“Great work, Institute for Economic Affairs! May the honor of being on DeSmog’s hit list raise awareness of your noble mission and attract new donors.”

DeSmog’s enemies list has grown so long and distinguished that it refutes its “hit-piece” mission. Fact is, there is a vast scientifically literate middle that exposes the flawed case for climate catastrophism and forced energy transformation.

My DeSmog’s 1,000: A Badge of Honor congratulated the army of truth-seekers, while noting that many deserving individuals and groups remain. (Our Mark Krebs and Kassie Andrews are just two–all can apply.) [1]

Here are some rebuttals that mostly reprint what DeSmog has to say about its enemies as correct–and even heroic against the termite aspirations of the governmental Climate Industrial Complex.

In alphabetical order:

Robert Bryce (April 28, 2020)

John Christy (February 5, 2019)

Derrick Hollie (February 13, 2019)

Steven Koonin (December 7, 2022)

Isaac Orr (October 21, 2019)

Vaclav Smil (April 28, 2022)

and myself: Robert L.…

Ed note: The evolution of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), from a part-time to a full-time organization, is recounted below. (The earlier history of IER can be found here, here, and here. ) From inception, the institute has been a classical-liberal organization in favor of economic freedom–and thus consumers and taxpayers. In this regard, Wiki’s (erroneous) entry on IER is rebutted here.

In its 36th year, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) has a proud history that rebuts the erroneous ad hominem arguments hurled against its principles and principals. Ever since its humble beginnings, IER’s rock-solid research into the economics, political economy, philosophy, and history of energy markets have stood the test of time. Energy markets need to be free of, not controlled by, government—for human betterment and individual justice.…

“But messages [against] … Lynne [Kiesling] … just serve to marginalize you. …. I’d encourage you to divert your efforts to re-establishing the reputation you have had, because your existing approach has tarnished and is tarnishing it.” (Michael Giberson, below)

“Lynne and Mike’s modus operandi is tweak, tweak and continue down the road of climate alarmism – forced energy transformation – centrally planned electricity.”

Keep your eye on the ball. In recent days, I have noted the irony of the “Queen of Power Markets” Lynne Kiesling presiding over a Public Choice conference where her central planning electricity model (Independent System Operators/Regional Transmission Organizations) is not teed up for some serious Public Choice application. That’s the situation going into the conference, judging from the scheduled panels and talks.

Such was my Friday post, “Public Choice and Electricity: Kiesling Ducks Again (Plano, Tx.…

“[Philip] Mango told FERC staff he planned to ‘[d]o this for just a couple of years, make a bunch of money to put kids through school and do all those things, and no one’s hurt’ …. Ketchup Caddy [was] a corporate entity that Mango had created to sell an in-car ketchup holder he invented….” (Utility Drive, below)

Why do the worst often get on top where political entrepreneurship replaces market entrepreneurship? Why does regulation invite gaming where (at best) entrepreneurship is superfluous?

Consider the 1970s oil trading boom, where price-controlled oil was bid up to market levels without any value-added. Robert Sutton, a former trunk salesman, became a regulatory millionaire on that one.

Remember Enron’s gaming of the California hyper-regulated electricity market in 2000/2001? Three authors wrote in Business History Review:

Enron’s traders used their knowledge of the newly designed markets to artificially increase or decrease wholesale prices in their favor, which often involved submitting false supply-and-demand information, withholding available electricity, or scheduling energy they did not have.