Global warming.  Climate change.  Renewable energy.  Carbon-free societies.  All of these terms have gained status as the balm to eliminate fossil fuels, which is supposedly causing anthropogenic global warming.  What should be noted is that, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United States National Climatic Data Center (NCDC):

1.  The primary force is that the sun heats the Earth's oceans and land.
2.  Then, secondarily, the Earth's oceans and land heat the atmosphere.  The atmosphere is not heating the Earth; it's the sun.
3.  Consequently, after the above two, increasing air temperature then increases sea surface temperature.

Facts tell us that the one constant on Earth is that the climate is always changing.  Facts also tell us that CO2 is statistically irrelevant as a factor in determining the Earth's climate.  Therefore, CO2 is a minor factor in weather determination.

Whether or not there is or isn't climate change or global warming, and regardless of who is or isn't to blame, here is why that sentiment is dangerous from noted climatologist, and true scientific consensus believer, Dr. Judith Curry:

Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies.  If you don't support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a 'climate-change denier,' who must be banned from the scientific community.

What's alarming about Curry's statements is that the U.N. was created to keep another world war from breaking out while promoting integrated commerce and human interaction instead of another global holocaust.  Climate research and environmental weather interactions are grossly past its intended mandate.

Scientific research, according to Karl Popper, "should be based on skepticism, on the constant reconsideration of accepted ideas."

When it comes to energy and climate, we should be considering what promotes human longevity and flourishing.  What makes energy and electricity affordable, scalable, abundant, reliable, and flexible?  Now the global warming–climate change debate is only about made-for-profit power.

Renewables are surefire taxpayer-funded profit centers: "[i]n 2016, renewables received 94 times more in U.S. federal subsidies than nuclear and 46 times more than fossil fuels per unit of energy generated."

Weather and climate are under attack, and so is the science of energy, from believing that a "Green New Deal" will work for labor to thinking all energy issues are solved from electricity.  Electricity is a static proposition that needs to be generated from some source, whether oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar panels, wind turbines, or dammed water through turbines to produce energy.

Nothing energizes environmentalists and citizens like renewable energy.  But in every single place renewables have been implemented, they are a disaster.

In Germany, Denmark, Spain, Britain, South Australia, Vermont, Minnesota, New Mexico (in the beginning stages of maligning fossil fuels), Arkansas, California, and Texas, solar and wind farms have been valiantly attempted, and they have failed every single time.  Renewables will never work under current technological and scientific constraints, and energy battery storage systems have only 8–12 maximum capacity according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

The science behind renewable energy also makes electricity more expensive.  For example, "[s]olar panels with storage deliver just 1.6 times as much energy as is invested as compared to the 75 times more energy delivered with nuclear."

There is no battery revolution for energy storage systems and renewables under current technological constraints.  Economics factually show that renewables will always constrain electricity, causing price hikes and degrading infrastructure improvements.  Only fossil fuels at this time have the science, engineering, technology, and economics that make sense for human flourishing and longevity.

Over six thousand products come from a barrel of crude oil. Meaning, the conversation should stop about de-carbonizing, searching for clean energy, and eliminating oil from our daily lives.  There is positive correlation, even causation, between energy and environmentalism.

Fossil fuels have been used safely for centuries, and billions have left poverty.  Oil, natural gas, and coal reduce the amount of land needed for energy, compared to solar and wind farms.

If the Earth is warming:

Then aerial fertilization by CO2 has increased food supplies by 25%, weather is less extreme in a warming world, and historically conflicts increase during periods of cooling, and decrease during warmer periods.

Our growing understanding of energy, science, engineering, and markets yields important geopolitical lessons.  The science and use of natural gas make its conversion to liquid natural gas (LNG) more important to energy, geopolitics, and diplomacy than anything outside strong militaries. Natural gas is the soft-power weapon of choice for nation-states like Russia.

Natural gas spending will jump fivefold in 2019, according to Wood Mackenzie.  The International Energy Agency (IEA) says: "Natural gas demand to rise 10 percent over the next 5 years, and roughly 40 percent of that will come from China."

The Trump administration is pushing for Eastern Mediterranean natural gas and "sees the promotion of natural gas production and related infrastructure in the region as a key effort in tying countries together and promoting peace."  This continues "an Obama-era foreign policy objective."

French energy firm Total is partnering with Russia on an LNG project in the Arctic to protect French energy needs.  Smaller geopolitical players like Mexico are seeking ways to boost natural gas production 50 percent through government-owned Petróleo Mexicanos (PEMEX).

Fossil fuels — particularly natural gas — will be the leader for decades ahead when it comes to soft power, national security, and robust economic growth for mature and emerging markets.  Political moves, similar to Michael Bloomberg donating $500 million to kill coal use in the U.S., could slow natural gas's growth, but if they do, they will also devastate the country and its Western allies geopolitically.  China, Russia, India, Africa, Iran, and North Korea will never let a billionaire stop their economies or geopolitical power.

Yes, energy and geopolitics are under attack from within, from national and from competing energy interests.