“‘An inability to tolerate views different’? ‘Rage reactions’? Can we apply this mental health standard to Joe Romm and James Hansen, not to mention Paul Ehrlich in his diatribes against Julian Simon?”

“This is ironic to those of us who have encountered angry neo-Malthusians trying to wake us up to the coming food famine (1960s warnings), resource famine (1970s warnings), and, most recently, climate alarmism. Does this standard apply to them as it does to all things Trump?”

I have resubscribed to the New York Times. I received a 50 percent discount, and with Trump’s upset win in November I wanted to better understand what the intellectual/media elite were thinking. (And the answer is … they still don’t get it.)

In the Letters section of February 14th edition, I encountered “Mental Health Professionals Warn About Trump.”…

“As a first priority, the Trump Administration must review, revise, reject or even rescind the SCC, and reduce its values well below what Obama used – perhaps even to zero or negative numbers. Doing so will destroy the justification for many expensive, intrusive, punitive, useless, counterproductive regulations.”

“The benefit estimates … will remain orders of magnitude larger than any reasonable SCC estimates, which means the B-C ratios will also remain very high.”

The Obama Administration aggressively used a Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) scheme to justify federal regulations pertaining to carbon-based fuels, carbon dioxide and methane emissions, coal mine and pipeline permit denials, energy development foreign aid, and many other actions.

While “SCC” may sound esoteric or academic, it is a critical concept. Without the artificial and inflated SCC estimates, many recent energy and environmental regulations could not have been justified or promulgated.…

As observed by the anti-fossil-fuel Left, minutes after becoming President Trump, the White House’s climate webpage was deleted and a new page inserted. As it turned out, Obama’s White House (per John Holdren) did not have an energy page.

ThinkProgress (Center for American Prosperity) ominously reported the above substitution:

On January 20, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. Minutes later, the White House website switched hands — and previous pages detailing President Obama’s climate change plans went dark. The new website features, instead, a page dedicated to “An American First Energy Plan,” which details the new administration’s stance towards energy and (a lack of) climate policy.

The new White House home page under ‘ISSUES: Top Issues’ leads with “America First Energy Plan.”…

“I have found that if we reframe the conversation to always focus on the full context of human flourishing, many people will be won over.” (Alex Epstein)

Fasten your seatbelts. This is the year of energy realism and elevating the politically incorrect, economically correct into the mainstream. Donald Trump energy policy promises to be free-market-oriented in a way that has been absent through recent Republican and Democratic administrations.

A leading voice for an energy/climate realism is Alex Epstein, a one-man dynamo for clear thinking in a field dominated by want it, think it, emote it … and it is. 

In writing and by lecture, Epstein is ready to convince a Rotary Club or Prime Time America on the benefits of consumer-chosen, taxpayer neutral, economical, reliable energies. He will debate anyone anywhere–and should get more chances than ever in this new policy era.…