MasterResource has previously highlighted individuals “from the Climate Disinformation Database” of Desmog Blog where the in-their-own-words ‘expose’ revealed solid thinking and good deeds.
I am profiled, accurately but incompletely (please update). I thanked them too: DeSmog Blog: Guilty as Charged (‘hit’ profile looks good to me).
MasterResource also did “guilty as charged” posts defending Derrick Hollie, founder of Reaching America, and leading scientist John Christy. If fact, almost everyone on DeSmog’s list of deplorables should feel proud to read their profiles and deeds.
Desmog’s Climate Disinformation Database advertises itself as “where you can search and browse our extensive research on the individuals and organizations that have helped to delay and distract the public and our elected leaders from taking needed action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and fight global warming.”…
“It is not a matter of ‘climate denial’ to be concerned about the opportunity costs or consequences of heavy-handed interventions on liberty and living standards. Or to question the motives of those making such calls, whether for reasons of corporate rent-seeking, or ideological opportunism.” (IEA, below)
“It is not a matter of ‘climate denial’ to highlight that if the worst-case climate science scenarios are correct, adaptation is more likely to preserve life and living standards than mitigation or attempting to shut down all economic activity still dependent on fossil fuels.” (IEA, below)
The climate alarmists are losing, but not for the reason they think. And they are so angry that desperate measures are being undertaken, from civil disobedience to calls for the moral equivalent of book burning.
Climate alarm/forced energy transformation are losing because of consumer preference for affordable, reliable energy, or, in more fundamental terms, the primacy of energy density.…
My September 23, 2019, post, Don’t Debate the ‘Climate Crisis’? (Mann, Dessler, etc. want to assume, not discuss) attracted a critical comment from Master Resource reader David Appell:
Rob, you aren’t honest about what Dessler wrote, and I think you know this. He (obviously) made his point over two tweets, and you only quoted the second of them (“3/” below), out of context.
Professor Dessler in an email added:
…… you claim that I don’t want to debate science. The tweet you quoted was one of a string where I make the OPPOSITE statement. However, by quoting it out of context of the surrounding tweets, you misrepresent my position. You also didn’t provide a link to my tweet string, so your readers couldn’t correct your erroneous interpretation. This suggests to me that you KNOW you’re misquoting me.