Oil is everywhere

On top of the many benefits that fossils fuels provide, including the ability to use machines to amplify our productivity and improve our lives and the ability to provide cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy on a scale of billions, we have yet another set of benefits.

Our hydrocarbon world

Using oil and gas, the hydrocarbon industry also produces a caliber of synthetic materials that cannot be matched by any other industry. We have so many diverse materials. We have artificial hearts, bullet-proof vests, insulation, carpet, golf balls, ink.

Where did these materials come from? Let’s take something as seemingly unrelated to oil as paper. You might say, “I know where paper comes from. Paper comes from trees.” But if you notice, there’s a coating on the paper that makes it a lot easier to write on.

It’s worth asking with all of these things, “Where does it come from? Does it come from a rock, does it come from a plant, does it come from metal? Glass? Sand? Where does it come from?”

If you ask that question, you’ll find that the answer more often than not that it comes from oil, or from natural gas. It’s amazing how much in our life is made from hydrocarbons.

Another question you should ask yourself is, “How frequently do I use oil-based materials?” You may be surprised to find that it’s nearly impossible to get through an entire day without coming into contact with dozens of oil-based products that improve your life. And when I say oil-based, I include natural gas-based products too.

An oil walk

Let’s try this. Say you wake up reaching to snooze your alarm clock. It’s an electric device so why aren’t you worried about potentially getting electrocuted? Well, there’s a cord that insulates the electricity and protects you from that. What’s that made of? It’s made of oil, which means that some brilliant engineers figured out how to take this substance, this hydrocarbon, and turn it into a cord, and do it very affordably.

How does that work? Basically, hydrocarbon molecules have a potential to be very versatile, but you need human ingenuity to figure out how to break them down into “monamers,” which are very small hydrocarbon molecules. Then, the brilliant engineers figure out how to make the monamers into “polymers,” which are these different combinations of the hydrocarbon molecules that can serve any purpose.

Next, say you don’t want to get out of bed because it’s so comfortable and you think, “Gosh, I love this Tempur-Pedic bed, it feels so good.” Where does Tempur-Pedic come from?

This is oil, too. You might think, “Well, this isn’t relevant to me because I have a Sleep Number bed, and that’s high gauge plastic, not just foam.” Wait. The oil industry makes that, too.

You can’t even get out of bed in this exercise, because there’s so many things about your bed that are made from oil.

When you do get up, what’s the first thing your feet touch? The floor and very likely a rug or carpet. What’s that carpet made from? It’s made from oil. And why are you warm? It’s not just because of the natural gas-based heating you may have, but also because of the insulation in the walls. “What about the paint on the walls?” That too, is from oil.

And as you get dressed, you’ll find that your plastic eyeglass lenses, your nylon socks, and your rubber-soled shoes all come from oil, too. You see that so much of our lives is based on using hydrocarbons, for all of these amazing modern materials.

What if hydrocarbons were more expensive?

Here’s the question to ask. What would happen to these materials if oil and gas were more expensive? It’s very simple. The products that use those materials are made that way, because the oil-based materials enable them to be higher quality, less expensive, and sometimes exist in the first place. Sometimes there’s no other way to do it.

To recap what we’ve covered so far:

  • Energy is fundamental
  • Energy needs to be cheap, plentiful, and reliable
  • The process for creating energy also needs to be cheap, plentiful, and reliable.
  • The fossil fuel industry is the only industry that can provide cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy for billions of people

And that brings us to the conclusion that without the hydrocarbon industry’s unique efficiency, vital energy and materials would not be affordable or available to billions more people.

Fossil fuels = access to energy

Simply put, using fossil fuels means more people have more access to energy. Which means all things being equal, more years of life added on to billions of people’s lives.

And thus, every fossil fuel discussion should incorporate the context that the fossil fuel industry is the only industry that can produce cheap, plentiful, reliable energy for billions of people.

RELATED ARTICLE: Which Energy Sources Are Actually Sustainable

Overcoming Bias in Energy Conversations

Last week I gave a 5-hour workshop on How to Have Constructive Conversations about Energy. Here’s a clip where I discuss the biased thinking behind opposition to fossil fuels–and a simple but deeply powerful technique for framing a conversation to minimize bias.

Please share the video. And if you’re interested in having me host a Constructive Conversation Workshop or speak on some other topic click the below link.

Send Speaking Engagement Details

What are fossil fuels?

The hydrocarbon industry has developed a highly resource efficient process to find, extract and harness a naturally concentrated, plentiful and stored source of energy. It’s the only industry that has come up with a process that is cheap, plentiful and reliable. To understand why that is, it’s important to understand what fossil fuels are and how to explain it to someone who doesn’t work in the fossil fuel energy.

Fossil fuels 101

Fossil fuels are created by the decomposition of living organisms over millions of years. Let’s take the example of coal. The organic matter decomposes and combined with time, heat, and pressure, becomes more and more dense, getting buried under several layers of earth and eventually forming coal.

Fossil fuels are also referred to as hydrocarbons because they are very rich in molecules made of hydrogen and carbon atom combinations. When these atoms bond together, they have some remarkable properties.

One is that they are able store a lot of energy in a very small amount of space that is released when burned. This is what allows hydrocarbons to power engines, such as an internal combustion engine or a steam engine.

When you burn fossil fuels, you introduce oxygen into the system, leading the carbon atoms to bond with oxygen and become carbon dioxide, while the hydrogen atoms bond with oxygen to become dihydrogen oxide—that is, water. The energy formerly holding them together is released in the form of heat, which creates pressure that can move the engine. That’s basically how all the different engines in modern life work. It’s a very efficient way of generating energy.

Just how plentiful are fossil fuels?

It’s important to note that there is an enormous amount of hydrocarbon in the earth. But even though there is a huge amount of this material, if we don’t know how to get it or don’t know how to use it, it’s useless. For most of history, we haven’t been able to do either. However, today, thanks to the ingenuity of the fossil fuel industry, we’re able to find and extract those hydrocarbons and use them more efficiently.

Exactly how much is there? What we often discuss is what are called reserves, which is the amount we have in inventory. The thing to realize is that the reserves are usually a very small fraction of the overall in-place amount or deposits that actually exist in the earth.

If you notice, what this graph shows with oil—and the same is true for natural gas—our consumption over time goes up, but our reserves also go up.


That seems impossible unless you realize that the overall deposits are massive; many, many, more times than we have used in the whole history of civilization.

So the key question is not how much deposit is there; it’s whether we have the ingenuity to turn those deposits into usable energy.

The hydrocarbon industry has answered this question by continuing to improve how we access and use these resources, which has translated into an abundant energy source for billions.

Vitamin O

The hydrocarbon industry produces energy for every kind of use: heating, electricity, but perhaps the most distinctive form of energy it produces that no other industry can replicate, is oil.

Oil is a cheap, plentiful, and reliable form of portable energy. Why is portability important? It has allowed us to create new applications for energy, such as cars, planes, and harvesters, which would not exist if their energy sources were not portable.

For example, a modern harvester that reaps enough wheat for 500,000 loaves of bread a day needs to carry its energy with it. Nothing can match liquid hydrocarbons, in this case in the form of diesel fuel. That’s why over 90% of the world’s transportation comes from liquid hydrocarbons, because in terms of portability, it is the best.

So when people talk about restricting that, particularly oil-based fuels, the conversation should include all of the potential consequences. The hydrocarbon industry produces energy for so many different types of uses.

It is the only industry that can produce cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy that we need to power our machines, amplify our productivity, and provide significant amounts of power on the go. It is the only industry to do so for billions of people throughout the world.

EPA Begins Revision of Obama Climate Regulations for Cars, Trucks

EPA chief Scott Pruitt said Monday that the Obama administration’s fuel economy regulations aren’t appropriate and his agency will help revise them.

Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would begin crafting new greenhouse gas emission and mileage standards for vehicles built in 2022 through 2025.


“The Obama EPA’s determination was wrong,” Pruitt said in a written statement about the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards. He said:

Obama’s EPA cut the midterm evaluation process short with politically charged expediency, made assumptions about the standards that didn’t comport with reality, and set the standards too high.

The EPA’s revising of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations put the agency on a collision course with California state officials. The Golden State got permissions from the Obama administration to issue its own, higher emissions standards.

Conservative groups have urged Pruitt to repeal California’s waiver, arguing the state can use its influence over automakers to supplant federal standards. The EPA is still examining California’s waiver, but Pruitt seemed critical of continuing the policy as it stands.

“Cooperative federalism doesn’t mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country,” Pruitt said. “EPA will set a national standard for greenhouse gas emissions that allows auto manufacturers to make cars that people both want and can afford—while still expanding environmental and safety benefits of newer cars.”

“It’s in everyone’s best interest to have a national standard, and we look forward to working with all states, including California, as we work to finalize that standard,” he said.

The EPA also is moving against former President Barack Obama’s emissions pledge under the Paris climate accord, which he joined in 2016. Obama committed the U.S. to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.

The Obama rules required cars to get 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Officials estimated the rules would cut 540 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions and save consumers money.

However, automakers missed fuel efficiency targets for model year 2016 cars and light trucks by about 9 grams per mile. The Obama EPA’s own analysis found cars may not meet the 2025 target, likely getting between 50 and 52.6 miles per gallon by then.


Michael Bastasch

Michael Bastasch is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @MikeBastasch.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

U.S. Energy Facts

The U.S. Energy Information Administration provides these U.S. Energy Facts:

Americans use many types of energy

Petroleum, natural gas, coal, renewable energy, and nuclear electric power are primary energy sources. Electricity is a secondary energy source that is generated from primary energy sources.

Energy sources are measured in different physical units: liquid fuels in barrels or gallons, natural gas in cubic feet, coal in short tons, and electricity in kilowatts and kilowatthours. In the United States, British thermal units (Btu), a measure of heat energy, is commonly used for comparing different types of energy to each other. In 2016, total U.S. primary energy consumption was about 97.4 quadrillion (1015, or one thousand trillion) Btu.

In 2016, the shares of total primary energy consumption for the five energy-consuming sectors were:

    • Electric power—39%
    • Transportation—29%
    • Industrial—22%
    • Residential—6%
    • Commercial—4%

The electric power sector generates most of the electricity in the United States, and the other four sectors consume most of that electricity.

The pattern of fuel use varies widely by sector. For example, petroleum provides about 92% of the energy used for transportation, but only 1% of the energy used to generate electricity.

Domestic energy production is equal to about 91% of U.S. energy consumption

In 2016, energy produced in the United States was equal to about 83.9 quadrillion Btu, which was equal to about 86% of U.S. energy consumption. The difference between production and consumption was mainly in net imports of petroleum.

The three major fossil fuels—petroleum, natural gas, and coal—accounted for most of the nation’s energy production in 2016:

The mix of U.S. energy production changes

The three major fossil fuels—petroleum, natural gas, and coal—have dominated the U.S. energy mix for more than 100 years. Several recent changes in U.S. energy production have occurred:

    • Coal production peaked in 2008 and trended down through 2016. Coal production in 2016 was about the same as production was in 1977. The primary reason for the general decline in coal production in recent years is the decrease in coal consumption for electricity generation.
    • Natural gas production in 2016 was the second largest amount after the record high production in 2015. More efficient and cost-effective drilling and production techniques have resulted in increased production of natural gas from shale formations.
    • Crude oil production generally decreased each year between 1970 and 2008. In 2009, the trend reversed and production began to rise. More cost-effective drilling and production technologies helped to boost production, especially in Texas and North Dakota. In 2016, crude oil production was lower than production in 2015, mainly because of lower global crude oil prices.
    • Natural gas plant liquids (NGPL) are hydrocarbon gas liquids that are extracted from natural gas before the natural gas is put into pipelines for transmission to consumers. NGPL production has increased alongside increases in natural gas production. In 2016, NGPL production reached a record high.
    • Total renewable energy production and consumption both reached record highs of about 10 quadrillion Btu in 2016. Hydroelectric power production in 2016 was about 12% below the 50-year average, but increases in energy production from wind and solar helped to increase the overall energy production from renewable sources. Energy production from wind and solar were at record highs in 2016.

The greatest energy technology of all time

Earlier we discussed that for energy to be useful, it must be cheap, plentiful, and reliable, and to be cheap, plentiful, and reliable, every element of the process to create energy must also be cheap, plentiful, and reliable. We saw how this can be difficult to achieve with some alternative energy sources, such as solar.

It’s important to know this because if somebody tells you “Let’s replace the way we currently produce energy with this other way,” you have to be able to evaluate whether or not the process is really viable.

Fossil fuels: cheap, plentiful, reliable energy for billions

The subject of this column is that the hydrocarbon, or fossil fuel, industry is the only industry that can produce cheap, plentiful, reliable energy on a scale of billions. That means that without such an industry, we don’t have the amount of food we need, the amount of technology we want, really the amount of anything we need or want.

The first thing to realize is that the vast majority of the world’s energy is in fact produced by the hydrocarbon industry. This was true back in 1980, and it’s also true in the present.

As you can see, there’s much more overall energy consumption now and the vast majority of that is still fossil fuel energy. What that means is that we’re using considerably more fossil fuels, not less.


There is currently no other industry that can match what the fossil fuel industry is producing and on the scale that it’s producing it.

Why? The reason is that the hydrocarbon industry has developed a highly resource efficient process to find, extract and harness a naturally concentrated, plentiful, and stored source of energy. It’s the only industry that has come up with a process that is cheap, plentiful and reliable.

To understand why that is, it’s important to understand what fossil fuels are and how to explain it to someone who doesn’t work in the fossil fuel energy. We’ll take that up next week.


EPA Revision of Obama-Era Fuel Standards Will Make New Cars More Affordable

U.S. Energy Facts – U.S. Energy Information Agency

EPA Chief Puts Science Back Into Environmental Protection

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt may be just a lawyer, but so far he has done more to bring sound science to the EPA than any scientist ever affiliated with the agency.

And, apparently, he’s just getting started.

Since taking the reins at the EPA and despite not having a full complement of presidential appointees helping him—not to mention the 15,000 agency employees, many of whom fancy themselves as part of the “resistance”—Pruitt has shaken up the EPA’s 47-year-old culture and practice of politically-driven science.

Pruitt’s first move last fall was to reform the agency’s practice of appointing its own university research grantees to its science advisory boards so they would be in position to rubber-stamp agency actions. This practice contravened federal law that requires these boards to be made up of unbiased scientists.

In one example, a 26-member board had 24 EPA grantees who had received more than $200 million in research grants from the agency. These scientists were “reviewing” either their own research or the research of their colleagues. It was pal review, not peer review.

So, Pruitt changed the EPA’s policy. Researchers now must choose whether they want to receive research grants from the EPA or serve on its advisory boards. But they can’t do both.

Pruitt also appointed new members to some of these boards. For the first time in at least 20 years, individuals were appointed who are prominent critics of how the EPA uses science—including the chairmen of the two most important science advisory boards.

Pruitt rightly recognizes these boards are advisory in nature and he is not bound to accept their advice. As such, Pruitt should be commended for wanting to get different points of view from the members of his advisory boards. In contrast, the Obama EPA boards were largely just echo chambers of a single point of view.

Just last week, Pruitt announced another giant leap toward improving how the EPA uses science. Pruitt says he will ban the use of so-called “secret science” from agency rule-makings.

Over the past 20 years, for example, the most costly EPA air quality regulations have been based on scientific data in taxpayer-funded studies that Harvard and Brigham Young University researchers have literally kept secret for decades.

In 1994, an EPA external science advisory board known as the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee asked for the data, but the request was ignored by the agency. In 1997, Congress requested the data and was outright refused.

In 1998, Congress passed a law requiring that scientific data relied on by the agency must be made available to the public. But an appellate court held the law unenforceable in 1998.

In 2011, Congress again began politely asking the EPA for the data. No luck. So, in 2013, Congress issued its first subpoena in 30 years to force the EPA to produce the data. Again, no luck.

The House then began passing bills—three of them in successive sessions of Congress—to bar the EPA from relying on secret data to issue regulations. But all got stuck in the Senate, including the current bill known as the HONEST Act.

So Pruitt has decided he will take the initiative and ban the use of secret science at the EPA. If agency rules are going to be based on scientific data, that data must be available to independent researchers for validation purposes.

It of course would be better if Congress passed legislation to make this permanent, but Pruitt recognizes the EPA and the public cannot wait on the hopelessly deadlocked legislature.

These are all major accomplishments. But there’s a lot more to do. The good news is that Pruitt is eager. He is rightly focused on how the EPA uses science and his plans for improving the process.

As someone who has worked on EPA science issues and controversies for more than 27 years, it’s all music to my ears.


Portrait of Steve Milloy

Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com, was a member of the Trump EPA transition team, and is the author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA” (Bench Press, 2016). Twitter: .


Conservative Leaders, GOP Lawmakers Voice Support for Scott Pruitt

EPA Chief Says Media Reports About Him Don’t Tell True Story

Obama EPA Officials Protest Scott Pruitt’s ‘Secret Science’ Reforms. Here’s Why They’re Off Base.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

Before March 31, we are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associates benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters/Newscom.

Videos on Climate Computer Models & How Russia and China Have Identical Energy Agendas

The accuracy of computer models is critical to the entire climate change issue (and thus renewable energy). Two very good videos [below] have been just released that tackle this complex matter: 1) a 4± minute video in the style of PragerU releases, and 2) a 20± minute film designed for a deeper understanding. (BTW, I have the contact info for both filmmakers, so if you have any suggestions for improvements, let me know and I’ll pass them on.)

Computer Models & Fortune Tellers

Better Understanding… Models

Since Russian collusion is a hot topic, I put together an overview document about how the Russians (and Chinese) have an almost identical energy agenda, as do the leaders of some mainstream environmental organizations. Please also note that this Newsletter has several recent articles about Russian interference (see below).

North Carolina has been ground zero for the environmentalist war on fossil fuels. Currently the battle is about offshore gas and oil exploration. To put some balance into this issue, here is a Position Paper that looks at all of the expressed concerns. It’s a living document so periodically check it for updates.

I also did an update of my article Twenty-One Bad Things About Wind Energy, which has become the most-viewed post on the very popular Master Resource.

I just updated the list of sample NYS towns, comparing each of their local wind ordinances. No matter where you live, if you are dealing with wind energy, this information should be of interest to you.

Lastly, ABC (American Bird Conservancy — one of the more reasonable environmental organizations) is hiring a person to deal with wind energy. Here is the position in case you know someone who would be interested.

Some recent articles on Russians and energy policies:

Russia Is Delivering Loads Of Natural Gas To Massachusetts
A Scandalous Case of Russian Collusion with Liberals
Short video: Russia Behind Eco-Activists
The US blames Russia for cyber attacks on the energy grid
Europe’s cold shoulder to Russian gas could lift US LNG export goals
EU is now even more dependent on Russian gas
Britain may be left out in the cold over Russia row
UK must boost fracking to reduce reliance on Russian energy
Merkel Looks to LNG to Cut Germany’s Dependence on Russian Gas

PS: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Energy Poverty Kills: How Germany embraced solar and wind and ended up in energy poverty

Let’s take a look at this in practice. Germany is considered by some to be the best success story in the world of effective solar and wind use, and you’ll often hear that they get a large percentage of their energy from solar and wind.

You can see here on this chart how this claim was made and why it’s not accurate.


First of all, this is just a chart of electricity. Solar and wind are only producing electricity and half of Germany’s energy needs also include fuel and heating. So solar and wind ever contribute half as much to Germany’s energy needs as this chart would imply.

But that’s not the biggest problem. What you notice here is that there’s certain days and times where there are large spikes, but there are also periods where there’s relatively little. What that means is that you can’t rely on solar and wind ever. You always have to have an infrastructure that can produce all of your electricity independent of the solar and wind because you can always go a long period with very little solar and wind.

So then why are the solar and wind necessary? Well, you could argue that they’re not and that adding them onto the grid will impose a lot of costs.

In Germany, electricity prices have more than doubled since 2000 when solar and wind started receiving massive subsidies and favorable regulations, and their electricity prices are three to four times what we would pay in the U.S. (Because of its low reliability, solar, and wind energy options require an alternative backup—one that’s cheap, plentiful, and reliable—to make it work, thus creating a more expensive and inefficient process.)

Nuclear and hydro

Fossil fuels are not the only reliable sources. There are two others that don’t generate CO2 that are significant and are more limited, but still significant contributors. Those are hydroelectric energy and nuclear energy.

Hydroelectric energy can be quite affordable over time, but it’s limited to locations where you have the right physical situation to produce hydroelectric power.

Nuclear is more interesting because nuclear doesn’t have the problems of hydro but it’s been very restricted throughout history so today in the vast majority of cases it’s considerably more expensive than say electricity from natural gas. This may change in the future and one thing we’ll discuss under policy is how we need to have the right policies so that all energy technologies can grow and flourish, if indeed the creators of those technologies can do it.


The reality of energy poverty: a story

To illustrate just how important it is to have cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy, I want to share a story I came across while doing research for my book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. This is a story about a baby born in the very poor country of Gambia.

The baby was born underweight and premature, but not in such a way that would be a big problem in say, the United States. In the United States, the solution would have been obvious: incubation. This technology would almost certainly bring this baby up to be completely healthy, and if you met the baby later in life you would never know that there had ever been a problem.

Unfortunately, in the Gambia, in this particular hospital, they needed something that billions of people in the world do not have, and that is reliable electricity.

Without reliable electricity, the hospital didn’t even contemplate owning an incubator, the one thing this baby desperately needed to survive.

Without access to this technology, the baby could not survive on her own, and sadly, she died. I think this story reminds us of what it means to have access to cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy, and how having more energy gives us the ability to improve our lives.

To summarize what we discussed, if you can’t afford energy you don’t have energy, and if energy is scarce or unreliable, then you don’t have energy when you need it. It’s not just enough to have energy, the energy and the process to create it has to be cheap, plentiful, and reliable.

Invite someone to receive these Energy Clarity updates

Washington, D.C. Councilman Blames Jews for Bad Weather and Controlling the Climate

There are few remarks made by someone in a position of authority that could be more profoundly ignorant and stupid than the ones made by Washington, D.C. Council Member Trayon White Sr. about the Rothschilds [watch the below video made by Councilman White].

It is easy to dismiss such remarks as the eructations of a moron, but I’m very much afraid they are a sinister example of what has been going on within the Democratic Party and the black community with their enthusiastic embrace of hate-groups like BLM, ANTIFA and the bevy of beauties who organized the Women’s March.

The irony here, of course, is the strenuous and successful efforts of American Jewry to help pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prominent and senior Democrats such as Senator Al Gore Sr. and Senator Robert Byrd vigorously opposed.

It only took twenty years for Jesse Jackson to start describing New York City as “Hymietown” and another seven years after that for the inveterate race-hustler, Al Sharpton, to incite an anti-Semitic riot in Crown Heights. Twenty seven years after that we now have presidential hopefuls like Kirstin Gillibrand and Cory Booker distancing themselves from the traditional support of Democrats for Israel and we have Representative Keith Ellison and seven other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, a cesspool of anti-Semitism, refusing to denounce or distance themselves from Louis Farrakhan and his cult of Jew-haters and anti-white guttersnipes.

Americans everywhere, not just American Jews, have the right to expect much better and more helpful behavior from these self-styled leaders but one can detect a whiff of sulfur coming from the infusion of vast amounts of money not only from the new politburo of the Left championed by the ubiquitous and treacherous George Soros but also from Islamic states whose title deed, the Quran itself, demands the subjugation and death of Jews.

In the meantime, pandering but ambitious politicians like Mr. White just can’t resist jumping on board a passing bandwagon and getting cozy with all the other morally bankrupt passengers on the rickety but well-fueled contraption they anxiously hope to ride to power. Shame on the miserable lot of them.


By Tamar Lapin, New York Post, March 19, 2018

A DC lawmaker blamed a late-winter snowfall on a family of Jewish bankers — accusing them of controlling the climate and orchestrating natural disasters.

Council member Trayon White Sr. apologized for the comments he made in a since-deleted video on his official Facebook page posted Friday morning as snow fell over the capital.

“Man it just started snowing out of nowhere this morning, man. Y’all better pay attention to this climate control, man, this climate manipulation,” White can be heard saying in the video, the Washington Post reported.

“And D.C. keeps talking about, ‘We a resilient city,’” he continues. “And that’s a model based off the Rothschilds controlling the climate to create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities, man. Be careful.”

The Rothschilds are a wealthy business dynasty descended from Mayer Amschel Rothschild, an 18th-century Jewish banker who lived in Frankfurt, Germany.

Over the years, they’ve been the subject of wild anti-Semitic conspiracy theories accusing them and other Jewish people of secretly orchestrating world events to their advantage.

“This kind of anti-Semitism is unacceptable in any public official. This so diminishes what America is about and adds to the oppressive feeling going on in the country right now,” Rabbi Daniel Zemel of Temple Micah in northwest Washington told the paper.

Councilman Trayon White Sr. (D-Washington, D.C.)

On Sunday night, White posted a note on Twitter apologizing “to the Jewish community and anyone I have offended.”

“The Jewish community have been allies with me in my journey to help people. I did not intend to be Anti-Semitic, and I see I should not have said that after learning from my colleagues,” the note reads.

White — a Democrat who won the Ward 8 seat in November 2016 — also said he’d reached out to his “friends” at the organization Jews United for Justice.

“They are helping me to understand the history of comments made against Jews and I am committed to figuring out ways continue to be allies with them and others,” he wrote.

The organization acknowledged speaking with White, writing that they “look forward to working with him toward deeper understanding of anti-Semitism and toward our collective liberation.”

Fellow lawmaker Brianne Nadeau, who is Jewish, said she believes White’s apology is sincere.

“I believe he is being truthful when he says he didn’t realize what his statement implied,” she wrote in a statement on Facebook.

Anti-Semitic incidents have jumped 57 percent over the last year nationwide, the Anti-Defamation League reported.

They more than doubled in DC between 2015 and 2017, according to the Washington Post.

RELATED VIDEO: Mark Steyn on lawmaker’s Jewish weather ‘conspiracy’

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

VIDEO: Steven Pinker’s Un-Enlightened Writing on Climate and Energy

I am generally very excited about Steven Pinker’s new book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Unfortunately, the book’s treatment of climate and energy is deeply problematic.

A few nights ago I recorded a 20 minute analysis [BELOW] of the climate section of the book. You don’t need a copy of the book to follow along since the text of the book is in the video.

I hope you find my analysis useful. I think the principles involved apply to many smart people who get this issue wrong.

Bonus: At the end of the video I defend “the Koch Brothers” from Pinker’s smearing. I haven’t spoken much about them publicly so I was glad to get the opportunity.

Property Value Guarantee: What’s good for fossil fuels is good for wind turbines

Welcome to the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter.

We have long advocated that a Property Value Guarantee (PVG) be included in any local wind ordinance that is serious about protecting the rights of citizens. Not suprisingly, the wind industry is adamantly opposed to a PVG… We were alerted to the fact that Exxon is offering a PVG near one of their fossil fuel facilities!  What’s acceptable for fossil fuels should be good enough for wind turbines…

Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:

Global Warming – A Case Study in Groupthink
NOAA caught again manipulating climate change data
Peer-reviewed study finds that three key global temperature data sets are “not a valid representation of reality.”
Report: Alarmist Climate Change Rebuttal, an Overview
Alarmist Climate Researchers Abandon Scientific Method
So far 97 New 2018 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Change
Alarmists throw in the towel on poor quality surface temperature data
Sustainable Development: Code for Giving Up Your Rights
Study: Online Lies Spread Faster than the Truth

Some of the more interesting Energy related articles in this issue are:

The High Cost of Wind and Solar
Proposed Colorado Legislation: Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines
Congress: Kremlin Used Green Propaganda to Undercut U.S. Energy
Green Ideology’s Failed Experiment
California Has Too Much Green Energy
Maine Places Moratorium on Wind Projects
Scott Pruitt: The Weaponization of the EPA Is Over
Why Wind and Solar are Not the Future
Electric grid a prime target in cyberwar
Military Concerns put New Mexico Wind Project in Doubt
Dozens of studies about the ecosystem impacts of offshore wind turbines
How Corrupt is Audubon?
When did knowing too much become so political?

PS: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues

Congressional Report: Who’s Really Subverting U.S. Energy Policies

Who is it that wants:

1) U.S. nuclear energy facilities to close down?
2) U.S. fossil fuel reserves to stay in the ground (onshore and offshore)?
3) The costs of fossil fuels to go up (e.g. with a carbon tax)?
4) A high percentage of the US electric grid to be based on unreliable sources?
5) The U.S. to waste trillions of dollars on unreliable electricity?
6) To have our national security weakened by wind energy interference with our military?

If you answered: “the Sierra Club and their allies,” you’d be right. However the correct answer is also our communist opponents: Russia and China.

Consider the fact that when it comes to energy policy, there is an almost identical agenda between these two groups.

U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) on March 1st, 2018 released a staff report uncovering Russia’s extensive efforts to influence U.S. energy markets through divisive and inflammatory posts on social media platforms. The report details Russia’s motives in interfering with U.S. energy markets and influencing domestic energy policy and its manipulation of Americans via social media propaganda. The report includes examples of Russian-propagated social media posts.

Chairman Smith: 

“This report reveals that Russian agents created and spread propaganda on U.S. social media platforms in an obvious attempt to influence the U.S. energy market. Russia benefits from stirring up controversy about U.S. energy production. U.S. energy exports to European countries are increasing, which means they will have less reason to rely upon Russia for their energy needs. This, in turn, will reduce Russia’s influence on Europe to Russia’s detriment and Europe’s benefit. That’s why Russian agents attempted to manipulate Americans’ opinions about pipelines, fossil fuels, fracking and climate change. The American people deserve to know if what they see on social media is the creation of a foreign power seeking to undermine our domestic energy policy.”

The report’s key findings:

  • Between 2015 and 2017, there were an estimated 9,097 Russian posts or tweets regarding U.S. energy policy or a current energy event on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
  • Between 2015 and 2017, there were an estimated 4,334 IRA accounts across Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
  • According to information provided by Twitter, more than four percent of all IRA tweets were related to energy or environmental issues, a significant portion of content when compared to the eight percent of IRA tweets that were related to the election in the U.S.
  • Russia exploited American social media as part of its concerted effort to disrupt U.S. energy markets and influence domestic energy policy.
  • The IRA targeted pipelines, fossil fuels, climate change and other divisive issues to influence public policy in the U.S.

The report can be found here.


On October 31, 2017, Chairman Smith sent letters to Twitter and Facebook to continue its probe into Russian attempts to influence U.S. energy markets via social media platforms. The letters cited additional evidence that Russian agents engaged in anti-U.S. energy activities on the platforms, including Facebook-owned Instagram, and reiterated Chairman Smith’s September request for information from the companies.

On September 26, 2017, Chairman Smith requested documents and information from Twitter and Facebook related to Russian entities purchasing anti-U.S. energy advertisements on social media platforms operated by the companies, including Facebook-owned Instagram.

On July 7, 2017, Chairman Smith and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin requesting that the Treasury Department investigate allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. energy market through covertly funding radical environmental groups opposed to fossil fuels.

115th Congress

RELATED ARTICLE: How Russia Tried to Block U.S. Energy Production

‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ now available!

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change by Regnery Books is already climbing to Number 1 in a key category on the Amazon rankings! It has reached #1 Best Seller in Environmental Science books as of February 28, 2018.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, By Marc Morano

The book has been endorsed by Nobel Prize Winning scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever. (see below) The new book also comes out just in time to greet the upcoming UN IPCC climate report already making the media rounds: See: Leaked UN IPCC Draft Report calls for ‘a radical transformation of society’ – Predicts 1.5°C Warming By 2043

This book is the ultimate reference guide to climate change and no parent should be without a copy as their kids under climate education at school from elementary through college!

(The new book is also available at:  Amazon UK EBAY;

BUY NOW: https://www.amazon.com/Deplorables-Guide-Global-Warming-Guides/dp/1621576760 

Limbaugh praised Climate Depot’s Morano in 2009: “Morano’s probably single-handedly, in a civilian sense, the guy (other than me, of course) doing a better job of ringing the bells alarming people of what’s going on here.” – November 20, 2009

Limbaugh on Morano in February 2018: Rush Limbaugh Touts Climate Depot: Run by Morano who ‘used to be — when I had the TV show — Our Man in Washington – Warmist ‘arguments blown to smithereens’ on Climate Depot

Read the book’s forward by Weather Channel Founder John Coleman & read critical praise  of Morano’s new book here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/25/a-must-read-the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-climate-change/

A sampling of praise and reviews for Marc Morano’s new book: 

“With his book “Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change”, Marc Morano vies to be the Thomas Paine of the movement to save the world from the tyranny of climate catastrophists. He exposes the seemingly infinite number of absurd claims, and the almost unbounded hypocrisy and venality of the proponents of this clearly inhuman and scientifically implausible attempt to control mankind by controlling and, more importantly, restricting access to energy. This book is an unrelenting polemic of the best kind.”

— Emeritus MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen

“I have never met Marc Morano, the author of this very interesting book, but I know him well from his excellent blog Climate Depot, which I read regularly. In the book he exposes the climate myths that even scientific organizations like the Physical Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science push. The Earth has existed for maybe 4.5 billion years, and now the alarmists will have us believe that because of the small rise in temperature for roughly 150 years (which, by the way, I believe you cannot really measure) we are doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels. We are now forced to use corn-based ethanol in our gas, subsidized windmills, and solar cells for energy; meanwhile, maybe a billion people worldwide starve and have no access to electricity. You and I breathe out at least thirty tons of CO2 in a normal life span, but neverthelessthe Environmental Protection Agency decided to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health. Marc Morano discusses the reasons and history of all these strange theories in his excellent book The Politically Incorrect Guide ® to Climate Change. Please read it, you will be amazed!”
—Dr. IVAR GIAEVER, Nobel Laureate in physics

“Marc Morano’s remarkable book The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change documents, in their own words, how many honest scientists still insist that hypotheses not confirmed by observation should be rejected. It exposes the pernicious myth that 97 percent of scientists agree that increasing levels of carbon dioxide are an existential threat, one that mandates the surrender of human freedom and wellbeing to an ‘enlightened’ climate elite. The book documents that many very distinguished scientists do not agree. In fact, more carbon dioxide is already benefitting the world through increased yields for agriculture and forestry, and from shrinking deserts. The hated ‘deniers’ are right. There is no emergency. When later generations of historians analyze the climate hysteria of our time, this book will be one of their most valuable references.” 
— Dr. WILL HAPPER, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, emeritus, Princeton University
“The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change is a welcome scientific and rational antidote to the liberal news media, the UN, and Al Gore’s incessant chattering about climate doom. This book exposes the hypocrisy of Learjet limousine liberals who fly in their own private jets and own multiple homes while preaching to the world about downsizing and energy rationing. Every parent in America should be armed with this book to fight the brainwashing of their kids from kindergarten through college. Marc’s book is the ultimate A-Z reference guide that debunks man-made climate change claims using scientific studies and prominent scientists. The Politically Incorrect Guide
® to Climate Change is the book the UN and Al Gore do not want you to read. The climate scare ends with this book.”
— SEAN HANNITY, host of Hannity on Fox News and of the nationally syndicated radio program The Sean Hannity Show

“This book covers the history of climate, from the global cooling ‘coming ice age’ scare of the 70s to the ‘we have just a few years left to save the planet’ that characterizes the current global warming scare. Written in a light reading style, virtually every page is meticulously referenced with sources for the points he makes. Love him or hate him, Morano is very effective in conveying the history and the climate flim-flammery under the guise of science that has been going on the last few decades, mostly thanks to huge government funding of climate science. It reads like a postmortem verification of President Eisenhower’s farewell address, which warned of the ‘military-industrial complex,’ but also said, ‘The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.’”

— ANTHONY WATTS, publisher of WattsUpWithThat, the world’s most viewed climate-themed website

“This book reveals that ‘global warming’ is not and has never been about the ‘science.’ The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change
reveals the agenda behind the lavishly funded and government-sponsored climate change establishment. Morano unmasks the United Nations’ goals of ‘global governance,’ redistribution of wealth, and global carbon taxes. This book arms every citizen with a comprehensive dossier on just how science, economics, and politics have been distorted and corrupted in the name of saving the planet. Contrary to Al Gore’s claims, UN treaties and EPA regulations cannot control the weather or the oceans. A must read.”
—MARK LEVIN, author of Men in Black, Liberty and Tyranny, and Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism

Foreword by John Coleman in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change

Don’t worry about “climate change,” says Marc Morano—there is no significant manmade global warming.

Are you kidding me? We all know that the icecaps are melting, the oceans are about to flood our cities, and more and more superstorms are happening. And the experts are certain that mankind’s use of fossil fuels is causing it all. We have all the facts; right?

The truth is that there is a debate about climate change but it has been very one-sided. With the U.S. government, all the scientific organizations, Al Gore, the Science Guy, Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the United Nations all behind the bad news that our use of fossil fuels is destroying the climate of Earth, anyone on the other side of the debate finds themselves behind the eight ball. Peeking out from behind the eight ball is Marc Morano. In this great book he begins his comprehensive review of the debate about global warming by chatting about the history of climate scares in centuries past—and goes on to decisively debunk the current climate scare. By the time he’s done, you will realize you’ve been hoaxed. Climate change has become a scam.

As the founder of the Weather Channel and a six-decade veteran TV news weatherman, I know a great deal about this topic. We meteorologists are well aware of how limited our ability is to predict the weather. Our predictions become dramatically less reliable as they extend out into the future. When we try to predict just a few weeks into the future our predictions become increasingly inaccurate. Yet the “climate change” establishment that now dominates the UN bureaucracy and our own government science establishment claim that they can predict the temperature of the Earth decades into the future. Their global warming scare is not driven by science; it is now being driven by politics.

So today anybody who defies the prevailing “climate change” scare puts his career and his reputation into extreme danger. That is where we find Marc. He is living life behind the eight ball. He has been there for decades. But whatever you may hear from his enemies in the climate change establishment, he is no crazy denier or shill for Big Oil. The explanation is simple. He is so certain of his data that he is quite comfy there behind the eight ball. When you really study the issue, you realize that Marc Morano is absolutely right. And it turns out he is not alone there behind the eight ball. He has developed relationships with hundreds of brilliant scientists and other experts who are willing to testify, along with Marc, that in fact there is no significant man-made global warming.

This book is exactly what parents need to counter the indoctrination our children are now being subjected to. Starting at a very young age and continuing through their teenage years, American school children are being constantly bombarded with climate change propaganda. This is science gone bad. It has become political. And climate science has been hijacked by the extreme fringe of the environmental movement. The truth is that while climate is naturally changing—as it always has—no crisis is occurring and there is no reason to fear any in the future. This book uses over twelve hundred footnotes to bolster its compelling, scientific, and logical demonstration that Al Gore and the United Nations are dead wrong on climate fears. And maybe even more important, this book uses the climate change establishment’s own words to refute their silly claims.

Read this book and Marc will become your hero. Give it to your friends to read. Maybe in the end there will be enough of us who no longer believe the climate change hoax that he and those of us who know he is right can get out from behind the eight ball and enjoy life. Read on, my friend, read on.

Image result for rush limbaugh marc morano

Marc Morano & Rush Limbaugh in 1992 on the set of “Rush Limbaugh, The Television Show”

Amazon verified customer reviews:

“A masterpiece! Couldn’t put it down. They can’t predict next week’s weather but the Hollywood-elites are telling us what the weather will be in ten, fifty or one hundred years? Read this book so you’re armed with facts, figures and real science to fight the pseudo-phony-scientists.” Tony Meyer – February 27, 2018

“Unfortunatel, many Americans have become brain-washed by the media and the media’s deliberate lies. This superb study will inform you. Study and reread this masterpiece carefully. It’s worth its weight in gold.” – Clarence Beeks – February 27, 2018

Book is Available on Amazon here.

The Dark Side of Green

CFACT barnstormed CPAC, The Conservative Political Action Conference, this weekend with a series of activities that culminated in a light saber duel between “Green Energy” Darth Vader and the “Reliable Energy” Jedi!

“We thought this would get the point across to the crowd pretty easily: That so-called ‘green’ energy that needs subsidies is the bad guy and reliable energy that comes from fossil fuels and nuclear are the good guys,” said Adam Houser. Adam is the director of CFACT’s nationwide network of college chapters.

CPAC has been an important annual gathering of conservatives and libertarians for over 45 years.  This year both President Trump and Vice President Pence were there.

“CFACT’s light saber duel was meant to strike a deeper discussion of what type of energy is right for America going forward.”  Adam reports at CFACT Campus.  “As dozens of students crowded around the duel, and The Opposition, a late-night political satire show on Comedy Central, filmed the fake altercation, it was clear the stunt achieved its intended goal. Students then flocked to CFACT’s booth, where they could take the Energy Challenge to charge their phone and learn more about energy. Vanity Fair,NowThis, and Teen Vogue all stopped at CFACT’s booth to ask questions about energy and take pictures.

‘We gave students the option to charge their phone from a typical outlet, which is powered by fossil fuels, or they could try to go the ‘renewable’ route by blowing on the mini wind turbine or turning the hand crank,’ explained Graham Beduze, CFACT’s Associate Director of Collegians. ‘The vast majority chose conventional energy, although it was hilarious to see some students furiously turning the crank or getting winded trying to generate enough force to charge their phones by blowing on the turbine.'”


Marc Morano, who runs CFACT’s Climate Depot news and information service has a new book out, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Climate Change which launches today.  He gave a series of radio interviews.  You can hear Marc at WMAL Radio: Mornings on the Mall with MARY WALTER AND VINCE COGLIANESE, KVI Radio – John Carlson & Kirby Wilbur Show and The Schilling Show – Rob Schilling.

CPAC presents an opportunity for CFACT to brief some of the nation’s most effective political activists and send them into the field armed with the facts about energy, the environment and other issues.

CFACT’s team did an outstanding job.  We’re proud of them.

RELATES ARTICLE: Doomsday Climate Scenarios Are a Joke – Wall Street Journal