“Climate Pragmatism”: The New Retreat
By Robert Bradley Jr. -- September 26, 2025“I’ve yet to meet a blue-collar worker at a cleantech conference, nor have I met one at cleantech dinner tables. The industry needs to ditch its self-righteous virtue signaling and stop relying on handouts.” (- a Cleantech veteran, below)
“Is this really the climate movement’s next chapter?” asked Stephen Lacey, cofounder and executive editor of Latitude Media, a publication “covering the new frontiers of the energy transition.”
… Continue ReadingIf so, it will end in nothing more than further alienating voters. The progressive approach to climate mobilization has largely failed to build durable coalitions and policies. The election of Trump clearly showed that kitchen table issues matter most. We are in an extraordinary moment where people are struggling to pay their energy bills — and this is the answer? I agree with Michael Liebreich that we need a deep, pragmatic climate reset.
Fisher on the NASEM Climate Report
By Robert Bradley Jr. -- September 25, 2025“These are matters of public policy, not science alone. And in no case should a group of allegedly objective scientists attempt to shut down a public policy debate.” (-T. Fisher, below)
Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, has rapidly become a trusted voice in the sustainability debates of our time. He recently reported on social media:
… Continue ReadingThe National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) just declared the [prior] EPA’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases “beyond scientific dispute.”
While the endangerment finding is the legal foundation for many of EPA’s climate regulations, NASEM’s unsolicited report crosses an important line — from providing objective scientific advice to advocating for a specific policy.
Science can inform policy, but it cannot make policy for us.
The Fallacy of ‘Exxon Knew” (Part II)
By Robert Bradley Jr. -- September 24, 2025Yesterday’s post, “‘Exxon Knew’ as Historical Fallacy“, provided historical context to weaken the claim that an internal Exxon study was demonstrative as to the future dangers of CO2-led global warming. Today’s post evaluates the rudimentary finding that (third bullet of the Exxon memo):
The present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause dramatic envrionmental effects before the year 2050.
Nine years after the internal Exxon memo (1979), reporting on the James Hansen testimony that launched the climate debate, environmental reporter Philip Shabecoff provided specific forecasts of anthropogenic activity: 3–9°F and 1–4 feet by 2025–2050.
… Continue ReadingMathematical models have predicted for some years now that a buildup of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil and other gases emitted by human activities into the atmosphere would cause the earth’s surface to warm….