“Climate alarmism and forced energy transformation is a losing argument now that the dust has settled. Exaggeration backfires, and here-and-now issues matter, not wasteful climate policies that do not and will not have any effect on climate for decades, if at all. As painful as it might be, it is time for Amy Westervelt (et al.) to check their premises. The Climate Industrial Complex is a beast just like, in her head, Big Oil.”

Amy Westervelt is in denial at DRILLED, a climate alarmist website. She gives four major reasons for “Climate Media’s Philanthropy Problem” (June 2, 2026).

“We’ve talked before about the massive bloodletting in climate media this year,” she begins:

even amidst the general demise of journalism, climate reporting stands out as having been hit particularly hard.

Ed. Note: Today’s post concludes a three-part lookback at Lee R. Raymond (1938–2026), the no-nonsense value-creator at Exxon Mobil (also see Part I and Part II).

The large, ever-growing list of climate “deniers” at DeSmog Blog documents a growing consensus against climate exaggeration and “green” energy inferiority. MasterResource has long documented this “backfire” at this Progressive Left, anti-fossil-fuel UK website.

The energy and climate views of Lee R. Raymond are presented by DeSmog below. Read and decide for yourself; was Exxon/Exxon-Mobil’s leader (1993–2005) correct in his time and today? Many scientific, economic, and political trends, in fact, are moving in the direction that his thinking would support.

Credentials

• Honorary Doctor of Laws, University of Minnesota (May 16, 2011).¹
• PhD, chemical engineering, University of Minnesota (1963).²
• BSc, chemical engineering, University of Wisconsin–Madison (1960).

“We’ve got to call out the greenwishing of energy’s future. Excitement is good; delusion isn’t. Let’s demand proof, not promises. Reliable, affordable energy isn’t a luxury—it’s the foundation of modern life—time to get serious about what energy technologies actually scales.”

I’ve been watching this energy debate for years, and I’m tired of the hype. We’ve got politicians, billionaires, and startups promising the next big “green” breakthrough that’ll solve everything from climate change to data center power demands, with no downsides.

But most of it is what I call greenwishing—a cousin to greenwashing, where they polish up promising energy ideas, but unproven, unscalable technologies with fancy renderings, press releases, and government grants, all while the real engineering and economics lag behind.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for clean, reliable, affordable energy.…

“These are very interesting times–and at the New York Times. The climate writers and editors are daring to ask or allow hard questions about a politically losing narrative. It’s a start.”

The New York Times op-ed, “Democrats Don’t Have to Campaign on Climate Change Anymore” (May 9, 2026) is yet another marker that the debate is widening over the economic and political feasibility of climate alarm and forced energy transformation. [1] Matthew Huber wrote:

For the past several months, Democratic elites have been debating how much to talk about climate change, if at all — in part because these new candidates have narrowed their focus to energy affordability to win back the working class. It is a striking shift from a few years ago, when many Democratic politicians thought the promise of a Green New Deal would build a coalition based on green jobs and fighting inequality.