How not to build an energy policy

We need an energy policy in which no form of energy production is offlimits. Nuclear, hydropower, solar wind, biomass(other than food crops), natural gas. If we promote all of these we will have more than enough energy. It is when we have lots of energy, that prices fall. When we start restricing where we can drill, or fail to issue permits to build nuclear plants, that we end up with four dollar gas, it is getting close to three dollars, do we need another price crisis to rethink our existing energy policy? Or do we need to put some pressure on Congress and the White House to stop spending so much money and get out of the way on energy production. Obama has proposed removing all tax incentives 13% to produce or or gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico. Wind and solar could be doubled and would still produce less than 2% of our energy supplies. Environmentalists are the problem they have banned drilling in many areas, are against any new dams, any nuclear power plants, any coal plants. Apparently they are only in favor of wind, solar and maybe natural gas as long as the liquified plant is not in their area.
Let's face it I am a conservationist in the grand tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, but these Luddites go far beyond that, they are basically dictating to our president, how to conduct energy policy, because he is their man. He is no less their man, than Bush may have bent over backwards to accomodate the oil industry. What we need are not energy policies defined by special interests, but designed to benefit all Americans. To reduce our dependence on oil which we import so much, we must start building more natural gas and nuclear power generating plants, so that we can use oil for transportation. We should only expand coal if the pollution can be reduced, however we need to abandon this fallacy that we can save the world by reducing our carbon footprint, keep in mind these are the same scientists and environmentalist that told us 30 years ago, we had global cooling coming our way. Notice they are abandoning the term global warming for climate change, that is because as about 11 years ago, the temperature which has been going up since about 1980 is now starting to drop. These so called statistical models have way too many variables to be accurate, truth is they do not know what will happen. The fine art of weather forecasting is such that they cannot predict what the weather will be like 6 days from now, and I am supposed to beleive them when they make predictions about a century from now!
Let's face it, weather forecaster is the only job I know of that you can be wrong half the time and still not get fired, no wonder Al Gore would like it. Now they have a term climate denier, my Lord they have degenerated to ad hominem attacks whenever they start losing the argument. Read Lomborg's book, COOL IT, he outlines that even if we are having global warming that less people will die, more people die of cold than heat every year. The people most affected by global warming and rise in ocean levels will be those in the blue states living on the ocean. They have predicted anywhere from 4 inches to 3 feet rise in sea level. What utter ludicrous hubris to think we can mange the climate. That would be like trying to hold back the ocean by putting your finger in the dike. As Ghandi said truth is not a democracy, sometimes it is a minority of one. In other words, concensus does not establish truth!! Read Lomborg's book and smell the coffee, I'm already drinking my first cup.