[Editor note: For an in-depth look at Enron’s political capitalism model applied to the climate-change debate, see Bradley’s Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy (M & M Scrivener Press, 2009)] 

On four occasions,  Joseph Romm at Climate Progress (Center for American Progress) has deployed an argument ad hominem against me, using my prior employment at Enron and my direct association with Ken Lay (see here, here,  here, and here). My response to Romm earlier this week has received thousands of views and several blog links, including here.

The irony here is two-fold. First, Romm ignores the fact that I was an employee who personally challenged the company’s rent-seeking via climate alarmism. Secondly, and more ironic still, Enron was his darling company. Specifically, he was an unpaid consultant and collaborator with Enron Energy Services (EES), whose contracts were money losers, reflecting of paucity of economic energy savings.…

[Editor note: Also see “Joseph Romm and Enron: More for the Record” (May 8, 2009) and “Enron and Waxman-Markey: Response to Joe Romm” (July 2, 2009)]

The headline at Climate Progress, the blog site of Joseph Romm, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, read:

MYSTERIOUS INDUSTRY FRONT-GROUP AFFILIATED WITH KEN LAY’S FORMER SPEECHWRITER LAUNCHES ANTI-WAXMAN-MARKEY ADS WITH PHONY MIT COST FIGURE

And here is what Romm specifically says about me:

Who is the [American Energy Alliance]?  Good question.  The AEA says on its website:

“AEA is an independent affiliate of the Institute for Energy Research (IER)….”Aside from the cryptic nature of the oxymoronic phrase “independent affiliate,” it is worth noting that the Institute for Energy Research “has received $307,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.”

“Humans aren’t rational…. How, then, can we combat misinformation when simply presenting the facts is no longer enough – and may even backfire?” – Nate Hagens (below)

Climate messaging is in turmoil. “Maybe the problem is not climate denial,” Gilad Regev observed:

Maybe it’s climate messaging. We’ve been attempting to scare or shame people into caring, and it’s not effective. Is it time to completely rethink how we talk about climate and sustainability? We’ve spent years trying to influence people through fear, data, and moral urgency. The results? Mixed.

Joe Romm in a comment dissed Regev, complaining about a huge, well-funded public disinformation campaign by Big Oil. (If only some of that mega-money was really flowing to think tanks such as IER or CEI or Heartland….)

Another Take

Enter Nate Hagens, Director of The Institute for the Study of Energy & Our Future (ISEOF).…

“Personal character matters for scientific transparency and honesty. Andrew Dessler does not pass the temperament test in a field of unsettled causality and ambiguous data.”

The intellectual case for CO2/climate optimism in place of doomism and despair is straightforward. As neatly summarized by Steven Koonin (a ‘climate flat earther‘ to Andrew Dessler) in the Wall Street Journal:

• Elevated carbon-dioxide levels enhance plant growth, contributing to global greening and increased agricultural productivity.
• Complex climate models provide limited guidance on the climate’s response to rising carbon-dioxide levels. Overly sensitive models, often using extreme scenarios, have exaggerated future warming projections and consequences.
• Data aggregated over the continental U.S. show no significant longterm trends in most extreme weather events. Claims of more frequent or intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and dryness in America aren’t supported by historical records.