“Let’s see if Skeptical Science makes another appearance on LinkedIn. It is up to 458 follows. And see if this organization will simply prepare an entry on what ‘skeptic’ arguments are the best. With that middle ground, maybe we can have a real debate.”

On LinkedIn, the alarmist Skeptical Science posted:

Somewhat surprisingly for what is regarded as a network of professionals, climate science misinformation is getting shared on LinkedIn as well. Here is a list of some signs to be on the lookout for when reading posts or comments related to human-caused climate change or global warming:

Read the list here, but their pitch is little more than ‘trust us’ and visit the DeSmog database of “deniers” for the bad actors. (Note: DeSmog’s smear-list encyclopedia has backfired!…

“Great work, Institute for Economic Affairs! May the honor of being on DeSmog’s hit list raise awareness of your noble mission and attract new donors.”

DeSmog’s enemies list has grown so long and distinguished that it refutes its “hit-piece” mission. Fact is, there is a vast scientifically literate middle that exposes the flawed case for climate catastrophism and forced energy transformation.

My DeSmog’s 1,000: A Badge of Honor congratulated the army of truth-seekers, while noting that many deserving individuals and groups remain. (Our Mark Krebs and Kassie Andrews are just two–all can apply.) [1]

Here are some rebuttals that mostly reprint what DeSmog has to say about its enemies as correct–and even heroic against the termite aspirations of the governmental Climate Industrial Complex.

In alphabetical order:

Robert Bryce (April 28, 2020)

John Christy (February 5, 2019)

Derrick Hollie (February 13, 2019)

Steven Koonin (December 7, 2022)

Isaac Orr (October 21, 2019)

Vaclav Smil (April 28, 2022)

and myself: Robert L.…

Ed note: The evolution of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), from a part-time to a full-time organization, is recounted below. (The earlier history of IER can be found here, here, and here. ) From inception, the institute has been a classical-liberal organization in favor of economic freedom–and thus consumers and taxpayers. In this regard, Wiki’s (erroneous) entry on IER is rebutted here.

In its 36th year, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) has a proud history that rebuts the erroneous ad hominem arguments hurled against its principles and principals. Ever since its humble beginnings, IER’s rock-solid research into the economics, political economy, philosophy, and history of energy markets have stood the test of time. Energy markets need to be free of, not controlled by, government—for human betterment and individual justice.…

“But messages [against] … Lynne [Kiesling] … just serve to marginalize you. …. I’d encourage you to divert your efforts to re-establishing the reputation you have had, because your existing approach has tarnished and is tarnishing it.” (Michael Giberson, below)

“Lynne and Mike’s modus operandi is tweak, tweak and continue down the road of climate alarmism – forced energy transformation – centrally planned electricity.”

Keep your eye on the ball. In recent days, I have noted the irony of the “Queen of Power Markets” Lynne Kiesling presiding over a Public Choice conference where her central planning electricity model (Independent System Operators/Regional Transmission Organizations) is not teed up for some serious Public Choice application. That’s the situation going into the conference, judging from the scheduled panels and talks.

Such was my Friday post, “Public Choice and Electricity: Kiesling Ducks Again (Plano, Tx.…