“I will debate you on the condition that we hold the debate in the form of a WWE professional wrestling match, because that’s about as seriously as I take you.” (- Benjamin Leffel to author, below)
Benjamin Leffel, Assistant Professor, School of Public Policy and Leadership, University of Nevada Las Vegas, posted on LinkedIn (with this link to Science magazine).
Dear foundations and philanthropies:
Thousands of high-impact research grant proposals are being pressured to change their language for fear of angering the Trump regime. Many researchers will be looking to foundations instead of federal sources like NSF as a result. Now is your time to shine.
I commented on his post:
Yes! End federal grants and spare the taxpayer! Climate scientists should be more amenable to doing controversial projects that are less alarmist or even pro-CO2.
Leffel then asked out of the blue, “where does your research funding come from?”
I answered:
Several thousand free market and classical liberal donors who like our principled, classical liberal positions. Might seem strange to you, but my beliefs have always come first. Ever since I was in the gasoline lines in the 1970s thanks to price controls.”
And added: “When are we going to debate there in Las Vegas? I have challenged you for months. I have a strong case against climate alarmism and for energy exceptionalism.”
Leffel responded: “I will debate you on the condition that we hold the debate in the form of a WWE professional wrestling match, because that’s about as seriously as I take you.”
I responded: “Are you an intellectual? A scholar? Your reply indicates anger at climate and energy realism. Again, let’s debate!”
——————————–
Funny thing, or not so funny. This professor is a lot like two others I have encountered on social media. Quotations from each are illustrative. Alarmist Gunnar Schade of Texas A&M said
“… there are plenty of climate science deniers here [on LinkedIn] to vehemently argue for the defendants’ case [in Mann v. Steyn]…. It is profoundly saddening when you realize that the platform I am writing this on would most probably not remove these people’s posts in the form they were written had somebody reported them.”
Censorship is what Schade wants, and predictably, he blocked me on LinkedIn. And then there is Schade’s mentor and running mate at Texas A&M, Andrew Dessler, who has stated:
Hey assholes. We’ve been telling you for decades that this was going to happen if we didn’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions. You didn’t listen and now it’s all happening. We hope you’re happy. Enjoy the heatwaves, intense rainfall, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and many other things, you fucking morons.”
Leffel, Schade, Dessler … They cancel and ignore their worthy opponents rather than subject themselves to the harsh light of day. They are exaggerators and more like lawyers pleading a case.
Final Comment
It is hard being green when CO2 is green and wind/solar/batteries are not. They go Michael “Climategate” Mann whose strategy is “Report, block. Don’t engage.”
Despite all, the skeptics of climate alarm and forced energy transformation are winning. The other side had better step up or step down. A sabbatical to reexamine climate and energy issues would be ideal for these smug professors that pay no price for being wrong, unlike most everyone else in the real world.