“Mr. Fiorillo does not want to focus on the arguments but relies on ad hominem and an appeal to authority. Actually, the case against climate alarmism is strong, and the economic/environmental waste of wind/solar/batteries is an open secret.” (- Bradley to Fiorillo, below)
Manfredi Fiorillo–Senior Manager at KPMG | Sustainability, Climate, Circular Economy–commented:
Dear Rob, You have been very active in the comments under my network’s climate posts, and your position is clear. LinkedIn is where professionals discuss the energy transition as a business and policy reality. Climate denial tends to find more receptive audiences on Truth Social, X or the Joe Rogan podcast. You may want to consider switching platforms to maximize your engagement.
I responded:
I am a professional. I am not a ‘climate denier.’ And the climate debate is quite open. My followers–about three times greater than yours–expect my views to be expressed, and they engage themselves. Don’t assume but debate climate doom-and-gloom. It is healthy, even a cure for ‘climate anxiety’.
A corporation could well decide that wind, solar, and battery industrialization is duplicate, uneconomic, and bad for the living space. Corporate responsibility includes not pushing for political profits (rent-seeking) at the expense of consumer-directed profits. Social justice includes energy affordability and reliability. Taxpayers and freedom from Statism are to also part of corporate social responsibility.
Is this a problem for you? Is your mind open to the benefits of CO2? The waste and futility of global governments trying to control what they cannot–climate?
Fiorillo: “I don’t come here to compare followers dear Rob. A debate is healthy but your view on the energy transition being uneconomic and bad is profoundly incorrect. Multiple datapoints and use cases prove it, but I know these won’t convince you. And yes, global governments, companies and individuals can control the climate. The speed at which global temperatures have risen in the past 150yrs prove the effects of our collective abuse. We need to invert course and, for that, we need to start by decarbonizing our energy systems.”
Bradley: “Just the opposite on all counts. Fossil fuels are now environmental products that are much more efficient, affordable, and reliable vs. dilute, intermittent, fragile, government-enabled/forced wind and solar and EVs. Global greening from CO2 suggests climate optimism as well.”
Fiorillo: “FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS READING THIS THREAD:
Rob, you work at the Institute for Energy Research, an organization founded by Charles Koch and historically funded by ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Peabody Energy, and Koch family foundations. That is a relevant disclosure when the topic is climate science.
I am not going to debate the underlying science with you. The IPCC, WMO, NASA, NOAA, the Royal Society, and every national academy of science are aligned on the core findings. If you want to discuss energy policy, cost curves, or transition pathways on the merits, I am open to it. Advocacy framed as skepticism is not a conversation I will entertain.”
Bradley: “FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS READING THIS THREAD: I founded and am CEO of an energy nonprofit (Institute for Energy Research) that is best described as classical liberal–pro-freedom (vs. Statism), pro-consumer (versus the Climate Industrial Complex), pro-taxpayer, and pro-environment (vs. wind/solar/battery duplication of the grid).
Mr. Fiorillo does not want to focus on the arguments but relies on ad hominem and an appeal to authority. Actually, the case against climate alarmism is strong, and the economic/environmental waste of wind/solar/batteries is an open secret.
Debate, don’t assume. Climate anxiety is unnecessary. And the Climate profiteers at the expense of consumers and taxpayers need to spend (waste) their own money and not ours.”
Final Comment
Manfredi Fiorillo has all the credits and credentials and probably makes a very good living. [1] But he is a parasite, a termite, to productive activity. He, and many others whose emotions and livelihoods are tied to climate alarm, need to open their minds to an optimistic view of climate change–and to human betterment from the best energies.
————–
[1] Leader in sustainability transformation, advising global multinationals on Circular Economy, Climate Risk, Net Zero strategies and implementations. Co-developer of novel AI solutions for Climate. 15+ years experience spanning entrepreneurship, corporate and consulting, with a proven record of shaping models that turn ESG risks into growth opportunities. Recognized as a catalyst for change, guiding Executives and Boards to build climate resilience, deliver stakeholder value and long-term competitiveness. 🎯
My mission is simple: To transform companies into stronger, more sustainable versions of themselves. ♻ Yale SOM – Corporate Sustainability Management: Risk, Profit, and Purpose ♻ GARP – Sustainability & Climate Risk (SCR) ♻ Chartered Financial Analyst Institute – CFA in ESG Investing ♻ WBCSD & KPMG – CTI Implementation Partner (Circular Transition Indicators) ♻ Global Reporting Initiative – GRI Certified Sustainability Professional ♻ TCFD Reporting – CDP and CDSB Certifications ♻ UNGC Academy – SBTi 1.5°C and Net-Zero ♻️ Global Circularity Protocol (GCP) Advisor
“CFA in ESG investing”
God help us.
As a retired CFA, I will attest to the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts’ nearly incredible propensity to fight the last war. It is an organization that outgrew its original mission and has mutated into an organization intent on growing its membership regardless of the methods employed to do it.
Once upon a time, membership was restricted to “buy side” investment analysts (generally employed by fiduciaries).
Today, the ICFA will accept anybody who is breathing, will take the required tests and will continuously fork over $$$— that includes “analysts” bought off by stock jobbers and IPO underwriters, corporate flacks, IR people, investment consultants and management consultants peddling snake oil and pseudoscience.