In Response to Environmental Extremist Letter Writers to the NY Times

I have long held that those on the left appear to suffer from some sort of derangement that paralyzes their mind. Liberals are unable to debate logically based upon scientific facts, historical experience, or economic reality. Instead, liberals have a tendency to debate using emotion (which is not logical or rational by its nature) or to argue based upon mysticism dressed up in the garb of environmentalism. Once such example of where liberals become quite deranged is on the issue of oil drilling. Liberals act like Superman does to kryptonite when discussions turn on whether America should begin to drill for oil.

I will show various examples from recent letters to the New York Times. For instance, letter writer, Paul R. Epstein, from Harvard Medical School, wrote, "Nature is saying stop, while Oil is saying go. Haven’t we learned? For so many reasons, it’s time to leave oil in the ground!"

Since I consider myself, as a human being, as part of nature, I would say that nature is not saying to leave oil in the ground, but rather, that we need more of it! The fact that so many of us humans, who depend upon oil for our high standard of living, are complaining about the high cost of oil shows that nature is not asking that it be "[left] in the ground." Of course, the letter writer was probably saying nature, that is, the non-human world, has been asking us to leave the oil in the ground. This is where liberals bring out their religious mysticism because they are "channeling" nature, stating what nature believes and feels. But nature itself is quite ambivalent about leaving oil in the Earth. Oil is a natural resource that has been waiting for industrious humans to use for our own consumption. Nature has not asked us to save the oil.

The next letter to the editor to the New York Times writes a very complicated argument against drilling by stating that it a) harms the planet, b) gasoline is going through the roof, and c) oil companies are making high profits, d) we should find alternative sources of energy. Here is the sentence in all of its glory:

"Let’s see: our entire planet is in danger because of the burning of fossil fuels, our economy is in the tank because of the rising cost of gasoline and diesel while the oil companies are announcing the biggest profits in the history of the planet, and we are going to open the oceans, our biggest source of both oxygen and food, to further offshore drilling. What could possibly be wrong with this picture?"

The non-genius who wrote this is a Judith Luber-Narod from Mass. Let's take each argument on its own. (Liberals have a tendency to throw a million arguments into one, with the hope that something will stick.)

To the argument that drilling "harms the planet".

The global warming movement is a propaganda movement whose purpose is to directly tax the industrial economies and to roll back the high standard of living in the West. The argument over man-made global warming is not over--despite the fact that liberals have said otherwise. The only reason liberals state that the debate is over is precisely because they do not want to have a debate. Just recently, 31,000 scientists have written in opposition to the view that humans are responsible for global warming.

Liberals, however, believe man-made global warming as a matter of faith, though. They do not care what the evidence is with regard to warming, but, rather like useful idiots, go along on the bandwagon because it makes them feel special to be part of this religious cult. That is why they drive around in those silly looking Prius cars.

To the argument that we should not drill because "gas prices are going through the roof" and "oil companies are making high profits":

• Oil companies are not making "high profits"--or even above-average profits. The reality is quite different. The oil industry, as a whole, makes about 9 cents profit for every dollar in revenue; in contrast, companies in the S&P (which is composed of 500 companies) average around 13 cents on the dollar in profit. In contrast, McDonald makes 16 cents on every dollar in revenue, Wells Fargo around 18 cents on the dollar, and and Google at 25 cents on the dollar. Yet no one has said that Google's profits are outrageous--even though it is more than double the average profits of the oil industry. (In fact, as a disclaimer, I do not invest in the oil industry precisely because the profits tend to be lower than average and also because of the potential adverse legislation that may be aimed at oil companies.)
• Further, drilling for more oil is precisely the method to lower the gas prices at the pump. It is a hard argument to make that we should not drill for oil precisely because gas prices are going through the roof. How is that logical?

To the argument that we should find alternative sources of energy:

The truth is that American companies are already investing in alternative energy resources. However, in the mean time, this does not preclude continuing to explore for the energy resource of today--which is oil--even while finding alternative energy sources. If there are alternative energy sources, private industry will find it and profit from it. The truth is, though, even many liberals realize that alternative energy is a scam. Billions of dollars have been spent on alternative energy, but nothing has been shown for it. Far better to use the money to explore for the proven energy of today--oil.