[Editor note: Six regulatory personalities related to government intervention in the U.S. oil and gas market (through the mid-1980s) are identified by the author. The reader is invited to add categories or examples of regulators to this list.]

The classical tyrant that has frequented other countries has not been a factor in the U.S. oil and gas experience (or the U.S. economy). [1] The existence of private property and democratic institutions is the major reason; the moderating influence of the industry over intervention is another reason. Huey Long of Louisiana, who as governor and U.S. Senator, left a controversial mark on oil and gas politics, probably is the closest to being an exception.

Instead of tyrants, hundreds of legislators and regulators have shaped oil and gas intervention at all levels of government.…

“Jeff Clark and the Austin-based Wind Coalition are working the red states hard to convince citizens, voters, and legislators that Big Wind is not only green but also red, white, and blue.

Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, fiscally concerned Democrats beware! Wind power is a solution looking for a problem and has nothing to do with the free market and limited, constitutional government.”

At a panel discussion of the future of windpower in Texas last week, hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Jeff Clark of the Wind Coalition made a “conservative” case for continuing government mandates and tax preferences for his industry.

The sold-out event was mostly attended by those favoring smaller government—and ready for a comeuppance for government-dependent windpower. The event was held in Austin, the home of TPPF and the Wind Coalition, an advocacy group focused on the south-central United States.…

“The IPCC seems more intent on trying to maintain the now-dying consensus than in following climate science to its logical conclusion—a conclusion that increasingly suggests that human greenhouse gas emissions are less important in driving climate change than commonly held.”

Several weeks ago, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the climate science portion of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The AR5 is so burdened by fundamental flaws that it is worthless, or worse, misleading, as a resource to ground policy decisions regarding energy choices.

The IPCC seems to favor the output of computer climate models over that of hard observational science—science which indicates that computer models warm the earth’s temperature too fast for a given input of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Using climate models which are too sensitive to greenhouse gases leads to projections of future warming and all its resultant impacts—the meat of the IPCC report—which are too high.…