A Free-Market Energy Blog

More ‘Cancel Culture’ from Texas A&M Climatologists (Gunnar Schade joins Andrew Dessler)

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- October 7, 2021

“Thanks Rob Bradley for coming here to confirm Exxon’s (and by extension your) lies.” (Gunnar Schade, Texas A&M University)

“Enron was the bad firm; ExxonMobil under Lee Raymond was the good firm. Energy affordability matters! Happy to debate this with you at Texas A&M!” (Bradley, below)

On social media, Goran Janjic, self-described “Head of Sustainability | Business Strategist | Managing Director | Corporate and Government Affairs Leader,” shared a recent article (Tracing Big Oil’s PR War to Delay Action on Climate Change” Harvard Gazette) and stated:

ExxonMobil has misled the public about #climatechange by telling the public one thing and then saying and doing the opposite behind closed doors.

The latest work shows that while their tactics have evolved from outright, blatant climate denial to more subtle forms of #lobbying and propaganda, their end goal remains the same. And that’s to stop action on climate change.

I commented:

At Enron, it was the opposite. Telling the public there was a problem and arguing that it was not internally. ExxonMobil was right: affordable energy should not be sacrificed on an alter of climate alarmism.

To which Gunnar Schade, associate professor in Texas A&M’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, answered:

Thanks Rob Bradley for coming here to confirm Exxon’s (and by extension your) lies.

This led to an exchange (ended by him on an assertion) which is reproduced below.

Scientist as Advocate

In addition to his professional work, Professor Schade is an activist, a critic of “climate change deniers,” and one who “to help the public make sense of the global weirding of weather phenomena.” His advocacy oeuvre includes:

I am critical of “the climate crisis,” seeing instead a climate policy crisis of unaffordable, unreliable energy that brought the dark ages to Texas in February and that is currently lowering living standards in the United Kingdom and elsewhere (China, India, Japan, Spain, Germany, Africa) with winter just ahead.

I rest my case with the experts from W. S. Jevons (1865) to Vaclav Smil today. I also defer to critics from Judith Curry to Steven Koonin on the inherent flaws in climate models that make them run “too hot.”

The full exchange with Schade follows:

Bradley: At Enron, it was the opposite. Telling the public there was a problem and arguing that it was not internally. ExxonMobil was right: affordable energy should not be sacrificed on an alter of climate alarmism.

Gunnar Schade Thanks Rob Bradley for coming here to confirm Exxon’s (and by extension your) lies. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Energy_Research

Bradley: Enron was the bad firm; ExxonMobil under Lee Raymond was the good firm. Energy affordability matters! Happy to debate this with you at Texas A&M!

————————–

Schade: Yes, I know people like you would love to “debate” academics, as that is what provides you legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

Bradley: Please be careful and respectful. I have lectured at your university to classes in both the business and economics departments. I have worked extensively with Gerald North, retired from your department, and have many dozens of emails on the ‘inside’ of the climate debate.

I have also worked with a chair professor in the economics department to publish books, including one on climate change.

My legitimacy is not dependent on academics. I have an extensive publications record and have lectured to numerous colleges and universities.

Let’s debate before your students or the whole university. Perhaps me on certain subjects, maybe a Judith Curry or Steven Koonin on physical science. I know you do not want to do this because …. climate models are a mess.

————————————-

Bradley: “lies”? Can you explain yourself? That is a serious charge coming from a college professor ….

Schade: Hmm, how about this quote of yours: “But trends are positive regarding the green greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. The ecological benefits of increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is in the news.” Sorry, I do not deal with trolls. Bye!

Bradley: Not much of an argument. Are you an angry climate alarmist?

And he disappears ….

Final Thought

Too many natural scientists are slave to deep ecology, which sees nature as optimal and fragile. Most of the rest of us see the world as in flux and best managed by wealth-is-health anticipation, adaptation. and learning. Climate alarmists like Professor Schade have no theory of entrepreneurship and fail to acknowledge the fundamental role of fossil fuels for making nature safe for humankind. As Alex Epstein stated:

The popular climate discussion … looks at man as a destructive force for climate livability … because we use fossil fuels. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite; we don’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous; we take a dangerous climate and make it safe. High-energy civilization, not climate, is the driver of climate livability.

In this sense, Professor Schade is akin his colleague at Texas A&M, master climate alarmist and ‘energy expert’ Andrew Dessler, the subject of many critical posts here at MasterResource.

——————–

Leave a Reply