“If you had to take a life-saving medication that had to be refrigerated, would you want the energy source to be reliable fossil fuels or literally leave it to the wind and the sun?” – LTE, below

Don’t expect the Houston Chronicle editorial team, much less the conflicted, climate-religionist business editorialist Chris Tomlinson, to forthrightly explain how a once reliable grid in the Lone Start State became wounded. They will blame it on the weather (too cold, too hot). But the real story is wind and solar reliance at the expense of thermal generation, as well as central planning of the wholesale grid by regulators/politicians (ERCOT/PUCT).

I have long complained about how Houston’s newspaper of record went from biased to uber-biased on many things political, particularly climate change/forced energy transformation.…

“An ‘infant industry’ wind power is not.” (Bradley, below)

“At congressional hearings in 1951 to provide increased wind-power funding … Putnam’s blade failure … played right into the hands of those committed to other forms of electrical production: fossil, atomic or solar.” (Wired, below)

The quest to make electricity from wind attracted entrepreneurs well before government mandates and subsidies got involved in the 1970s. As grid power, wind turbines were concept-proven in the 1880s (as were solar panels).

The article below in Wired (October 19, 2009), “Oct. 19, 1941: Electric Turbines Get First Wind was published with the subtitle: “The giant turbine in Vermont was the first wind machine to feed the electrical grid. And then, disaster struck.”

The description below pertains to the 1.25 MW Grandpa’s Knob wind turbine, which during World War II distributed electricity to Central Vermont Public Service Corporation.…

“Labeling carbon dioxide ‘carbon’ is as foolish as calling salt ‘chlorine.’ Carbon and carbon dioxide (CO2) are completely different substances…. Suppose we start calling CO2 ‘carbon dioxide’ and quit referring to it as a pollutant?”

Political and business leaders, educators, and the news media endlessly talk about “carbon.” Newscasters repeatedly warn about “carbon emissions” and “carbon pollution.” States and provinces announce “zero carbon” goals. The United Nations and environmental groups push for a “low-carbon” and a “carbon-neutral” society. But instead, they should all be talking about “carbon dioxide,” not carbon.

Labeling carbon dioxide “carbon” is as foolish as calling salt “chlorine.” Carbon and carbon dioxide (CO2) are completely different substances. The term “carbon” conveys an image of black pencil lead or soot, but CO2 is an invisible gas. It appears that CO2 is deliberately being misnamed to convey a negative image.…

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.