We are truly conflicted about energy.

Everyone agrees gasoline prices are far too high, but:
* Congress claims the oil industry is manipulating gas prices, while not allowing drilling.
* President Bush’s corn ethanol mandate has nearly doubled the world’s food prices, while producing a tiny amount of low-grade auto fuel.
* The Senate is meanwhile debating the Lieberman-Warner bill, which would deliberately tax gasoline and every other fossil fuel more and more heavily until we stop using them. That’s to “save us” from global warming.

The most foolish “solution” of all - the new law that lets us sue Arabs (we have zero jurisdiction) to force them to produce more oil while we sit on billions of gallons of oil and thousands of American jobs, refusing to drill in our own backyard.

Being attacked by Greenpeace should be considered a badge of honor. In May, the Heartland Institute was the subject of a Greenpeace news release that described the Chicago-based think tank as “a free-market, anti-regulation right wing think tank” funded by leading American corporations and reputable foundations.

That same month, Heartland Institute sponsored a ground-breaking conference on climate change in New York. More than 500 of the world’s leading climatologists, meteorologists, economists, policy analysts, and others attended. Its keynote speaker was Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic.

Having lived under communist rule, President Klaus understood the true nature of Greenpeace and other environmental organizations. He is an outspoken critic of the global warming hoax. He, along with many others, has identified the real reason for the climate alarmism endemic to the environmental movement.

This evening Former Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore delivered a keynote speech on the subject of innovation at the Fairmont San Jose.  The occasion was the annual meeting of the $28 billion CPA firm Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu where about 300 of the most senior partners gather together from all over the world for a few days.  There were no cameras or recording devices permitted, but I had the privilege of attending along with a few other select clients and friends.

EcoWorld’s position on climate change has been consistent for several years, and it didn’t change tonight:  (1)  If humans are causing climate change, it is from a variety of factors - in general, the role of anthropogenic CO2 is being overemphasized and the role of tropical deforestation is being underemphasized, (2)  Even if the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to burning fossil fuel, by the IPCC’s own reasoning, it is impossible to lower it sufficiently to make any impact without completely shutting down industry on planet earth, meaning adaptation would be more a prudent investment, (3) CO2 is not pollution, and the emphasis on reducing CO2 is undermining our efforts to reduce other air pollution, and address environmental challenges in general, (4) the political changes that are being proposed and enacted in the name of reducing CO2 emissions are causing increasing harm to our rights and freedoms, and (5) demonizing people who sincerely doubt the “consensus” is absolutely wrong.

For too long, we as Americans have been held hostage by the liberal left and environmentalists involving our energy needs. Now, Ken Midkiff (Globe, May 25) of the Sierra Club conveniently denies that his kind have any more blame for our current energy mess than the average citizen. I say (lifting my arm above my head), “It’s a little late for the shoes, I’ll try to save my watch.”

Although Mr. Midkiff is correct that there is no “one” source to blame for this mess, it is absurd to act as if liberals in Congress and environmental groups have not led the pack in preventing America from attaining energy independence. The law of unintended consequences is the rule of the day in demonstrating the mess these groups have helped achieve.

More than a decade ago, environmental and liberal groups insisted that chemical agents must be added to gasoline to reduce emissions. Now we find these agents pollute ground water and had to be removed for public safety — the law of unintended consequences.

[Emphasis added] I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

The floodgates of enviro-litigation are wide open. Blame the Bush administration for capitulating to global warming alarmists. After successfully mau-mauing the government into listing the polar bear as threatened based on dubious data, green lawyers are now filing suit to get the Pacific walrus listed as threatened, too.

And it won’t be the last.

The Center for Biological Diversity gave notice this week that it will sue to force federal action on its petition to list the walrus as threatened because of “threats from global warming and offshore petroleum development.” The group filed the petition in February; the Interior Department faced a May 8 deadline for an initial 90-day review of the petition.   Read rest....