“I will debate you on the condition that we hold the debate in the form of a WWE professional wrestling match, because that’s about as seriously as I take you.” (- Benjamin Leffel to author, below)

Benjamin Leffel, Assistant Professor, School of Public Policy and Leadership, University of Nevada Las Vegas, posted on LinkedIn (with this link to Science magazine).

Dear foundations and philanthropies:
Thousands of high-impact research grant proposals are being pressured to change their language for fear of angering the Trump regime. Many researchers will be looking to foundations instead of federal sources like NSF as a result. Now is your time to shine.

I commented on his post:

Yes! End federal grants and spare the taxpayer! Climate scientists should be more amenable to doing controversial projects that are less alarmist or even pro-CO2.

Ed. note: A recent peer-reviewed article in Nature (discussed here) has, once again, knocked this speculative “fat tail” hypothesis down to size. “Based on the here identified relationship and observation-based estimates of the past air-sea heat flux in the North Atlantic from reanalysis products,” the authors concluded, “the decadal averaged AMOC at 26.5°N has not weakened from 1963 to 2017 although substantial variability exists at all latitudes.”

Climate alarm is the name of the game for the government-led Climate Industrial Complex to keep the taxpayer grants going to the wind, solar, and battery rent-seekers. Nature is optimal and fragile, and the game is to throw hypotheticals against the wall to see what might stick. The mainstream media is hungry for a scary scenario too.

One perennial fear is a potential collapse of a crucial system of ocean currents known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). A…

Ed. Note: The links below have been blocked against Bradley. They might work for you. If so, feel free to bring up this debate and post with the principals.

The post below by climate alarmist/activist Kasper Benjamin Reimer Bjørkskov (“Consultant activist – Head of innovation”) began the debate.

I responded: “Ad hominem? Let’s debate. I’ve worked with dozens of mainstream scientists over the decades to reach my conclusions, which can be found in this 2003 primer for the IEA of London.”

Matthew Joseph.K of India demurred against the censorship approach:

Why should we block him? Debate him with facts. That would expose him.

Or ignore him. Blocking him is a sign of weakness unless he poses a security issue for you. It will just add fuel to his cause.

“The Master Resource people are whores of the fossil fuel industry. (Yes, that certainly includes you.)” – David Appell to author, March 5, 2014

If temperament and dramatis personae matter, the climate alarmists lose resoundingly to their scientific critics. I have gotten to know the quite reasonable, friendly Roy Spencer, John Christy, Craig D. Idso, Richard Lindzen, and other leaders of the so-called climate realist, global lukewarming school. And Marlo Lewis et al. (CEI); James Taylor, Sterling Burnett, et al. (Heartland); Craig Rucker, Marc Morano, et al. at CFACT; and many more on the advocacy side.

All of “us” know the difference between straight analysis and advocacy versus ad hominem argumentation. Our side is polite … but tough on naked pleas for government authoritarianism or civil disruption by climate alarmists/forced energy transformationists.…