Are from MasterSource
By Robert Bradley Jr. – October 25, 2022
“The dominant case for economically and environmentally dense mineral energy should encourage a rethink. And climate policy is in disarray as we move towards COP 27.”
“What is that really fishy are those who admit to ‘climate anxiety’ with no interest in seriously entertaining the case of the CO2/climate optimism, aka energy freedom for the masses. And they see no evil in the ecological sin of wind, solar and batteries…”.
I actively participate in (and sometimes share) LinkedIn debates against climate alarmists/forced energy converts. Sometimes I feel like a teacher presenting a series of arguments that have been grossly refuted. The good news is that there are a lot of readers in between watching what’s going on. Some now join me in the two-sided debate at LinkedIn.
I’ve had to block some nasty opponents, but overall, I’ve learned a lot from being ‘behind the opposition’. Here are some key takeaways from my nearly a year of experience.
- Most competitors ignore rather than engage. They followed Michael Mann’s advice on “Report to block. Don’t join. “
- The participants were convinced that the “deniers” did not have an intellectual case and were just “things to pay for Big Oil” (see exchange below).
- Exposure to non-alertism, activists rely on the IPCC and other selected authorities (“arguments from the authority”).
- After dismissing #3 (same as Climategate), ad hominem goes with line #2.
- After #3 and #4, they retreated.
Some opponents are polite and actually admit some weakness in their case. But they are the exception behind the green curtain; most debate with religious fervor and argue as if there were no Green Energy Crisis around the world, from Texas and California to the UK and EU.
Overall, there’s really been little movement by alarmists/forced converters, whether it’s the result of deep ecologyeither don’t understand economics (tradeoffs and opportunity costs), or go crazy with the system, the status quo, the establishment (in which case, I wish they would revolt against the real elite).
What is that really fishy are people who admit to “climate anxiety” have no interest in seriously entertaining Optimistic case for CO2/climate, aka energy freedom for the masses. And they see no evil in the ecological sins of wind, solar, and batteries, nor do they understand the argument for energy density/interruptibility that is recognized 150 years ago.
————————————
This is recent exchange at LinkedIn it’s typical:
Robert Bradley Jr.: It’s time to rebel against the intelligentsia/climate. Mass mineral energy for real people.
Brian Scott: Or for a lobbyist like you who gets paid to misinform Rob?
RB: Wrong on all counts…. We’ve been through this before. The preeminent case for economically and environmentally dense mineral energy should inspire a rethink. And climate policy is in disarray as we move towards COP 27.
BS: Your organization is sponsored by the industry. Investment in climate policy is at an all-time high
RB: Been through this before. We have several thousand classical liberals. Do you know what classical liberalism is? Conclude the ad’s narrative and focus on the arguments – yours are anti-economic and anti-environmental.
BS: Mine is against the environment?
RB: That’s right… doubling the power grid and transportation system required a whole new level of industrialization and a dramatic increase in mining activity. “Big shovels,” as Daniel Yergin puts it.
And the engineering of the landscape with wind and solar and the transmission system that works a third of the time is violating nature in a way that dense mineral energies avoid. And what do you have to combat Global Greening from CO2?
BS: Copying is pointless. Mining aims to mitigate the effects of climate change while recycling those minerals for repeated use.. the landscape is not the problem but the rooftop is more than enough for the needs and the sites. Solar farm on marginal farmland helps farmers pay their bills. Co2 for greening? I would say if you believe I have a bridge to sell you but I realize that you get paid to sell that story. The idea of greening by increasing drought and flooding is very funny.
RB: Cloning it is… wind, solar, batteries are not needed for the energy economy. Talk about industrial wind and industrial solar, not micro and off grid. Major ecological uprising at the grassroots.
Greening CO2 – it’s stable science. Predicting climate models – worrying science.
On the ad story, “I realized that you get paid to sell that story.” that is simply incorrect. I argue for a classical, liberal worldview that you don’t seem to understand.
Are droughts and floods increasing? Mistake if you want to check long term data. The ‘energy transition’ is bad economics and bad ‘environmentalism’. Energy density and global greening are professional environments. Diluted, discontinuous technologies can disrupt ecosystems.
Mercenaryism versus energy available to the masses, as chosen by the masses.
BS:lol More propaganda, not orchestrated by scientists but a paid web developer. I’m curious if Mr Koch edited these for you or if you have artistic freedom
RB: Wrong again on the ad. Just settle the arguments: concentrated mineral energy is better for the environment and pocket than dilute, intermittent, parasitic, befriending energy.
And energy consumers around the world have had enough intellectual/political classes to alarm and take their lives.
The COP27 charade is coming soon.
BS: I would be happy if we could resolve the controversy. When you destroy the world with Exhaust, you have no solution. I have a lot of friends in the oil and gas industry with different opinions, none of them believe that co2 to save the earth is pointless.
RB: “Destroy the world with Emissions”… “you have no solution.” … “Co2 to save the earth makes no sense”
Three strikes. First, emissions of air pollutants have actually declined, and this is expected to continue. CO2 is not a pollutant that destroys the world.
Second, the solution is 1) do no harm 2) predict and adapt to extreme weather, not ‘climate change’ 3) thrive on enhanced CO2 and the best energy.
Third, CO2 does not ‘save the earth’ but enriches it. This part of the debate is the science of settlement.
BS: Money will make people believe that anything will not have it. I wonder, where did ipcc go. Should you check them out?
RB: Wrong again on your ad hominem. I’m just arguing a strong, high-level argument. I wouldn’t get it any other way.
Last comment
Always be polite and keep it academic. For example, I had a similar exchange with a friend from a far away country who was a… professional clown. You above abbreviated for such an exchange. Loopholes for cheap reviews. There are many, many other people reading the exchanges, and they are in between and persuasive. Keep the ground high.
Related
