An editorial at investors.com is years too late:
Activists accused of blocking a rail line were acquitted last week of obstruction.
Jurors apparently felt their actions were justifiable because they were trying to save the climate.
How far will this be allowed to go?
Here is a news flash for the editor:
“Court documents filed in India earlier this month claim that many victims have been left in pain, with little or no aftercare.
Across the country, there have been numerous reports of deaths and of pregnant women suffering miscarriages after being selected for sterilisation without being warned that they would lose their unborn babies.
Yet a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.
The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases …”
* * *
Open-Ended Resourceship: Bring on 2012!
By Robert Bradley Jr. — December 29, 2011
“The total supply of any mineral is unknown and unknowable because the future knowledge that would create mineral resources cannot be known before its time.”
“Human ingenuity and capital investment under a regime of economic calculation can lead society to new combinations of minerals—or minerals and non-minerals—to perform the same (or better) economic services over time.”
If resources are not fixed but created, then the nature of the scarcity problem changes dramatically.
For the technological means involved in the use of resources determines their creation and therefore the extent of their scarcity.
The nature of the scarcity is not outside the process (that is natural), but a condition of it.”
– Tom DeGregori (1987). “Resources Are Not; They Become: An Institutional Theory.” Journal of Economic Issues, p. 1258.
Thanks to technology, we’re not going to run out of oil
“If you read Stephen Moore’s *column
, he noted how the consensus over oil is wrong. We’re not running out of oil. In fact, many have been saying we’re going to run out since the 1930s.
Moore added that technological advancements are increasing oil production.
In fact, Kerry Jackson at Investors Business Daily wrote in November
that these advances are going to almost triple the amount of fossil fuel resources if research and development continue.”
These stupid predictions of the end of oil have been going on for most of the last century.
Just over 100 years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Mines estimated total future production at 6 billion barrels, yet we’ve produced more than 20times that amount.
In 1939 the Department of the Interior predicted U.S. oil supplies would last 13 years. I could go on.
1. 2007: Make a scientific statement like, “northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.”.
Quote this whilst receiving your award, “Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski’s analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.”
2. In 2011: Admit you are wrong & “move the goal post“–
“Scientists who predicted a few years ago that Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2013 now say summer sea ice will probably be gone in this decade.
The original prediction, made in 2007, gained Wieslaw Maslowski’s team a deal of criticism from some of their peers.
And one of the projections it comes out with is that the summer melt could lead to ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 – “plus or minus three years”.
3. October 4 2013: Deny it ever happened –
“The clamor is being raised over Al Gore’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech quote supposedly saying that Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2013.- 1 What Gore did or didn’t say is beside the point …
Maslowski also did not say “by 2013″ in his original research in 2007 or when it was republished in 2009.
This grandstanding about sea ice and Gore, for whatever reason, is a huge and egregious deception.
The actual prediction from Maslowski’s 2009 publication is, “Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016.”
Al Gore. Climate fraud.