cancel2 2022
Canceled
.
Great article from Robert Bradley, he covers just about all of the bullshit spouted by climate alarmists. The worst offenders will be banned from now on, I don't have his patience with cretins.
“The superior case for dense mineral energies economically and environmentally should inspire a rethink. And climate policy is in shambles heading into COP 27.”
“What is really fishy is that those that admit to ‘climate anxiety’ do not have any appetite to seriously entertain the case for CO2/climate optimism, aka energy freedom for the masses. And they see no evil in the eco-sins of wind, solar, and batteries….”
I actively engage in (and occasionally share) debates on LinkedIn against climate alarmists/forced energy transformationists. I sometimes feel like a teacher presenting a suite of arguments that have been cursorily dismissed. The good news is that there are a lot of readers in the middle who see what is going on. A number now join me in what is a two-sided debate at LinkedIn.
I have had to block some hateful opponents, but overall I have learned much from ‘dropping behind enemy lines’. Here are some major takeaways from my nearly one-year experience.
The large majority of opponents ignore rather than engage. They follow Michael Mann’s advice of “Report, block. Don’t engage.”
Those who do engage are convinced that the “deniers” do not have an intellectual case and are just “shills for Big Oil” (see exchange below).
Exposed to non-alarmism, the activists fall back on the IPCC and other chosen authorities (“argument from authority”).
After rebuttal to #3 (like with Climategate), ad hominem comes along the lines of #2.
After #3 and #4, they disengage.
Some adversaries have been polite and actually admit to some weaknesses in their case. But they are the exception behind the green curtain; most debate with religious fervor and argue as if there is not a Green Energy Crisis around the world, from Texas and California to the UK and the EU.
Overall, there is really little movement by the alarmists/forced energy transformationists, whether as the result of deep ecology, not understanding economics (tradeoffs and opportunity cost), or being mad at the system, the status quo, the establishment (in which case I wish they would rebel against the true elites).
What is really fishy is that those that admit to “climate anxiety” do not have any appetite to seriously entertain the case for CO2/climate optimism, aka energy freedom for the masses. And they see no evil in the eco-sins of wind, solar, and batteries, nor do they comprehend the energy density/intermittency argument that was recognized 150 years ago.
———————————-
Here is a recent exchange at LinkedIn that is typical:
Robert Bradley Jr.: Time to rebel against the intellectual/climate elite. Mass mineral energies for real people.
Brian Scott: Or for lobbyist like yourself that are paid to misinform right Rob?
RB: Wrong on all counts …. We have gone through this before. The superior case for dense mineral energies economically and environmentally should inspire a rethink. And climate policy is in shambles heading into COP 27.
BS: Your organization is funded by the industry its well documented. Climate policy investments are at an all time high
RB: Been through this before. We have several thousand classical liberal supporters. Do you know what classical liberalism is? End the ad hominem and focus on the arguments–yours are anti-economics and anti-environmental.
BS: Mine are anti environmental? ��
RB: Yes … duplicating the grid and the transportation system require a whole new level of industrialization and a huge ramp-up of mining. “Big shovels” as Daniel Yergin says.
And machining up the landscape with wind and solar and transmission that operate a third of the time is violating nature in a way that dense mineral energies avoid. And what do you have against Global Greening from CO2?
BS: Duplicating is nonsense. Mining for mineral for the purpose of reducing climate change impacts while recycling those minerals for use over and over again.. landscape isn’t an issue rooftop covers more than enough of demand and solar farms on marginal farm land helps farmers pay their bills. Co2 for greening? I would say if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you but I realize you are paid to sell that narrative. The idea of greening by increasing droughts amd flooding is hilarious.
RB: Duplicating it is … wind, solar, batteries that are not needed by the energy economy. Talking about industrial wind and industrial solar, not micro and off-the-grid. Big eco-revolt at the grassroots.
CO2 greening–that’s settled science. Climate model predictions–unsettled science.
On the ad hominem, “I realize you are paid to sell that narrative.” that is simply incorrect. I argue the correct, classical liberal worldview that you do not seem to understand.
Increasing droughts and flooding? Fallacies if you want to examine the long term data. The ‘energy transition’ is bad economics and bad ‘environmentalism.’ Global greening and energy density are pro environment. Dilute, intermittent technologies are eco-disruptive.
Elitism vs. energy for the masses, as chosen by the masses.
BS: lol More propaganda, not settled by scientists but a paid web developer. I’m curious if Mr Koch edits these for you or if you have artistic freedom
RB: Wrong again on the ad hominem. Just deal with arguments: dense mineral energies are better for the environment and pocketbook than dilute, intermittent, parasitic, crony energies.
And energy consumers worldwide have had enough of an intellectual/political elite alarming and robbing them.
COP27 charade coming.
BS: I would be glad if we could deal with the argument. As you destroy the world with Emissions you have no solution. I have a lot of friends in the oil and gas industry with varying opinions, none of them believe this co2 to save the earth nonsense.
RB: “Destroy the world with Emissions” … “you have no solution.” … ” co2 to save the earth nonsense”
Three strikes. First, emissions of real air pollutants have gone down, way down, and this is expected to continue. CO2 is not a pollutant destroying the world.
Second, the solution is 1) do no harm 2) anticipate and adapt with weather extremes, which is not ‘climate change’ 3) thrive with enhanced CO2 and the best energies.
Third, CO2 does not ‘save the earth’ but enriches it. This is part of the debate that is settled science.
BS: Money will make people believe anything won’t it. Where specifically has ipcc gone I wonder. Should you get them a check?
RB: Wrong again on your ad hominem. I am just arguing a strong, superior argument. I would not have it any other way.
Final Comment
Always be polite and keep it scholarly. For example, I had a similar exchange with a fellow from a distant country that was a … professional clown. The fellow above has bad initials for such an exchange. Openings for cheap shots. There are many, many other people reading the exchanges, and they are in the middle and persuadable. Keep the high ground.
https://www.masterresource.org/linkedin-climate-energy-debates/brian-scott-exchange-climate/
Great article from Robert Bradley, he covers just about all of the bullshit spouted by climate alarmists. The worst offenders will be banned from now on, I don't have his patience with cretins.
“The superior case for dense mineral energies economically and environmentally should inspire a rethink. And climate policy is in shambles heading into COP 27.”
“What is really fishy is that those that admit to ‘climate anxiety’ do not have any appetite to seriously entertain the case for CO2/climate optimism, aka energy freedom for the masses. And they see no evil in the eco-sins of wind, solar, and batteries….”
I actively engage in (and occasionally share) debates on LinkedIn against climate alarmists/forced energy transformationists. I sometimes feel like a teacher presenting a suite of arguments that have been cursorily dismissed. The good news is that there are a lot of readers in the middle who see what is going on. A number now join me in what is a two-sided debate at LinkedIn.
I have had to block some hateful opponents, but overall I have learned much from ‘dropping behind enemy lines’. Here are some major takeaways from my nearly one-year experience.
The large majority of opponents ignore rather than engage. They follow Michael Mann’s advice of “Report, block. Don’t engage.”
Those who do engage are convinced that the “deniers” do not have an intellectual case and are just “shills for Big Oil” (see exchange below).
Exposed to non-alarmism, the activists fall back on the IPCC and other chosen authorities (“argument from authority”).
After rebuttal to #3 (like with Climategate), ad hominem comes along the lines of #2.
After #3 and #4, they disengage.
Some adversaries have been polite and actually admit to some weaknesses in their case. But they are the exception behind the green curtain; most debate with religious fervor and argue as if there is not a Green Energy Crisis around the world, from Texas and California to the UK and the EU.
Overall, there is really little movement by the alarmists/forced energy transformationists, whether as the result of deep ecology, not understanding economics (tradeoffs and opportunity cost), or being mad at the system, the status quo, the establishment (in which case I wish they would rebel against the true elites).
What is really fishy is that those that admit to “climate anxiety” do not have any appetite to seriously entertain the case for CO2/climate optimism, aka energy freedom for the masses. And they see no evil in the eco-sins of wind, solar, and batteries, nor do they comprehend the energy density/intermittency argument that was recognized 150 years ago.
———————————-
Here is a recent exchange at LinkedIn that is typical:
Robert Bradley Jr.: Time to rebel against the intellectual/climate elite. Mass mineral energies for real people.
Brian Scott: Or for lobbyist like yourself that are paid to misinform right Rob?
RB: Wrong on all counts …. We have gone through this before. The superior case for dense mineral energies economically and environmentally should inspire a rethink. And climate policy is in shambles heading into COP 27.
BS: Your organization is funded by the industry its well documented. Climate policy investments are at an all time high
RB: Been through this before. We have several thousand classical liberal supporters. Do you know what classical liberalism is? End the ad hominem and focus on the arguments–yours are anti-economics and anti-environmental.
BS: Mine are anti environmental? ��
RB: Yes … duplicating the grid and the transportation system require a whole new level of industrialization and a huge ramp-up of mining. “Big shovels” as Daniel Yergin says.
And machining up the landscape with wind and solar and transmission that operate a third of the time is violating nature in a way that dense mineral energies avoid. And what do you have against Global Greening from CO2?
BS: Duplicating is nonsense. Mining for mineral for the purpose of reducing climate change impacts while recycling those minerals for use over and over again.. landscape isn’t an issue rooftop covers more than enough of demand and solar farms on marginal farm land helps farmers pay their bills. Co2 for greening? I would say if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you but I realize you are paid to sell that narrative. The idea of greening by increasing droughts amd flooding is hilarious.
RB: Duplicating it is … wind, solar, batteries that are not needed by the energy economy. Talking about industrial wind and industrial solar, not micro and off-the-grid. Big eco-revolt at the grassroots.
CO2 greening–that’s settled science. Climate model predictions–unsettled science.
On the ad hominem, “I realize you are paid to sell that narrative.” that is simply incorrect. I argue the correct, classical liberal worldview that you do not seem to understand.
Increasing droughts and flooding? Fallacies if you want to examine the long term data. The ‘energy transition’ is bad economics and bad ‘environmentalism.’ Global greening and energy density are pro environment. Dilute, intermittent technologies are eco-disruptive.
Elitism vs. energy for the masses, as chosen by the masses.
BS: lol More propaganda, not settled by scientists but a paid web developer. I’m curious if Mr Koch edits these for you or if you have artistic freedom
RB: Wrong again on the ad hominem. Just deal with arguments: dense mineral energies are better for the environment and pocketbook than dilute, intermittent, parasitic, crony energies.
And energy consumers worldwide have had enough of an intellectual/political elite alarming and robbing them.
COP27 charade coming.
BS: I would be glad if we could deal with the argument. As you destroy the world with Emissions you have no solution. I have a lot of friends in the oil and gas industry with varying opinions, none of them believe this co2 to save the earth nonsense.
RB: “Destroy the world with Emissions” … “you have no solution.” … ” co2 to save the earth nonsense”
Three strikes. First, emissions of real air pollutants have gone down, way down, and this is expected to continue. CO2 is not a pollutant destroying the world.
Second, the solution is 1) do no harm 2) anticipate and adapt with weather extremes, which is not ‘climate change’ 3) thrive with enhanced CO2 and the best energies.
Third, CO2 does not ‘save the earth’ but enriches it. This is part of the debate that is settled science.
BS: Money will make people believe anything won’t it. Where specifically has ipcc gone I wonder. Should you get them a check?
RB: Wrong again on your ad hominem. I am just arguing a strong, superior argument. I would not have it any other way.
Final Comment
Always be polite and keep it scholarly. For example, I had a similar exchange with a fellow from a distant country that was a … professional clown. The fellow above has bad initials for such an exchange. Openings for cheap shots. There are many, many other people reading the exchanges, and they are in the middle and persuadable. Keep the high ground.
https://www.masterresource.org/linkedin-climate-energy-debates/brian-scott-exchange-climate/
Last edited:
