“Indeed, a case could be made that politicians have been pushed into a situation such that they have no choice but to approve continued coal-burning, hydro-fracking for increased gas and oil production, and pursuit of oil and gas in extreme and pristine environments.” (James Hansen)

“I am saying that the global energy discussion should be based on facts, not on myths.” (James Hansen)

Yesterday’s post on James Hansen’s new analysis, “Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power and Galileo: Do Scientists Have a Duty to Expose Popular Misconceptions?, discussed how the anti-nuclear, pro-wind strategy of mainstream environmentalism works to increase, not decrease, greenhouse-gas emissions. Such an incredible irony can only be blamed on philosophical fraud, of believing in imaging and emotions rather than reality. [1]

Hansen’s article also speaks energy/political truth to Big Environmentalism in other ways that help steer the energy debate towards realism and away from postmodernism.…

“Has Big Environmentalism increased net CO2 emissions by retiring existing or discouraging new nuclear (and hydro) capacity that would have produced more kilowatt hours than that being generated by new wind and solar capacity? It is time to do the hard math. Let the games begin!”

James Hansen is an energy realist amid his climate alarmism. And fortunately, we can use the analysis of the former to debunk the politics of the latter. And even more fortunately, the physical science of man-made climate change is moving away from Hansen’s high-sensitivity estimates to “global lukewarming” (the analysis of Chip Knappenberger, Roy Spencer, John Christy, and others—seconded by the very influential Judith Curry in numerous blogs for the mainstream.

In his just released analysis, “Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power and Galileo: Do Scientists Have a Duty to Expose Popular Misconceptions?,…

“An important biological species – humankind – is at risk of disappearing due to the rapid and progressive elimination of its natural habitat…. It must be said that consumer societies are chiefly responsible for this appalling environmental destruction.”

– Fidel Castro, Rio Earth Summit, 1992.

“If you look at the time since 1992, we sort of started out with a bang with Rio and Kyoto. [Since then] things have slowed down.”

– Tim Wirth (U.N. Foundation Vice Chairman; former State Department Undersecretary for Global Affairs). Quoted in Lisa Friedman, “The Diplomatic Road to a New Climate Agreement May Not End in Paris Next Year,” ClimateWire (sub. req.), January 14, 2014.

Fidel Castro (1926–), one the great wealth destroyers and wealth averters of the last fifty years (he came to power in 1961), has come back in public after an eight-month absence. …

Cap-and-trade, carbon taxation, net social cost for carbon: all assume that increasing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases by mankind have injurious effects that are not accounted for in private activity.  But the politically incorrect is intellectually correct: CO2 emissions make life better – even possible – for people, the economy, and the ecosphere.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

Weighing risks, costs and benefits is fundamental to life. We do it every day – when walking, driving, showering, heating our homes, and using stairs, ladders and tools; and when balancing the cost of new payments versus the benefits of a better home or car. The alternative is hunkering down in a bedroom or cave – until a lightning bolt, tornado, hurricane or armed burglar disturbs our false sense of security.

That is why government agencies are required to assess the benefits and costs of proposed regulations.…