“The climate profession needs a serious reboot.”
The above fronted my repost of Michael Shellenberger’s article, “Caught Pushing an Apocalyptic Scenario They Knew Couldn’t Occur, Climate Scientists Are Now Claiming Their Policies Prevented It.” His article came with the subtitle, “Clique of stealth activists, including the former head of the National Academies of Science, claimed a high-emissions future was possible long after it had been falsified.”
Noel Cass
Attracting more than a thousand impressions, my repost led to 50 comments, several belonging to Noel Cass, a research fellow at University of Leeds. Cass describes his work here:
I am a researcher focussing on the social and political aspects of energy systems and everyday life. I have researched areas including environmental audits of organisations, tourism and travel, everyday life and travel practices, public engagement with renewable energy technologies, the ethical implications of nuclear power and options for radioactive waste management, the social exclusion implications of transport policies on congestion and climate change, climate change policy in local authorities in the UK, the energy demands of the built environment, later focussing on office building designs, and the implications of changing office work practices.
Bradley/Cass Exchange
Does Noel Cass question climate alarm and/or UK energy policies that drive up rates while having no effect on global climate? No! Our exchange follows:
Cass: So, when the Montreal Convention stopped ozone destruction, does that make it a ‘scam’ to point out that coordinated international cooperation and environmental protection legislation averted catasrophe? If we hadn’t started to rein in emissions from the 90s, things would be a lot worse now. And incidentally, the positive feedback loops we are still facing will likely make climate change runaway and catastrophic anyway.
Bradley: Your analogy fails because CO2 is not a pollutant (criteria pollutants are) and climate mitigation policies are futile, wasteful, and do not affect global or local climate change. Adaptation with energy affordability and reliability is the imperative.
Cass: No, it applies, because climate change also needs coordinated international legislation to ban chemicals from the atmosphere. Mitigation is essential, if we continue fucking the planet up then adaptation will simply get more expensive and imposible. You turn off the taps before mopping the floor. All mitigation policies and behaviour changes and demand reduction strategies – EVERY SINGLE ONE – saves GhGs and reduces how fucked our children, grandchildren and descendents’ lives are, or if they can even exist. Your institute sounds like a waste of energy and oxygen.
Bradley: No, CO2 is not a pollutant. Climate model scenarios showing harm are not demonstrative because such models are causality-deficient and not testable. CO2 Science is real science–and indicative to CO2 being a positive externality.
Bradley: Also note the abject failure to regulate CO2 versus the results of the Montreal Convention. Hint, hint….
Bradley: Also, control your anger and emotions. Stop being vulgar. You sound like Betsy Rosenburg, who I criticize here.
Humility, Please
After my replies, Cass added a ‘funny’ motif without a substantive response. His disappearance is par for many alarmists who cannot refute the criticism and rest on confirmation bias of the intellectual elite and political class. He knows he is right and that the rest of us are wrong and driven by bad intentions. Wrong. He life work is, arguably, misdirected. And if he were to question the governmental energy paradigm, he would probably lose his job. He is emotionally committed, as shown by his vulgarities.
A comment by David Jordan put his own critic (and others like Cass above) on notice.
Your rhetoric is amusing to the majority of people who are astounded at the ego trips of the climate change sector. Just because you believe your cause is just – does not mean that your opinion is superior to everyone else. Climate science is a grouping – not a specialist science and climate scientists are not the Kings and Queens of science. You might all want to learn some humility instead of lording over everyone. Science is a contest of ideas and if climate scientists cannot take the heat – stay out of the kitchen.
What a shame that the UK is ruining its economy and exploiting its citizens for the symbolism of Net Zero. It is (past) time for the victims to stand up to the elites. The emperor has no clothes.
Appendix: Other MasterResource/LinkedIn Posts
Betsy “Code Green” Rosenberg: Emotional Climatism (September 3, 2026)
Should “Deniers” Participate in Climate Debates? (Manfredi Fiorillo says No) June 1, 2026
Climate/Energy Debate: Tom Trounce Goes Low (June 8, 2023)
Colin Hunt Goes Nuclear (March 14, 2023)
An Exchange with Michael Webber (UT- Austin) on the February 2021 Texas Blackouts (February 15, 2023)
“Cognitive Dissonance” and Climate Change: A Takedown (February 7, 2023)
A Typical Exchange with a Climate Alarmist/Forced Energy Transformationist (October 25, 2022)
An Exchange on Climate Alarmism/Forced Energy Transformation (August 31, 2022)
Fossil Fuel Subsidies Historically Considered (December 8, 2021)
Paul Bryan on Steven Koonin: Cancel Culture at Work (October 6, 2021)
In and Out of LinkedIn Jail (November 17, 2022)