Eastern Ohio is enjoying an economic boom from the discovery of apparently enormous natural gas deposits in the Utica Shale formation, far underground. The discovery not only has led to economic growth and lower unemployment rates — as well as the promise of less dependence on foreign sources of energy — but it also is likely to have a significant positive environmental impact.
The U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions for the first four months of this year fell abruptly to the lowest level in 20 years. CO2, of course, is one of the dreaded “greenhouse gases” that are blamed for “global warming.” The drop in CO2 emissions is attributed to power plants switching from coal to cheap, and plentiful, natural gas. The discovery of large natural gas deposits elsewhere in the U.S. has caused the price of natural gas to fall dramatically in recent years. With the Utica Shale drilling coming on line, the surge in the supply of natural gas means that the price should stay low — even if the demand for natural gas increases.
As the linked story indicates, businesses pay attention to price, and when it comes to behavior modification good intentions about reducing greenhouse gases can’t hold a candle to lower prices.
The good news comes from data gathered by NASA satellites, which have evaluated the release of heat by the Earth’s atmosphere into space. The data, from 2000 through 2011, 
Why, you ask, would Russell be listed as an “oil person”? So far as we know, he has no interest in petroleum products, has never set foot on Southfork Ranch, and doesn’t speak with a Texas twang. If you look at 
Of course, the fact that the recorded temperatures may not, in fact, be accurate does not mean that “global warming” is not occurring — it just means that the temperature data may not be a reliable basis for reaching that conclusion. It also suggests that policymakers should approach global warming issues with a healthy skepticism, and that scientists need to take a fresh look at reports, like the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that now seem more like political arguments than objective scientific evaluations.
I cannot pretend to add anything to the scientific debate on the reality of global warming, or its causes if it exists. What I find interesting is that so much of the response to the global warming debate is based upon computer programs that purport to forecast the future based upon past data. The first article linked above demonstrates that the computer models, with their straight-line projection of temperature increases, have in fact been proven wrong by the actual data of the past 10 years. In any rational scientific world, scientists would scrap the models, reexamine the data, consider other causal factors, identify reasons why the models have been shown to be inaccurate, and engage in a vigorous debate, complete with alternative hypotheses and testing of those hypotheses, to determine new theories. Some scientists appear to be doing this, but others seem to be trying to defend the computer models by arguing that it is the damning actual data, and not the models, that are wrong. Such a response does not seem to be consistent with the “scientific method” and instead suggests a political or social agenda.
