Denialism? Zwolinski Punts on Climate Science, Policy (statism on parade)

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- February 20, 2025

“Something is very amiss in the ‘left-libertarian’ space where energy/climate activism is not considered authoritarian and a consumer/taxpayer issue for ‘bleeding heart libertarians’.”

Matt Zwolinski, an academic philosopher and “bleeding heart libertarian” [1] who likes to criticize classical liberalism, promoted an article by Shikha Sood Dalmia on why she, as a former libertarian, is voting for Kamala Harris and not Trump. [2]

The debate (screenshot below) turned toward authoritarianism on the Left side, mentioning climate/energy issues. [3] At this point I joined in.

Bradley: “So Kamala and the Far Left are not about authoritarianism by small and large measures—and with a smile? And does the global energy/climate issue (global governance vs. CO2) mean anything to you?”

Zwolinski: Global energy means a great deal to me. And climate change denialism is a major problem in both the libertarian and Republican parties.

Bradley: Denialism? Are you familiar with the debate? Let’s start with two questions. One, what arguments made by Patrick Michaels et al in the 1990s for Cato are wrong today? And two, do you advocate global pricing for CO2 that requires ‘border adjustments’ (international tariff governance)?

Zwolinski: I really don’t think arguing about this would be productive for either of us. I’ll pass.

Bradley: Pass? And this issue is important to you, and you accuse me (and the majority of other libertarians) of ‘denialism’? Fact is, you do not want to answer because you do not know science-wise and don’t want to consider what global CO2 policy entails. And why the latter is the very authoritarianism (note, Shikha) that Trump can stop. (His withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord was one of the notable ‘classical liberal’ moments in modern political economy).

———————-

Bradley: Matt: did you block me from this post? We were having a spirited debate but one where I was on top of my points. Your charge of denialism went low and was not scholarly in the least. Response?

Zwolinski: You misremember. I said that I did not want to argue about climate policy with you, and you wouldn’t let it go. I think maybe you have this pattern with people, yes? At any rate, I’m not interested.

Bradley: Using the term ‘denier’, a crude Holocaust reference, to disparage libertarian and conservative critics of climate alarm, is very poor engagement on your part. My two questions deserve an answer rather than a complete duck…. Any suggestions for venue?

Zwolinski You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that I owe you my time. I do not. You asked me if I cared about energy policy. I said that I did, and that I thought climate change denialism was a major problem among Republicans and libertarians. Note “Climate change” denialism. That has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Note also – at no point did I accuse *you* of denialism. I had no idea who you were until you popped up on my feed a few days ago. I certainly don’t know anything about your scientific or philosophical positions. Nor am I particularly interested in learning about them, much less debating them with you. Move along.

Bradley: Energy/climate policy under Biden/Harris, now Harris/Walz, is a case study of authoritarianism, statism, fascism, and the Road to Serfdom. Globally too from the elites. Your smear “denier’ is a well-known term that both sides of the climate debate associate with the Holocaust (want links?)….. You said that energy, domestic and global, is of interest. Now you say you have never heard of me or IER, and maybe you do not follow the dozens of free-market think tanks that are eager for Trump opportunities. Maybe you favor activist climate policy, nationally and in California. Shikha Dalmia does, evidenced by her climate panel with four climate activists. Something is very amiss the ‘left-libertarian’ space where energy and climate policy are not seem as authoritarian, fascist, etc. and a consumer/taxpayer issue for ‘bleeding heart libertarians.”

Final Comment

Left libertarians pushing climate alarm and forced energy transformation have a similar pattern: hit and run. Engage and disengage. Duck the in-depth arguments and wall out dissent. The Jonathan Adler case (yesterday) is a case in point. The strange saga of Lynne Kiesling (pretend classical liberal) is another.

All I can do is document for the future. And maybe, just maybe, inspire some real debate and change.

————–

[1] “In The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism (Princeton), Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi argue that things didn’t have to turn out this way. Zwolinski, a philosopher at the University of San Diego, and Tomasi, a political theorist at Brown, are both committed libertarians who are appalled at the movement’s turn toward a harder-edged conservatism. (They are prominent figures in a faction called ‘bleeding-heart libertarianism.’)”

[2]

[3] Here is my documentation since the link to the exchange has been blocked.