Noel Cass, Research Fellow at University of Leeds, views himself as the purveyor of truth and goodness and his critics (me, in particular) as conflicted, wrong, and “evil.” His bio reads in part:
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.
A recent exchange between Cass and me is worth memorializing as a data point in the intellectual battle between critics and supporters of the climate narrative of doom-and-gloom and the magical thinking of an “energy transformation” from fossil fuels to wind, solar, and batteries.
The exchange follows:
Cass: “Climate change is caused by fossil fuel combustion (and methane). You can’t be a market ideologue and ignore that increased prices are your only solution. Energy use needs to be absolutely smaller.”
Bradley: “Climate change is caused by fossil fuel combustion (and methane).” No, “climate change” is caused by natural factors. There is a mix of causality, and that is not something climate science can resolve. Second, what “climate change” is good, benign, or bad? Very mixed bag. Third, who are you to tell billions of consumers that ‘Energy use needs to be absolutely smaller.’ So less A/C for Europe, for example? Adaptation requires more energy, a lot more.”
Cass: “You are an ex-Enron speech-writer who is paid by a Koch brother to spend your time denying climate change and opposing action on it. Nothing you say has any integrity or validity.”
Bradley: “Oh my … going ad hominem? And you are an academic? Regarding Enron, read how I was critical of the company’s climate alarmism and forced energy transformation. (In other words, your stretch backfired.) Read this and the memos.”
Noel Cass: “It is not ad hominem to highlight that someone’s statements are entirely in line with being funded to promote denialism. People might read that you are a founder of an institute for research and think that you are an intelligent and academically-certified researcher, like me, rather than someone who has semi-retired by setting up a ‘think tank’ which funnels the Koch brother’s money into denialism activity, and nothing more.
If you are genuine researcher, you would welcome clarity. I am funded by my national research councils, and I am endlessly critical of my national government’s policies, which are as woefully inadequate response to the climate crisis.”
Bradley: “Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is peculiar that you hold yourself out to be a scholar and have the moral high ground. Sorry, but drop the ad hominem and appeal to authority. Stay on the intellectual arguments.
I do not trash you or anyone else for your funding–but you are a government employee who would not dare challenge the premises and outcomes of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation. Your funding source is much larger than my alleged billionaire funding. (Again, I am supported by tens of thousands of voluntary contributors.)
So is the Climate Industrial Complex, including the wind, solar, and battery/EV industries, disqualified because of their funding and conflict of interest? No, I take their arguments at face value. Scholarship requires staying on the issues and not attacking the person. You should join in.”
Cass: “You are funded by billionaires and the dark money behind the fossil fuel industry, and you promote climate change denial and fossil fuels. You are a ‘free market’ (no such thing – socialism for the rich, vicious competition for the poor) ideologue. Anyone intelligent understanding this will understand that my views have integrity, and yours have none.”
Adaptation vs. Mitigation
Bradley: “… It is adaptation time, which means avoiding ‘mitigation’ policies that increase energy costs or otherwise discourages energy usage.”
Cass: “You suggest we switch to adaptation mode? That’s just so the super-rich benefit from causing climate change AND from the necessary responses. Truly evil.”
Bradley: “Adaptation is taking over for mitigation as we speak. It is mainstream, not ‘evil.’ No, the average consumer and investor benefits from energy freedom, which means stock-over-flow energies. Isn’t social justice increasing energy affordability and reliability for the masses? The Climate Industrial Complex is the political elite, living off of political favor at the expense of the best energy.”
I report, you decide.