“Oil industry lobbyists are not worthwhile humans. It’s not a real job, it is corruption and beneath contempt. Taking bribe money to spread propaganda that results in genocide is sub human.” Tom Trounce (below)

I recently had an ‘interesting’ discussion on social media with a strong advocate for (dilute, intermittent) ‘renewable’ energies. My critic, an angry foe of fossil fuels, didn’t present solid arguments but only ad hominems, followed by trash talk. Such is the unfortunate part of debating climate/energy issues on LinkedIn, where certain (brainwashed?) alarmists work to discredit and marginalize their opponents.

Tom Trounce was the bad guy. His profile at LinkedIn advertises:

Improving lives through community, compassion and expeditions | Non-profits | Company culture | Leadership integrity | Technology | Customer Experience | Purpose

What? Improving lives, compassion, integrity.…

My LinkedIn account was reinstated, so I must be extra polite and stay scholarly with my politically incorrect, intellectually defensible views. Wish me luck! (below)

At LinkedIn, I have vigorously but politely engaged critics in the energy/climate debate with both posts and comments. LinkedIn, by way of background, is a business/employment online service owned by Microsoft. Started in 2003, the social media site involves 830 million professionals from more than 200 countries and territories, according to Wiki.

In the last year, I upgraded my LinkedIn membership and began following dozens of organizations with differing views (United Nations Environmental, Climate Professionals, etc.). I have 2,600 followers and have attracted several thousand views to some of my posts. Given that some of these post are picked up by the mega-site WUWT, the world’s most viewed website, this is good reach.…

“So here is the study that PUCT, FERC, Rice, UT, etc. do not want to do. It is very politically incorrect. Without wind and solar forcing, what would the wholesale margins have been, and how much thermal capacity would there have been? The study could do runs of wind/solar at 90% of the-then level … 75% …. 50% …. 25%.”

This exchange concerns a new University of Texas summary, “Two years after its historic deep freeze, Texas is increasingly vulnerable to cold snaps – and there are more solutions than just building power plants.” My interpretation—and policy recommendations—are exactly opposite of the UTA op-ed (see here), so I responded and was pleased to get some pushback from Professor Webber. 

On LinkedIn, Webber wrote: “You might find our latest article to be of interest.…

“The [U.S.] oil industry was a half century old when the depletion allowance and other special tax favors were introduced regarding the relatively new area of business taxation…. The North also taxed crude oil during the Civil War, so there is an offsetting example of a penalty, not a subsidy.”

A half-truth by wind and solar advocates is, ‘the fossil-fuel industries have long had subsidies, so we should have it too.’ This tit-for-tat needs historical clarity to show the difference between consumer-driven industries that really do not need tax breaks (and should not have received them) versus industries that are dependent on special government largesse to exist and grow.

In one of my LinkedIn exchanges with a climate alarmist/forced energy transformationist, my critic stated:

Rob Bradley It would appear you have never read The Prize, which for someone in the oil and gas industry is inexcusable.