We Should Be Grateful For Fossil Fuels. Instead, Some People Want To Destroy It All.

 I have two today from the American Thinker The first, I will let gentle readers read on their own, for it is, in essence prologue to the second. The first is by Alicia Colon entitled Are You Really That Smart If You Can't Recognize B.S.. Colon argues that facts are always in service to our interpretation of what we observe. But our highest act of reason is what is known as critical thinking. It is this critical thinking that our education system should aspire to, but has too often failed to deliver. She cites as one example the moronic theory climate cooling...er...warming...er...change.

The second article comes from Christopher Chantrill and is entitled Green Energy Transistion Hits the Wall. Chantrill in this article is necessarily vitriolic and sarcastic.

I wish it didn't have to be this way, but really, it's the only way to tell the climatatistas that their God is Dead. Facts and logic won't do it. Instead, the believers must experience decadence and nihilism and dead bodies floating down the Rhine and know, in their eternal recurrence, that their climate god isn't going to save them.

It's Not Funny, but the prospect of a cold winter without Russian gas in Europe seems to be the one thing that the Klausi babies and the Greta Thunbergs and the gubmint-funded scientists didn't think about in planning their glorious Great Leap Forward to the green energy transition.

Good point, young Mao, in the back row. If backyard steel plants were such a good idea, why don't we all cook up lithium batteries on the backyard barbie?

After all, it is not as if we have been told numerous times by those who should know that the climate has been changing since God created the Earth, and well before man first walked on the planet. To presume that man has anything to do with the current climate, or can do anything to change it is the height of hubris. It recalls the Tower of Babel. Chantrill, of course, takes his swipes at St. Greta of Thunberg and others, but then he gets down to business.

See, geniuses, there is this little concept called “time preference.” It says that humans discount possible events in the future. That's because it is more important to put gas in the car right now -- or plug your climate-friendly EV into the free recharging station at the supermarket -- than to worry about what gubmint- and billionaire-funded scientists say about the climate in 80 years. And it is really not a good idea to wreck the economy with green energy subsidies and pay-to-play research grants, just because you can.

And another thing, the gubmint scientists may be wrong. Ask Trofim Lysenko, Stalin's pet scientist, about that.

fearlessly predict that by the end of the 21st century the Big Thing will be the grandsons of Elon Musk fighting over their SpaceX inheritance to see who gets to make the next trillion by sending people to Mars on the Starship Premium Frequent Flyer Program.

People under thrity may not know who Lysenko was (or Stalin for that matter) but you should look him up. He was the one who attempted to conform science to Communist dogma. You may guess how that worked out, but at least Lysenko kept his head.

Chantrill concludes with this:

All the flap about green energy has helped me appreciate what an amazing boon to humanity gasoline is: with a hundred pounds of gas in the tank you can drive the kids all day across the fruited plain to grandma's house. But it takes 6,000 pounds of battery to get your EV halfway to grandma's: assuming that the charging stations have electricity, California.

Because of abundant fossil fuels, we no longer are dependent of human muscle power, which has woeful limits, nor on horse power, which also has woeful limits. This has enabled us to build, to travel, clean our homes and cook our food and live longer, healthier lives. We should be grateful and respectful. Instead, certain people want to destroy it all. Why?