My LinkedIn account was reinstated, so I must be extra polite and stay scholarly with my politically incorrect, intellectually defensible views. Wish me luck! (below)
At LinkedIn, I have vigorously but politely engaged critics in the energy/climate debate with both posts and comments. LinkedIn, by way of background, is a business/employment online service owned by Microsoft. Started in 2003, the social media site involves 830 million professionals from more than 200 countries and territories, according to Wiki.
In the last year, I upgraded my LinkedIn membership and began following dozens of organizations with differing views (United Nations Environmental, Climate Professionals, etc.). I have 2,600 followers and have attracted several thousand views to some of my posts. Given that some of these post are picked up by the mega-site WUWT, the world’s most viewed website, this is good reach.
I have summarized and posted some of the more vigorous exchanges with my critics (see here). I have learned much in these exchanges, and I hope my critics have learned from me. I like my intellectual case and am pleased to ‘test’ it in the social media market.
I have discovered a number of other critics of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation in this regard, including David Siegel, Bill Schneider, Chris Matchette-Downes, Colin Hunt, Kindra Snow-McGregor, and Tom Stacy, just to name some.
Some strange things happed a few weeks ago. First, I got two notices on consecutive days:
|Your comment doesn’t comply with our policies|
|Your comment goes against our policy on misinformation. It has been removed and only you can access it.|
The common denominator of both of my comments was that CO2 was not a pollutant. In fact, carbon dioxide has never been considered a criteria pollutant, and a 5-4 Supreme Court decision 15 years ago (Massachusetts v. EPA) did not make it so.
CO2 fertilization for ‘greening’ Planet Earth is well known and accepted. And untrustworthy climate models spitting out doom is hardly laboratory science. Expressing all this behind enemy lines (to a UN environmental group), I received this comment from a Paul Schreiber:
|“Dear Rob Bradley – We see you are a former Enron policy guy. When you state the words “mineral energies,” are you…” decline in fossil fuel emissions vs increase in gdp co2…|
I tried to respond but got a ‘page not available’ screen. I guess Schreiber commented and ran rather than letting me respond, which I regularly do by turning around the Enron charge around with this link.
Then, just hours later, I got this message:
Reference # 221102-016301
Climate alarmists/forced energy transformation– putting climate models ahead of people–like to bring up my history at Enron. But I was a foe of the company’s and wind and solar investments. https://lnkd.in/eDTMWjQk https://lnkd.in/em65sN9m
“THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE GOOD FOR ENRON STOCK!!” (Enron’s Kyoto memo turns 24) – Master Resource
Content Creation Time: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:14:36 GMT
Then came the warning:
Any additional violation of our terms can result in the permanent restriction of your account. We have these policies in place to help keep LinkedIn a safe, trusted and professional network for everyone.
You may appeal the restriction by responding to this email with your agreement and intent to comply with our User Agreement and our Professional Community Policies.
• User Agreement: https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement
• Professional Community Policies: https://www.linkedin.com/legal/professional-community-policies
If you have any questions regarding your appeal you can reply to this email. Thank you for being part of the LinkedIn community.
I then responded to a “Roman” at LinkedIn:
As you know, critics of climate alarmism and forced energy transformation are numerous and active at LinkedIn. So, I want to be clear on what I have done, given this vigorous, open debate, in regard to “ sharing content that contains misleading or inaccurate information.” I am in the scholarship business with my library of published work, including treatises on energy and business subjects.
It certainly is not fair to allow one side of the debate claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) represents “an existential crisis” (the Biden Administration, et al.) and not allow the other side to question climate models scenarios that produce (hypothetical) results. Actual data of warming and weather extremes is far less alarming. “Tone down the alarm” is a very fair position in the debate—and it might even have a political majority here in the U.S., if not elsewhere.
I can certainly tone down my critical phrases such as “ putting climate models ahead of people.” And I will. Politeness has been my forte on LinkedIn compared to my opponents. But I also should have the right to emphasize the benefits of CO2 in the cost/benefit debate–and to criticize wind, solar, and EVs on economic and environmental grounds. Anything less would be political discrimination.
Some years ago, I was chosen by The Economist magazine to hold an online debate on energy/climate issues. I ‘won’ that international debate where more than 17,000 voted. I am a leading voice of energy/climate realism at a time when the very debate about these subjects has never been greater.
I have had academic affiliations, and I back up my points with footnotes and other documentations. I understand my opponents and the intellectual arguments very well. My science opinions, in fact, stem from years with a leading climate scientist who was at the time head of the climatology department at Texas A&M: Gerald North. His opinions on climate models (see here) still hold today.
Enron Corp. was brought up in the complaint, below. I am working on the 4th volume on the prehistory, history, and aftermath of that company, where I worked for 16 years. I have documented very well Enron and Ken Lay’s positions on energy and climate change. I do not understand any complaint in this area, as I am the authority on the subject and certainly am open-minded about new information and interpretations. Please refer me to any specific errors.
I ask for your reinstatement of my account.
My LinkedIn account was reinstated, so I must be extra polite and stay scholarly with my politically incorrect, intellectually defensible views. Wish me luck!
Well, Monsieur Bradley, I’ll wager ye this: if you were again to utter a single heresy — however truthful, however politely expressed, and scholarly in its reticence and sources — prolly they will reinstate your ban. It will likely be permanent this time. I know because I have experienced permanent bans on nearly every forum/platform. You’re not engaging with science; but with SCIENCE™©.
So far, so good…. Thanks for your comment!
“In and Out” and the article doesn’t discuss hamburgers.
Thanks for ruining my mood.
I am a fan too. I like our ‘Whataburger’ but …..