Here's an example of the silliness and political chicanery noted in Much Ado.

How does a high-level federal policymaker go on and on about energy policy, energy "balance," energy technology, clean coal, etc. without the slightest nod to climate change? . . .

Senator Cornyn's op-ed does one thing: it paints very clearly the climate policy battle lines, and provides a strong reality check for the attitudes that are and are not changing. If you can't get a U.S. Senator to deign to mention climate in a 700-word piece on energy balance, you can see dirt flying from the trenches as they get dug deeper.

And the opposite. If you can't get a climate hysteric to deign to mention economics and geopolitics in a blog rant, you can see dirt flying from the trenches as they get dug deeper.

When you read the article without the hysteria and political agenda it's merely a bland political position that at best alludes to substantive policy.

I support common-sense energy policies that will strengthen our nation's energy security, promote clean and sustainable energy sources, and protect our economic growth. The current legislation, as written, either fails to meet these goals or attempts to achieve them at great expense.

It proposes billions of dollars in taxes and additional restrictions on U.S. energy producers, which would hit leading energy-producing states, like Texas, the hardest. Increased red tape and higher taxes on our domestic energy producers, many of which are headquartered in Texas, will only stifle the production of affordable, made-in-America fuels. As a result, we'll be forced to rely more heavily on foreign sources of oil.

To be clear, the pending legislation does seek to achieve the important goal of promoting renewable sources of energy. Efforts to diversify our energy portfolio with clean alternatives, such as renewables, nuclear and clean coal, are priorities that all in Congress can and should support.

It is important for our future energy security and environmental stewardship that we aggressively pursue clean and renewable sources of power for cars, homes and businesses. I appreciate the well-intentioned efforts to increase energy efficiency and promote renewable sources of energy. Our policies, however, must provide sufficient flexibility to meet those goals and work within the current limits of technology.

That makes some sense, especially when we reflect on the triviality of legislation that purports to affect climate change. The emissions reductions that can be achieved even under the most draconian versions are trivial on a global scale. The idea that you can tax or regulate your way out of this threat is nonsense. The real agenda of advocates for such policies has nothing to do with climate change. That's merely their current justification for imposing social and economic controls that they have long sought using older threats, such as labor unrest and the red menace. Class war doesn't work so well these days, so they've switched to environmental hobgoblins to haul their carts.

. . . in the intermediate term – until alternative sources of energy are made fully viable – we cannot dampen the success of our state and nation's economy by failing to address our current energy needs and preventing our ability to safely and efficiently recover and produce domestic supplies of oil and gas.

Across the country and just off our shores, there are vast and increasingly recoverable energy supplies. Much of this has yet to be explored, however, due to overly stringent regulations. Additionally, it has been more than 30 years since the construction of a new refinery in the United States as a result of this over-regulation in our energy policy.

Our national energy policy requires a better balance. We need a bill that reduces litigation and government mandates instead of increasing them – one that invests domestically, helps consumers rather than hurts them and doesn't fill the coffers of foreign producers.

This seems pretty sensible to me. Our efforts should be focused on development of better energy sources since they are the only realistic solution to world emissions threats. Trivial reductions that make energy more expensive, prevent modernization of existing facilities, and squander resources on red tape and foot dragging by bureaucrats don't do squat about the real threats. We should point and laugh at those who push such nonsense. They are not environmentalists in any meaningful sense, and show no real concern about climate change. They are merely political opportunists and useful idiots who have some sort of crippled ideology that trumps reality. Whether you are frightened by the specter of climate change or think it is a trivial threat you should laugh at these folks. They aren't on the bus.