“Get off your high horse, all of us are ‘pro climate’, you just have a different view on how to achieve that. Mr. Bradley interacts with anyone who challenges his statements. As far as your charge that he, “declare a position”? He does so every day. Catch up….” Mark Rohrbacher to Thomas Ortman (below)

Social media exchanges between free market and government energy/climate proponents are an excellent way to understand the arguments, politics, and motivations of all involved. Cancel culture not, may the best ideas win. Here is a LinkedIn exchange of note, where I (and others) rebut a familiar ad hominem. In this case, one Thomas Ortman just … disappeared.

The exchange occurred with a post by Gavin Mooney, self-described “energy transition optimist.”. “Batteries have taken a huge leap forward in California this spring, soaking up solar during the day and discharging it when it’s needed in the evening” he wrote.…

“There is a strong intellectual case against the view that ExxonMobil ‘knew’ that CO2 was a threat to human betterment versus the continuous growth of consumer-desired, taxpayer-neutral oil and natural gas. In fact, Enron, not Exxon, was the bigger culprit in the climate-change-and-business saga.”

Geoscientist Lindsey Gulden speaks for the Climate Industrial Complex, not the average person who depends on oil and gas every minute of every day, when she portrays herself as a martyr for the cause of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation.

It is not easy to get fired by ExxonMobil, but there are underperformers and just bad apples in every batch. Lindsey Gulden appears to be one. On social media, she tells of just this experience, invoking climate alarmism.

But she does note one thing of interest: the company’s overhyped political play of carbon capture and storage, which is correct.…

“UKers have been hearing doom for a half century. Citizens want affordable, reliable energy. Many if not most know that UK sacrifice will not have any affect on climate for decades given the global coal, gas, and oil boom. Adaptation yes, but don’t exaggerate.”

It began with a “Wake Up Rishi Sunak” post from Andrew Griffiths, director of Policy & Partnerships at PlanetMark, a climate activist organization that continually complains that the UK government never does enough to mitigate greenhouse gases. Never mind that the UK accounts for about one percent of such global emissions; its oil and gas industry is mostly shut down; businesses can’t afford climate-policy-inflated bills, and consumers are falling into energy poverty…. And the plants like CO2!

“When government actually tell the general public what the climate crisis will mean for the UK, they demand government action,” Andrew begins.…

“First wind and solar–and now batteries. How can a business editorialist not talk about cost and opportunity cost? Does $65 billion and counting ring a bell? I guess when you are a climate alarmist, economics does not matter.”

“‘Demand response’ is more government intervention to rescue prior. ‘Virtual power plants’ are the ultimate government takeover of the grid. Wound the supply side, load it up with costs, and force demand down.”

In “Natural Gas, Coal and Nuclear Power are Failing the Texas Grid, New Tech is the Future,” Houston Chronicle business editorialist Chris Tomlinson carries the water for Green New Deal/Net Zero interests, including his wife’s business of wind/solar origination. His 750-word piece is a tissue of half-truths and misdirection that only church-going climate alarmists can like.

CHRIS TOMLINSON COMMENTARY

The Texas electric grid’s biggest failures so far this summer are coming from the supposedly most reliable generators: fossil fuels.…