"The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels": An Unabashedly Biased Book Review

If you are what author Alex Epstein calls a "Catastrophist" — that is, someone who believes, unwaveringly, that catastrophic, anthropogenic, global warming, or CAGW, is upon us — then this blog isn't for you. But if you harbor any doubts about CAGW, now known as "Climate Change," as if this hasn't been happening for awhile now . . .

The Earth was formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago. Until 3.8 billion years ago, it was a completely inhospitable environment with the surface being mainly molten lava. — https://muchadoaboutclimate.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/4-5-billion-years-of-the-earths-temperature

. . . then you'll want to keep reading.

Let me say at the outset that while I became a CAGW skeptic over a decade ago, I have since become what Catastrophists call a "denier," their insinuation being that I and my ilk are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers and that, as some Catastrophists believe, we should be punished for it, up to and including imprisonment and execution (see, for example, http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/new-inquisition-punish-climate-change-deniers and http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/170948/progressive-professor-demands-death-penalty-global-daniel-greenfield).

This alone should be enough to convince any rational person that CAGW has degenerated from legitimate scientific inquiry (assuming it ever was) into religious persecution, as if the "97% consensus" among climate scientists were enough to end the debate. For even if there were a 97% CAGW consensus (which Epstein, among others, exposes as utter nonsense), I would imagine that there was closer to a 100% consensus among scientists before Copernicus's elegant heliocentrism proved Ptolemy's screwball geocentrism wrong.

But even so, let us understand, first of all, that science is not a popularity contest. On the contrary, in order for science to be science, its hypotheses must be subjected to relentless examination and, in so doing, hold their would-be gatekeepers accountable:

That said, I was typical in believing that humanity needs to get beyond fossil fuels as soon as it becomes practical, which is to say, as soon as renewable energy (sun, wind, geothermal, etc.) becomes economically viable, such that, over time, it scales up to the point of rendering fossil fuels obsolete. I didn't detest fossil fuels, but neither did I embrace them. I just lived with them, generally taking them for granted.

Until I read Epstein's book.

For I now see fossil fuels in an altogether different light — that is, as an all but incalculable human blessing — my hopes for humanity's future having increased in due proportion.

Why? Because without fossil fuels, humanity could have advanced from its primordial hunter-gatherer stage to its agricultural stage but no farther. Instead, our species (assuming it hadn't already gone the way of the Neanderthals) would be stranded in the cul-de-sac of human/animal power, literally working itself to death, as it did for over 95% of our existence (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens)

Don't get me wrong; I'm not demonizing hunter-gatherer society. On the contrary, it was (and remains to this day) genuine society and, as such, has much to commend it. In fact, one of the finest books I've ever read expounds with keen insight on hunter-gatherer society relative to how much modern-day "education" has turned what used to be child's play into regimented, mind-numbing child abuse.

And yes, were we still limited to human/animal power (as more than a billion of us, unfortunately, are), our impact on Nature would be vastly less than it is today.

But insofar as some "environmentalists" believe that we humans — as a pest, a parasite, a cancer; take your pick — should increasingly outlaw fossil fuels (see, for example, http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/06/gaius-publius-the-only-solution-to-climate-change-outlaw-fossil-fuel-production.html and http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/climate-activists-white-house-ban-fossil-fuel-extraction), the result would be to reduce our species to a mode of existence that even the heartiest "outdoorsman" wouldn't choose, assuming he was able to withstand it.

So let us at least concede that fossil fuels are the means by which our species has moved beyond human/animal power and that when fossil fuels are rendered obsolete by more advanced forms of energy production, it will indeed be a time for rejoicing. In the meantime, let us continue to do what we've been doing for over two centuries, which is to improve our fossil fuels by making them cheaper, more plentiful, and cleaner as time goes on. That is, let us look to technology to continually improve the overall supply, performance, and environmental impact of fossil fuels, while renewables work their way in due course into the fabric of society, ignoring the incessant, corporate-media-driven, CAGW scaremongering. Who do you think its mouthpieces work for, after all (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6), and what is the real objective of their CAGW propaganda?

Climate change is a convenient platform for world money and world taxation. That’s because Climate Change does not respect national borders. ... [The International Monetary Fund's] Christine Lagarde almost never gives a speech on finance without mentioning Climate Change. The same is true for other monetary elites. They know that Climate Change is their path to global taxation and global financial control. — http://agorafinancial.com/2016/05/18/new-blueprint-worldwide-inflation/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=issue&utm_campaign=issue

In recognition, then, of how we are being systematically lied to and otherwise set up for even more control over our lives, let those of us whose eyes aren't wide shut read Epstein's exhilarating book, then go about our daily affairs with humble thanksgiving that fossil fuels have brought the vast majority of humanity out of endemic poverty, disease, and premature death into increasing plenitude, health, and longevity. Let us revel, in fact, in what not only protects us from the elements and allows us access them at our pleasure but has put us on track of exponential improvement in our lives. For no longer are we embedded in Nature, we are increasingly imparting our growing knowledge on it, mastering our control over, yet with a lighter and lighter (increasingly enlightened) touch, thrilled beyond measure by the enormous benefit that fossil fuels have already bestowed upon the biosphere:

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25 [2016].

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States. — https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/27/nasa-carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds

Is this not astoundingly good news? Yet it is nowhere to be found in the mainstream media, nor can Catastrophists bring themselves to acknowledge it beyond saying, at most, that CAGW renders global greening inconsequential. Talk about denial, especially when, as Epstein makes undeniably clear, not a single CAGW prediction over the course of the last forty years has come true. Not one. Nor do Catastrophists have a defense against the fact that while there is no historical correlation between the two, global temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are both at lows not seen in at least 300 million years.

Add to this the fact that virtually all plants die below CO2 concentrations of 150 parts per million, and it is clear that not only should we welcome a little warming; we should be on our knees in thanks of the recent upsurge in atmospheric CO2, regardless of the cause.

I could go on (and intend to), but for now, do what Catastrophists most assuredly will not do: buy the book, read it, and let me know what you think about it.

---

Best sites on the Internet for the truth about CAGW:

• Watts Up With That?: https://wattsupwiththat.com
• Real Science: http://realclimatescience.com

Alex Epstein's website: http://industrialprogress.com