“[The Paris agreement] is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words…. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.” (James Hansen, The Guardian, December 12, 2015)

Jean Boissinot is one disagreeable French fellow. My exchanges with him on social media (see here and here) are less than polite on his side, mixing sarcasm and insults (I might have dementia, he says) amid his (debatable) points. But when he argues success in the face of failure (as predicted by the father of climate alarmism above), perhaps it is time to rest my case.…

“… the outcome of doing nothing to combat climate change [is] simply horrific. That is why I find your phrase – We are winning the debate intellectual and politically for good reasons – somewhat alarming.” (- Martin Palmer, below)

All I have wanted in the climate policy arena is open debate. And on social media, LinkedIn has provided that to me. I now have nearly 13,000 followers who seem to enjoy my posts and ‘counterpunches’ against the omnipresent alarmists and apologists for wind, solar, and battery industrialization.

From time to time, I repost exchanges I have with the other side for the historical record. The future will be interested in what is to us the present. To this end, here is an exchange with an adversary, Martin Palmer, self-described as

Passionate about the Climate Threat of human extinction.

“[COP30 was] the kind of outcome people like you have been bullying for for months…. And, if you please could keep for yourself your insane ranting backed by nothing but your fantasy (for lack of a better word) that would be better….. I might not hesitate to delete comments that delude, mislead or offend.” (- Boissinot to author, below)

Jean Boissinot, climate alarmist and energy statist, responded strangely to COP30’s failure. The ex-Director, Risk & Research, Banque de France, stated:

… the final CMA declaration gavelled down minutes ago and not in the net zero future we need to transition to …. Although addressing climate change unequivocally means phasing out fossil fuel and getting to net zero…. we, as a global community, are still unable to face the obvious, speak the truth and do the necessary.

The intellectual and practical case for separating government and electricity is strong. The historical record offers little support for “market failure”–quite the opposite. The laws of physics do not preclude private ownership and control of assets in this area unless you assume mandatory open access–Lynne Kiesling’s Ostrom trick–to make private operation of control areas problematic. [1]

So I labor against faux classical liberals/think tanks that offer suggestion after suggestion to try to make government planned ISO/RTO’s work. But the fix is in with the guilty who refuse to seriously consider a free market in electricity.

Two exchanges with my critics follow. One is with Michael Giberson, a “Right” central planner; the other with Robert Borlick, a Progressive Left central planner.

Michael Giberson Exchange

Giberson posted on his regulatory filing:

The DOJ Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force requested comments on how state and federal regulations act to impair competition.