Apparently, the political left has no ethics alarms whatsoever when it sees an opportunity to gain crushing power. That’s the unavoidable message conveyed by two ominous developments—both so far only portending possible real world consequences while expressing Democratic Party aspirations of overwhelming dominance—regarding climate change fearmongering.
First, we learned that four Democratic Senators, the Marxist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat (and you know what that means) Jeff Merkley from Oregon, which is as at least as wokified as Mass., and Native American Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland urging him to sue the fossil fuel industry. “Big oil has known for decades that they are fueling the climate crisis and lied to hide it,” Markey tweeted. “Now, we’re seeing record-breaking temperatures and unprecedented damage. We must hold them accountable for their misleading, unforgivable campaigning.”
Typical: Markey issues misleading public statements while saying that the oil industry is guilty of misleading the public. 1) There are no “record-breaking temperatures” because there’s no way to tell what the records are. This Big Lie all by itself marks Markey as science dunce and a climate change propaganda hack. NASA has repeatedly said that it is impossible to determine global temperatures with sufficient accuracy to declare “records” before methods of measurement existed. 2) “Unprecedented damage” is meaningless gibberish. 3) Oil companies have every right to protect their business and serving the public interest by countering purely speculative and politically motivated doomsday lobbying by irresponsible activists.
The false analogy being weaponized here is the tobacco lawsuits. “Big oil was engaged in exactly the same type of behavior that the tobacco companies engaged in and were found liable for fraud on a massive scale … the cover-up, the denial of the problem, the funding of scientists to question the science,” according to Sharon Eubanks, the U.S. lead prosecutor on the tobacco case. “The same pattern. And some of the same lawyers represent both tobacco and big oil.”
Wow. I know she’s a lawyer and could be arguing for her clients knowing that what she’s saying is total garbage, but still: zealous advocacy has its limits. The world runs on fossil fuels, and despite all the hype, no satisfactory replacements have been found, except perhaps nuclear power, which the same activists who want to send us back to the Stone Age effectively killed with an earlier scaremongering campaign. Nobody, certainly not industry and civilization, “needs” tobacco. Furthermore, the scientific evidence regarding the long-term results of using carbon-based fuels is nowhere near as indisputable as the evidence that tobacco causes serious illness. And, disgracefully, she makes an argument that appeals to the majority of the public who are ignorant of how the justice system works.
It means absolutely nothing that “some of the same lawyers represent both tobacco and big oil.” And the lawyers who represented O.J. Simpson also had represented many wrongly accused defendants and admirable causes. ABA Model Rule 1.2, b says, “A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.”
I will make it my mission to repeat Eubanks’ quote as a sickening example of how many lawyers are willing to mislead the public regarding the role of lawyers in society if such deception will advance their own agendas.
The letter from the Senators is just as bad. “The fossil fuel industry has had scientific evidence about the dangers of climate change and the role that burning fossil fuels play in increasing global temperatures for more than 50 years,” the letter states. “As early as 1959, Edward Teller warned the American Petroleum Institute that carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels would raise global temperatures.”
You can tell that the letter is full of malarkey because it resorts to a ridiculous appeal to authority: Edward Teller, the so-called “Father of the Atom Bomb,” was a theoretical physicist, not a climate scientist. In 1959, there was insufficient data to make such a warning: we know this because there is insufficient data to make such predictions now, and we know that, because all models and all predictions involving climate change have failed so far. Nobel Prize-winner James Watson (of DNA fame) left his lane to assert that race and levels of intelligence were linked: presumably Sanders and Co. don’t regard that conclusion as persuasive.
The letter is pandering to the progressive environmentalist fascists in the Democratic Party base. It mimics the suit filed by Missy Sims, who claims that she is on “mission from God” and blames U.S. oil producers while ignoring international companies like the National Iranian Oil Corporation. Moreover, the EPA says that oil use by industry accounts for 24% of global GHG emissions, about the same as agriculture and forestry. Oddly, the Senators don’t want Justice to sue those companies.
You know, the tobacco industry accounted for all of the negative effects of…tobacco. Still does, in fact.
Forbes couldn’t restrain its snark about how intellectually dishonest the Democrats’ call for persecuting the oil companies is, writing in part,
The Democratic Senators urging the Department of Justice to sue Big Oil are also obviously pandering to their constituents who are quite happy to blame the oil industry for the emissions that their SUVs create. Presumably consumers are not to be blamed for their vehicle choice, but the automobile industry hasn’t been sued yet for its efforts to brainwash them into thinking larger vehicles are safer and carry more stuff. Given the negative impact such a suit would have on unionized autoworkers, it seems reasonable to assume that liberal Democrats will not pursue the issue….[T]he irrational opposition to nuclear power arguably cost thousands of lives. No lawsuit appears likely to target groups opposed to nuclear power, though, at least none promoted by Democratic Senators. Finally, think of the many clean power projects which even now are being delayed by opposition which often boils down to no more than BANANA, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
The letter, however, is metaphorical peanuts when compared to what may be coming in Part 2…
______________
Ethics Alarms 
Have these people forgotten the cold winter months ago? I mean, on February 23rd, there was snow on the bottom of Cajon Pass, something that has not been seen in years. Highway 18 in the San Bernardino Mountains was closed for weeks due to the colder-than-normal weather.
It is like these people point to individual instances of high temperatures as proof of global warming, but do not argue that individual instances of low temperatures undermine claims of global warming.
By the way, do you consider what these Senators are doing the crime of fraud against the United States? After all, “the statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government” Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462, 479 (1910) Lying to the Justice Department file a meritless lawsuit bound to lose does defeat the lawful purpose of the Justice Department.
Michael, Michael, Michael. It’s not global warming anymore. It’s climate change. Get with the program. It’s all about calling everything, hot or cold, evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Of course, the cold winter proves their point, just as the hot summer proves their point. Snap out of it, man.
They also don’t care to talk about the fact that cold related deaths outnumber heat related deaths by perhaps an order of magnitude.
I remember the TV commercials with the Indian looking at the litter by the road and crying…you remember those? Well, that guy is Senator Warren’s father.
…really, he is…it’s true…
This is so easy. What Sanders, Markey, Merkley, and Warren need to do is put their money where there mouths are (since they’re so quick to want to put my money where their mouths are). They should immediately:
1. Cease using all forms of transportation that utilize fossil fuels…cars, trains, buses, motorcycles, airplanes, riding lawn mowers, mopeds…everything.
2. Cease purchase and use of any product that utilizes fossil fuels in any way.
3. Cease use of air conditioning, heat, and electricity unless it is confirmed to be generated using means that are 100% fossil-fuel free.
4. Eat nothing unless it is grown, raised, fed, or manufactured using methods verified to be 100% fossil-fuel free.
5. Donate a minimum of 75% of their after-tax incomes to causes supporting non-fossil-fuel enterprises.
That’s a start. Michael R and Sarah B could certainly revise/extend that list.
As far as I’m aware, none of them are demanding anything as extreme as anything on your list from anyone else.
Masked Avenger,
Of course they aren’t demanding any of those things. They are smart enough to know that their constituents are not dumb enough to do those things.
But, those things (at least 1-3) are the logical extension of their argument.
In other words, their position is purely grandstanding. They really don’t want what they claim to want. I think it was Kant who characterized pragmatic reason to the effect of: wanting a specific end is wanting the means to that end. So, if you want an end to fossil fuel pollution, you must want all of the means to that end. You must want to eliminate cars and the use of oil as fuel.
But, they do not want the means to the end they describe.
That is why they are frauds. If not frauds, demagogues. If not demagogues, idiots.
-Jut
Or, they’re smart enough to know that those demands would be impractical at this time, and we don’t have the necessary replacement infrastructure in place to enact such extreme measures.
” I think it was Kant who characterized pragmatic reason to the effect of: wanting a specific end is wanting the means to that end. So, if you want an end to fossil fuel pollution, you must want all of the means to that end. You must want to eliminate cars and the use of oil as fuel.
But, they do not want the means to the end they describe.”
Of course they do. But gradually. They know we cannot instantly replace fossil fuels with anything else at the moment, but they believe we can gradually phase fossil fuels out and phase alternative forms of energy in. I don’t know if they’re right, but that at least seems a reasonable goal, and I think they believe they’ve proposed reasonable means of meeting that goal. Joel’s list is just a bunch of strawmen.
“ I don’t know if they’re right, but that at least seems a reasonable goal, and I think they believe they’ve proposed reasonable means of meeting that goal.”
What makes you think that? What makes you think that attacking the automotive industry is a good way to “gradually phase fossil fuels out.”
That is not gradual. Bankrupt the oil companies through government attack (with no viable replacement for the energy) is a stupid, irresponsible, and totalitarian course of conduct. The best way to phase out oil and integrate alternative sources of energy is through the free market. At the point oil becomes more expensive than the alternatives, the alternatives will thrive.
Government wants to direct that. They want to make the alternatives thrive by crippling the cheaper form of energy. That is not how a free market works.
But, that is how authoritarians assert and justify their power.
-Jut
“ NASA has repeatedly said that it is impossible to determine global temperatures with sufficient accuracy to declare “records” before methods of measurement existed.”
I’d love to read this. Do you have a source?
Even if they have, “record-breaking” in this context clearly means breaking the records that we do have, not the records we don’t. Omar’s tweet a few weeks ago was criticized for saying that records were broken based on a timeline we don’t have records from; now saying “record-breaking” at all is misleading? That’s not reasonable.
Sure it is. Record-breaking implies that this is the hottest it has ever been, and it is intended to convey that false message.
When Guinness publishes its yearly book of world records, do you think they are suggesting that every possible variation of the actions therein have been recorded and documented? Or is there a clear implication that they are they basing their records on information that has been recorded and documented?
Weak. Climate, temperatures, rainfall, earthquake size etc, are not like the most hotdogs eaten at a sitting. The statement that X broke the record for hottest day is meant to suggest there has never been a hotter day—that certainly was the goal of the stupid Omar tweet. That’s what records mean. If the real meaning is “this was the hottest day recorded in Cleveland since records were kept in 1879, that’s not deceptive, but the cliamte Nazis don’t say that, because it provokes the question, “How do you know it wasn’t hotter in 1878?”
You’re not making a good faith argument.
Of course I am. I’m making a charitable interpretation based on logic, and you’re making the most sinister interpretation possible.
I am making the only fair and logical interpretation, because unlike you, I am not warped by confirmation bias on this issue.
Could all these “broken records” simply be a function of larger sample size?
One thing Ryan could have done was to copy-paste his inquiry to Jack into a google search line, and the first item that pops up is NASA addressing just this inaccuracy in data. That even the records kept have only been ‘reliable’ in recent times.
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/
And, while NASA doesn’t openly state in the article what Jack asserts, no one with a discerning mind would think that the paleo-record (which is just our best guess based on the data we presume is accurate and methods the scientific community has agreed are reliable) can be determinative in ways that activists, such as Ilhan Omar assumes.
The current unusually hot weather is most likely a result of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano eruption in the South Pacific. The eruption sprayed huge amounts of water vapor into the stratosphere. According to NASA, “ This extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures. Massive volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Mount Pinatubo typically cool Earth’s surface by ejecting gases, dust, and ash that reflect sunlight back into space. In contrast, the Tonga volcano didn’t inject large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere, and the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat. The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects.”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere
The media is being their usual selves and spreading hysterical misinformation. What is the current government narrative on spreading misinformation? Isn’t it supposed to be censored?
Spreading “misinformation” is supposed to be prosecuted.
Shouldn’t we be moving to a water vapor free environment?
Don’t worry, water vapor isn’t an important greenhouse gas. It has no effect, ever.
I’m glad to see they are admitting that water vapor, the most plentiful greenhouse gas, and the one we experience most of the greenhouse effect from, since that’s why we can live on the freaking planet, is actually a cause of increased surface temperatures. It’s a step in the right direction, and hey, I’ll use this to quote them later, if I have to.
I’m sorry, but I’ve reached a Popeye state. I can’t handle it any more. This is so stupid, I’ve reached a breaking point. If we want to get rid of oil, what do we have? There are a lot of dumb answers. I’ve discussed why some of them don’t work before. The smart answer has always been nuclear. Well, I’ve got bad news.
Nuclear is not a replacement for fossil fuels. I like the idea of nuclear power as a part of a reasonable plan to help with many aspects of our electrical grid, but nuclear is not a replacement for fossil fuels. People who are trying to come up with real solutions to the environmental concerns of the AGCC crowd or even just the idea that we should take proper care of the environment continue to look at nuclear power as the magic solution. It isn’t the magic pill that we think it is. There are still problems it cannot solve. Nuclear is not a replacement for fossil fuels.
First, we have the problem of petrochemicals which come from fossil fuels. Nuclear is not a replacement for fossil fuels. Sorry. No can do. Currently, there is nothing that can replace fossil fuels in the chemicals industry without having drastic negative effects. Just as a single example, Tylenol is formulated from coal tar. There is a recently patented process to make it from poplar trees, but the yield and purity is not high enough to make this viable for now. They have been working on improving yield and purity for four years now and there is nothing yet to suggest that this will be able to replace coal tar in the making of a simple, effective, and safe fever reducer any time in the predictable future, and how much deforestation do we want to push to get rid of ONE small aspect of fossil fuel use? Fossil fuels reign supreme here because we don’t have anything else in the chemicals industry to compare.
Second, transportation is the next area that we need to consider. Nuclear is not a replacement for fossil fuels. Electric vehicles just cannot compare to an internal combustion engine (ICE). First, there is the long charge time, as well as the limited range. Then there is the damage that these heavy vehicles cause roadways. Next is the inability to haul large loads in inclement weather and tough terrain. Finally, there is the physical lack of materials to make these ubiquitous. We need ICEs to make society work, no matter the current push for electric vehicles. As a note, ethanol is a poor substitute for gasoline due to flash point and corrosivity concerns. Biodiesel is only viable due to high government subsidies as cannot stand on its own at any price anyone is willing to pay and it takes food grade supplies out of the food system. I love my food going to my car instead of me… Fossil fuels reign supreme here because we have nothing else that really works.
Third, there is home heating. Nuclear may eventually be a replacement for fossil fuels. Most houses use natural gas and wood to heat. Some homes still use fuel oil, which is functionally kerosene for those who hate all the different names we use for the different fractionations. These are more efficient than electricity, and usually cheaper than electricity. However, it is possible to heat homes with electricity alone. Fossil fuels still have the edge here, but we could use nuclear power to provide heating for houses, however, this will require a drastic restructuring of society, though less so than anything else I’ve mentioned as it CAN be done.
Finally, and this one will upset many, nuclear is not a replacement for fossil fuels in the electricity industry. I like nuclear power as an electricity source, but there is one major problem with it that no one likes to talk about. That is startup/shutdown time. A natural gas fired turbine can turn on with a moment’s notice. They usually take ten to fifteen minutes to make power. A coal fired power plant, which generally is cheaper to run than the needed natural gas to make base load, takes days to turn on and make power. A nuclear power plant takes over a week. A coal plant is hard to turn up and down with need, a nuclear power plant is orders of magnitude harder. The idea of the modular power system is a good start on approaching this problem, but it is still too untested an idea to hang a hat on. There is no evidence that these modular systems will be faster to put out power, either. Balancing the grid requires more flexibility than nuclear can provide.
This is not to say that nuclear power does not have its place. It does and more nuclear power would do a lot for our infrastructure. I want there to be a lot more nuclear plants, especially in comparison to these stupid wind farms and solar panel systems that will never work on the macro scale, at least without some radical changes that no one can even define today. However, for a healthy power grid, even nuclear cannot totally replace fossil fuels. It just doesn’t work like that.
How stupid are these congresspeople? Let’s see, Sanders, Warren, … nevermind, don’t answer that. My head can’t take it. So sure, get rid of oil. We have nothing to replace it with. Kiss all your ideas of living in anything other than survival mode goodbye. I hope you can sustain yourself, but realistically, somewhere around 75-90% of the people affected will probably die.
Thank you, I very much enjoyed reading that.
In regards to replacing fossil fuel with nuclear power take a look at thorium cycle reactors. They are possible to build, but have different flaws tham our current designs and would need study of long term issues, which are different.
I’ve only read a little this morning, but I’m not seeing anything that says they have a shorter start-up/shut-down time. Please direct me to where I can find more on that, if you would.
Also, I must admit, I am concerned by all these moves to salt reactors. One of the big things we learned from past nuclear disasters is that it is really hard to have them if we have a water mediated, water cooled reaction. These other mediation and/or cooling philosophies seem to ignore those findings, raising risk again.
That being said, I haven’t had a chance to read all the documents on how they plan to avoid runaways, and it could be my bias talking. I learned much of my nuclear knowledge from some old nuclear researchers who worked on the safety side and were on some teams investigating Three Mile Island and Cherynoble. They were convinced that water mediated, water cooling was the only safe way to go and it is possible that their attitude became mine as well.
Yet, nuclear allows us to make fossil fuels less expensive (as demand goes down) and less used. As you say, part of a package, nuclear and fossil fuels are 100% the way to go. But interestingly enough – as fossil fuel wildly *EMPOWERS* people to live easier, better, more secure lives – environmentalists hate nuclear – even though by their own goals, it’s a dream come true.
Is there something about the environmentalist worldview that makes them not want people to live easier, better and more secure lives?
Absolutely, I am 100% on board with nuclear AND fossil fuels. We can use nuclear to reduce the amount of fossil fuels needed to handle base load electricity. This will, overall, help the situation. The problem is too many people I speak with think that nuclear can replace fossil fuels in entirety. An intelligent plan to reduce fossil fuels usage with what we can do today involves significant investment in nuclear.
I believe that environmentalists are either more about gaining power over others, or believe in what I like to call imaginary physics. I had a debate with an acquaintance once who said that just because the laws of physics don’t currently allow her favorite solutions to work, it doesn’t mean they won’t change to make it work in the future. So she could believe that her solutions were the best ones. She truly believed that the laws of physics could be changed by writing new regulations and governmental laws. I seem to run into enough people who agree with that general philosophy that I tend to think it is widespread.
Jack writes: “…we learned Sanders, Markey, Merkley (my Home State corrupter), and Warren lettered U.S. AG Garland urging him to sue the fossil fuel industry. “Big oil has known for decades…. Now, we’re seeing record breaking this and that…”
Whoa …you mean suing the industry that still, today, produces high-octane petrol to fuel their Limousines, jet fuel for jetting-around the planet in their Lear Jets for vacations, “climate conferences,” and private billionaire conferences, and heating oil for their comfortable ski chalets in the wintertime, while blue collar and the less-fortunate have to ration such basic forms of existence because buying groceries for the family is a tad more important? …That Big Oil Industry??
Such arrogance.
Instead of suing I challenge these legislators to introduce bills that will outright ban the use of petrochemical fuels.
Let’s see them take a stand that might just have some consequences. Suing big will just drive up prices and have little to no effect on fossil fuel consumption.
I bet none of them have the testicular fortitude to stand on their stated principles.
As I pointed out to JutGory, no one thinks an outright ban on petrochemical fuels would be practical at the moment because the necessary infrastructure to replace it doesn’t exist yet. They want to gradually phase them out.
The constant strawmanning of any non-conservative position by so many in the comments section on this site really weakens your arguments.
Fining oil companies billions of dollars in the proposed lawsuits would have the same effect as a substantial banning.
No, it wouldn’t.
If you make a business unprofitable, it can no longer produce its product and service. The kind of lawsuit the four Senators are asking for involves trillions of dollars, and any continued oil sales would compound the cost. And the goal of the lawsuit is to do exactly that.
Masked Avenger,
For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that massive lawsuits and fines do not cause a functional ban, which they are likely to. Now, phase oil and gas out to WHAT?
What is there to phase oil and gas out to? If there is a plan to phase it out, we must know to what. Otherwise, it is not a plan, it is stupidity. If I am to give them the benefit of the doubt, I need an answer to the problem of how will we survive without fossil fuels.
“For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that massive lawsuits and fines do not cause a functional ban, which they are likely to.”
No, that’s not likely at all.
“I need an answer to the problem of how will we survive without fossil fuels.”
Why? Have they set a target date to when we need to survive without fossil fuels?
Masked Avenger,
I struggle to think that you can be other than willfully blind and not see that this is an attempt to financially cripple the oil and gas industry. Trillions of dollars of fines will make it very difficult to remain in business. Profit margins in oil and gas are small, and rely on volume. This will either drive gasoline prices through the roof, or it will shut down oil and gas as we know it.
As for your asking if we have a deadline to phase out oil and gas, are you serious? This also appears to be willful blindness. If you plan to remove something, you need a plan to replace it. There is no successful massive change that can occur without a plan to make it work, be it weight loss or completely restructuring our society. However, if you need deadlines, we have the deadline of 2032 for no production of new ICEs and 2050 for a net zero society.
So answer me. What are we replacing oil and gas with? If you want to phase it out, you must have a plan to make society work without it. A gradual phase out is your suggestion above, so please, defend it.
The latest proposal on the Cafe standards would effectively require that all new cars be electric by 2032.
This is gradual? I would really hate to see a drastic change, then.
If the purpose of suing the oil companies is to recover the costs associated with the claim that the use of fossil fuels was the proximate cause of “global warming” what controlled studies exist to specifically identify changes in climate that are directly attributable to fossil fuels? Secondly, should such a suit be successful why shouldn’t the oil companies sue for the lost consumer surplus that accrued to households during its use.
The logic for the suit contends that oil companies withheld vital consumer information in order to sell products. Had that information been provided and the full economic costs of use been absorbed in the price of the product two things would have happened. First, only those wealthy enough to would have had the benefits of petroleum-based products. Second, the standard of living of Americans and others in the industrialized world would have been reduced to that of the early 19th century. More people would have died due to disease, lack of clean water and extreme temperatures. Wouldn’t the oil companies be entitled to the excess value consumers derived from its use? Why should households be unjustly enriched by demanding, through their government, that oil companies give them money back?
Exactly how does the government establish standing in such a suit when it was an active participant in promoting low cost energy?
All good questions. It’s a BS theory, of course, but given the fully partisan and unethical tilt of the Garland Justice Department, it’s not impossible that it would follow the directives of the four Senators.