of dollars in support for anti-fracking and anti-pipeline agitators in Europe and the United States.

Keeping fossil fuels in the ground really means depriving people of reliable, affordable electricity; prolonging unemployment and poverty; having no feed stocks for plastics and petrochemicals, except what might come from biofuels; and blanketing hundreds of millions of acres of farm, scenic and habitat land with biofuel crops, 400-foot-tall wind turbines, vast solar arrays and new transmission lines.

And as the UN’s top climate officials have proudly affirmed, “preventing climate change” is really about replacing free enterprise capitalism with “a new economic development model” and having an excuse to “distribute the world’s wealth” to crony corporatists and other “more deserving” parties.

When taxpayers, consumers, unemployed workers and poor families finally recognize these inconvenient truths, the world will be a far better place – with true freedom, justice and opportunity for all.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on the environment.