“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.…

“Funny thing. The climate alarmists’ favorite energies–wind and solar–have ruined the margins of nuclear to cause premature retirements and a lack of private funding for new construction. So the fossil-fuel haters in the nuclear camp find themselves victimized by the climate crusade. It sure is hard being ‘nuclear green’.”

Being active on social media with several thousand followers, I actively engage with my critics for fun and profit. I learn much, and those who have chosen to follow me (6,400+) might also. But I have also attracted scorn, some of the worst kind. My foes are typically wed to an energy dependent on special government failure. The ideological, deep-ecology, Church-of-Climate types spare little invective about how I am a threat to the future. Arguments failing, ad hominem often follows,

I employ plenty of analysis and link to a variety of sources.…

“But nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” (Milton and Rose Friedman, Tyranny of the Status Quo, 1983, p. 115)

“The infant industry argument is a smoke screen. The so-called infants never grow up.” (Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, 1979, p. 49)

What was said in a previous post regarding wind power’s 14 extensions of the Production Tax Credit also applies to solar power’s Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and its preceding tax favors. From 1978 to the present (46 years), 15 extensions belie the industry’s age-old claims of almost being competitive. Remember the New York Times’ declaration in 1994 (per Enron) that solar was “competitive” with fossil fuels? Remember Solyndra? Joe Romm in 2011: “It is clear that solar and wind are competitive in many situations right now.”…

“The forced ‘energy transition’ is in trouble despite huge government commitments to wind, solar, batteries, and EVs. Each of the three fossil fuels is experiencing a global boom, and, as Politico reports, politicians are backing away from energy taxes in favor of the cheaper, reliable, convenient mass energies consumers demand.”

Uncompetitive energies need government, studies, and ceaseless PR. Competitive energies need free markets where consumers vote with their dollars and taxpayers are spared. Increasingly, the price verdicts of (not so) green energies are coming in, and the public is not happy.

This development is evident in a recent Politico article, Republicans are trying to snuff out climate embers around the country,” subtitled “Conservatives are aggressively targeting efforts to reduce carbon emissions across the continent.”

Co-authors Jordan Wolman, Marie French, and Zi-Ann Lum begin:

Conservatives are aggressively targeting efforts to reduce carbon emissions across the continent.