“Is the human environment better because of increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the usage of carbon-based energies? The answer is a resounding yes. That is triumphant news, whether the human influence on climate is net ‘bad’ or net ‘good’ by a physical, stasis metric.”

Statistics and history matter. Particularly when a shared narrative is contradicted by the interaction of man and nature.

A recent Facebook post by Bjørn Lomborg cannot be emphasized enough in this regard. Over the last century, climate-related deaths have plummeted as societal wealth has overcome the limits to nature. I am reminded of an Alex Epstein quotation, mirroring a major theme of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels:

Nature doesn’t give us a stable, safe climate that we make dangerous. It gives us an ever-changing, dangerous climate that we need to make safe.

[Editor Note: It was during the Thanksgiving weekend 11 years ago that the Climategate’s unsettling oeuvre was first being disseminated and analyzed. This post summarizes some remembrances from that period.]

“The conflict between the two ideas about how science should be conducted–a closed system dominated by gatekeepers, or a more chaotic but less hierarchical open system–is the dominant story of the [Climategate] emails over more than a decade.” – Fred Pearce, The Climate Files (2010), p. 13.

“There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.” – Andrew Dessler, “Climate E-Mails Cloud the Debate,” December 10, 2009.

Climategate lives in infamy. Then, and now, it is a case study of agendas driving science rather than science driving agendas.

A decade ago, climate alarmists and friends (including Dessler above) went into damage control.…

“… the climate crusade has central planning and totalitarianism written all over it. It is a ‘road to serfdom.’ The settled science is more on the side of CO2 emissions/concentrations being positive, not negative (CO2 fertilization; 1.2C primary warming). And yes, the greenest fuels are fossil (as in mineral energies).”

I am a historian of thought on many things energy and climate, including on myself. I want to be as clear as possible about my positions and ideas for the future to judge. There are interviews and biographical entries on me to this end.

So it was of interest when I came across some mentions of me on Twitter (which I do not partake in). My comments follow the mentions.

This is from August 14, 2019.

“First of all, I make it clear, I do not propose banning fracking.”

“My deal is a crucial framework, but not the new green deal.”

– Joe Biden. Town Hall, October 15, 2020.

Biden shifts and weaves looking for the middle ground on hydraulic fractionation, a drilling technique that has solidified the role of oil and gas in the 21st century. And he dodges the Green New Deal, or what he stated as the ‘New Green Deal’. (Joe?)

The radical Left (Andrew Dessler here) has largely given Biden/Harris a pass on the Frack Shuffle, but privately the hard Left must be fuming between the ears right now…. Politically, as economically, it’s a fossil fuel world!

For when it comes to climate, there is no political path that can arrest what is seen as global destruction, what shifty Joe himself calls “an existential threat.”…