I will take a bow when those in the climate alarm/forced energy transformation camp state that my efforts are making a difference for energy freedom against Big Brother. And such a compliment came from a Matt Serafa who noted “how effective the fossil future/think tank marketing has been…. People like Alex Epstein and Rob Bradley have done some heavy lifting to promote a different perspective.”
The exchange began with this post from Sasja Beslik, on LinkedIn:
One climate disaster after another, yet three-quarters of Republicans (72%) said the economy should be given priority.
The level of denial has got to astronomic proportions. From Hawaii to Canada, searing heat and deadly wildfires are raising the alarm about global warming.
The disasters have fuelled debate about global warming across the US, with climate scientists increasingly stressing the links between climate change and extreme weather events, even as most Republican voters consider it a “minor threat”, or no threat, according to polling.
Almost three-quarters of Republicans (72%) said the economy should be given priority, even at the risk of ignoring climate change. That is up 13 points since 2018 – despite the increases in climate-change-related weather disasters. A solid majority (56%) overall called climate change a major threat, including almost 9 in 10 Democrats and a slim majority of independents. But 70% of Republicans said it’s either just a minor threat or no threat at all.
And this one is rather tragic; Plurality of Republicans – 43% – said climate change won’t have a serious impact on their communities at all. Another third said it will only have a minor one.
To which Matt Serafa commented:
This is an example of how effective the fossil future/think tank marketing has been. People like Alex Epstein and Rob Bradley have done some heavy lifting to promote a different perspective. All the folks at the various think tanks pumping out information that counters the main stream have been very effective.
The playbook has been refined during Covid and Trump. Feeling defeated.
I responded:
Should I take this as a compliment?
I would like to think that we have better arguments–that consumers and taxpayers matter–that the landscape does not need industrial wind and solar–that freedom from statism and the industrial climate complex is good.
I have not personally refined my message from Covid and do not depend on that experience in my arguments. Trump? He agreed with James Hansen on the futility of the Paris Accord.
And no, this outlier summer with global temperature (and for me under the Texas heat dome) does not fundamentally change my views on both the issue of global warming/climate change and the best response to weather/climate extremes. Why?
First, let the science catch up to the data for an explanation of the jump from a rather normal Spring to a globally hot summer. There is more than the human influence on climate, although some anthropogenic warming and the urban heat island effect are in play.
Second, adaptation to the rescue! Conditioned air, mist machines, portable fans, water parks (some indoor) are all on the upswing that will tame future heat in terms of human livability and thriving. And do expect a reversion to the mean regarding temperature. After all, the ‘greenhouse signal’ is more winter, night, and high latitude, right?
Third, given the heat and hype, the “First, do not harm” principle applies to climate policy. Do not make energy appliances more expensive. Do not increase energy prices needed to adapt to weather extremes. A big emotion for climate mitigation policy, in fact, is needed to improve resiliency and adaption to any weather event from any cause.
Touché fossil fuels, the energies of choice for a free people.