In the Pipeline: 6/26/13

You should believe Tom Pyle’s hype. Because it is not hype; it is true. Even EPA has had to admit that there has yet to be a single instance where hydraulic fracturing led to drinking water contamination. As for the promise and potential of natural gas; that is obvious anywhere you go in the producing areas or the consuming areas. Josh Fox is a drowning man, flailing for a rope. Real Clear Energy (6/25/13) reports: “Industry’s denial of the dark side of natural gas fracking shouldn’t fool anyone. Thomas Pyle’s claim on this site that there is not one “confirmed case of groundwater contamination” from fracking is the big lie, repeated often. It’s like saying cigarettes don’t cause cancer. And industry’s intentional disinformation campaign comes from the same tobacco playbook (it even uses the same PR firm). After spending the past four years traveling the country and meeting people whose lives were wrecked by fracking operations at their doorstep, I’ve learned the oil and gas industry is willfully misleading the public.”

Apparently, the facts and the science and stuff like that really does matter. The Economist (6/20/13) reports: “Global warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: ‘Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections’”

Meanwhile, the facts on global warming continue to pile up and continue to make a hash of the President’s assertions. And by “assertions” we mean “deceptions”. Senator Jeff Sessions (6/25/13) “To promote his global warming agenda, the President has stated that ‘temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago.’ He repeated this claim just a few weeks ago. This is a specific, technical assertion that can be tested in light of actual data. For more than seven months, I have been waiting for EPA to respond to a very simple request: provide an EPA chart comparing actual global temperatures with the official predictions that were made a decade ago. But EPA won’t provide this data.”

If we treated every energy import from Canada like the US has treated Keystone XL we’d face a serious energy crunch. The Institute for Energy Research (6/26/13) reports: “The United States imports and exports oil and natural gas to and from Canada. Most of these fuels are transported by pipeline—the least expensive and safest transport means to move these fuels. Natural gas imports from Canada total around 3 trillion cubic feet a year and petroleum imports total around 1 billion barrels a year. Without these imports, Americans would need to import more oil from overseas at a greater cost to our economy. Let’s take a look at who is benefiting the most from these imports.”

The average IQ of both the House and the Senate has just increased significantly. The Boston Herald (6/26/13) reports: “U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey defeated GOP newcomer Gabriel E. Gomez in a lackluster U.S. Senate special election that garnered little voter interest — and the Malden Democrat will have to swing into campaign mode almost immediately to stave off any 2014 Republican contenders. Markey, who is filling the seat John F. Kerry vacated to become secretary of state, has only 17 months before he has to face re-election — and bigger name Republicans such as former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown haven’t ruled out a potential 2014 race against the 66-year-old veteran 
congressman.”

Are you sure a “conservative” alternative wouldn’t involve skepticism about our depth of knowledge about global warming, smaller government, and less idiocy? We like Ike Brannon, but this is starting to become embarrassing. R Street (6/26/13) reports: “The R Street Institute today urged conservatives to support market-based alternatives to the flawed climate policy approach outlined by President Obama in a major speech at Georgetown University. The President’s announcement of an expensive and heavy-handed scheme to regulate emissions from existing power plants provides an ideal opportunity for conservatives to present authentic limited government solutions to the real threats posed by climate change, R Street’s researchers said.”

The Brits seem to like the President’s speech. Perhaps that’s a red flag for Americans considering his policies…