“You really not have addressed my criticisms about your accepting, at face value, climate alarmism, forced energy transformation, and a technocratic solution to the current grid problems brought on by the wind/solar takeover.” (Bradley to Kiesling, below)

“You clearly disagree with my synthetic theory of regulation and technological change. I synthesize institutional and transaction cost economics, Schumpeterian innovation economics, economic history, public choice, and yes, Austrian economics….. I think this theory … does a better job of helping us understand the institutional and organizational, and technological, reality of what’s feasible in liberalizing the electricity industry and its regulation.” (Kiesling to Bradley, below)

More than a century of increasing government intervention has created today’s crisis in electricity. It is not only a crisis of performance (affordability, reliability). It is a crisis where the cumulative interventionist process is now coming to your home or business.…

“But make no mistake, [Bradley]’s as venomous an antinuke as the most biased Greenpeacer.” (Colin Hunt, Canadian Nuclear Society)

Social media exchanges are educational and informative. Going head-to-head with an intellectual foe is a great opportunity to learn and unmask error–and to find out what you do not know. I report, you decide on the exchanges below, which get into some basic issues and the history of a troubled, government-subsidized technology.

——————

This LinkedIn exchange began with a post by Chris Keefer, Physician and President Canadians for Nuclear Energy:

Nuclear to the rescue. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Nuclear is best suited to replace many fossil fuel services. When fossil fuels become constrained nuclear doesn’t just become attractive, it becomes inevitable.

I responded as follows:

New nuclear capacity is just way too expensive and complicated compared to the alternatives.

“The superior case for dense mineral energies economically and environmentally should inspire a rethink. And climate policy is in shambles heading into COP 27.”

“What is really fishy is that those that admit to ‘climate anxiety’ do not have any appetite to seriously entertain the case for CO2/climate optimism, aka energy freedom for the masses. And they see no evil in the eco-sins of wind, solar, and batteries….”

I actively engage in (and occasionally share) debates on LinkedIn against climate alarmists/forced energy transformationists. I sometimes feel like a teacher presenting a suite of arguments that have been cursorily dismissed. The good news is that there are a lot of readers in the middle who see what is going on. A number now join me in what is a two-sided debate at LinkedIn.…

LinkedIn is the premier business-related social media site, and they allow respectful discourse on the climate topic in my case. I have been very active at LinkedIn this year and have shared previous exchanges such as this one at MasterResource.

Here is another example. It began with a LinkedIn post from Favian Le Gay Brerton: “When the Oil and Gas industry talks about planting trees, producing hydrogen, and deploying CCS…. Moral Hazard.” He links to “The Era of the Great Carbon Fraud Is Upon Us” in the Australian newspaper, The Canberra Times. The article begins:

Instead of rushing to end fossil fuels, there is going to be a gold rush for carbon offsets, dirty hydrogen and carbon capture and storage (CCS), all designed not to stop climate change, but to actually drive up the consumption of coal, oil and gas.