“It is time to welcome the good news about climate science–the exaggeration of warming and harm by too-hot climate models. It is past time to hurl ad hominem at those intellectuals who reject neo-Malthusians on theoretical and empirical grounds.”
“Ad hominem—is that all you got? I happen to hold my views because I believe in them. Is there something wrong with that?” Such was my response to a professor who complained about an opinion-page editorial I published in the Daily Oklahoman: “Rob Bradley: Is Sourcewatch wrong? We simple folks in Oklahoma just like to know who butters your bread.”
And another comment:
So no bias at there being your boss is Koch, huh? Sure. we TOTALLY believe you are not carrying water for the Koch brothers and that if you had a totally different opinion, you wouldn’t loose that kushy job… I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.
Well, there is a lot more butter — taxpayer and Left-foundation churned — on the other side of the debate. And why should those of us who are arguing for voluntary relations between consenting adults carry the burden of proof against those who advocate coercion where ‘the government’ forces consumers and taxpayers to do what they do not want to do? Isn’t it human to deal with each other peacefully and not resort to experts and government to arrange us like “the pieces upon the chessboard,” as Adam Smith put it centuries ago?
Boston Globe Letter
Here is my brief letter from February 22, 2015, that sparked the vitriolic response on the part of some readers:
Divest not from fossil fuels but from climate alarmism
KUDOS TO to Jeff Jacoby for saluting the benefits of fossil-fueled living (“A valentine for fossil fuels,” Op-Ed, Feb. 12). It is also worth pointing out that while the benefits of using fossil fuels are innumerable, the costs are small and vanishing.
Activists cite “catastrophic climate change” as the impetus for “divesting” from companies that produce natural gas, oil, and coal. But warming has flat-lined since the late 1990s, even as carbon-dioxide emissions have continued to rise; severe-weather events are less common; and the North Pole is still ice-covered, despite Al Gore’s prediction that it would be ice-free by sometime last year.
The simple fact is that the famed climate models got it wrong. An analysis by scientist Roy Spencer found that more than 95 percent of climate simulations have over-estimated Earth’s warming trend since 1979.
The benefits of using fossil fuels are as obvious as ever. Instead of breaking up with fossil fuels, let’s divest from climate alarmism.
Robert Bradley Jr.
Ad Hominem Responses
Here is one comment (by an anonymous writer):
Do look up the Institute for Energy Research. It’s an organization of climate-change-deniers, originally funded by the Koch brothers (maybe still is; does it matter?).
Bradley’s claims about the current state of the climate are so absurd and counter-factual that they do not deserve to be answered individually. Just go find any legitimate scientific study on the current state of the climate, and you will see what rubbish this is.
All I have to say to Mr Bradley and his cohorts is: I hope what you are being paid to disseminate this disinformation is worth the cost of dancing on our grandchildren’s graves (or is it great-grandchildren’s – does it really matter?). Because that’s what’s at stake here, and you have taken the side of those who are so blinded by greed that they are willing to risk the future of life on earth to maximize their quarterly profits.
And this hate e:mail that was send to me personally the day that my letter was published:
Anyone who can praise the recent article by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe concerning fossil fuels must be whoring for some major oil company and spouting extreme free market baloney.
Sure enough on checking your biography – 20 years at Enron, 7 years as Corporate Director for Public Policy and speech writer for Kenneth Lay (one of the most corrupt companies ever, that stole hundreds of millions of dollars, you should be in jail for your crimes).
Now your bankrolled by the Koch brothers and other corporate leeches whose only desire is to enrich themselves with more lies about how benign fossil fuels are. That people still listen to you is a testament as to how money can distort and create a climate where your propaganda and lies are believed by so many people. Well there will be a day reckoning for people like yourself Mr. Bradley.
I strongly believe it will come during our lifetimes and the horrific calamity that will envelope much of the poor regions of the world and then our world as well can be placed at your doorstep. But again you are so self-righteous and arrogant you and your kind will never admit guilt. But by then, though it be too late, the public will finally learn and see the truth and know they were hoodwinked by con artists like you.
To which I respond: I did my darndest to get Enron out of the crony-capitalist climate alarmism/renewable transportation business; global warming readings are little changed from Enron’s heyday; and the neo-Malthusians are still sucking air with their doom-and-gloom predictions across the spectrum. (Enron was a champion of climate alarmism and wind power.)
It is time to welcome the good news about climate science–the exaggeration of warming and harm by too-hot climate models. It is past time to hurl ad hominem at those intellectuals who reject neo-Malthusians on theoretical and empirical grounds.