DeSmogBlog describes itself as “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science.” This site is 100 percent against (consumer-driven) fossil fuels in the name of climate alarmism and advocates forced energy transformation. Such statism is anti-consumer and, via de-industrialization, anti-wealth.

As part of their effort, DeSmog has profiled just about everyone of note on the free-market, contra-Malthusian side of the energy and climate debate. I am among the hundreds (wow–does not sound like there is climate consensus!) in their Global Disinformation Database” as a ‘denier’.

Robert L. Bradley Jr., begins with a quick (impartial) review of my credentials and background before going to three categories: Stance on Climate Change, Key Quotes, and Key Deeds.

I reproduce their dozen or so quotations taken from my oeuvre — and have nothing to retract.…

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2011/12/27/americas-massive-energy-potential-awaits-mr-president/#447f1f003e66

The fossil-fuel energy era is not waning. Quite the opposite; it is still young.

For decades, activists have been trying to convince the American people that declining resources would forever make us dependent on expensive foreign oil. But according to a new report from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) on North America’s energy resources, that line of thinking is flat-out false. Based on the latest official statistics, domestic oil, natural gas, and coal deposits are much more extensive than commonly realized.

The real problem is that much of our resources are not being developed because of antiquated, heavy-handed government regulations. As a consequence, the American economy is being deprived of significant job creation and new investments.

Consider this. Total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels, which is more oil than the entire world has used over the last 150 years.…

“This house believes that subsidizing renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.”

– ECONOMIST magazine, Online debate, November 8–18, 2011

[Ed. Note: Six years ago, the prestigious Economist magazine held an on-line debate on the future of energy policy. Despite a loaded affirmative motion (above), an upset victory was achieved with 8,916 votes opposed and 8,346 in favor of the proposition. The third most votes of 92 such debates, 70,000 visits produced 448 comments. Jon Boone’s writeup of the debate is reproduced below.]

Last month, The Economist magazine conducted a two-week Oxford style online debate over the proposition “that subsidizing renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.”

“Renewable” in this case is really politically correct renewables: basically wind power, with some solar and a bit of of biofuel/geothermal thrown in.…

[Editor Note: Advertising for the premier energy conference CERAWeek 2018 is in full swing. Two years ago, Daniel Yergin was urged to invite Alex Epstein to present the moral case for fossil fuels. Today, with fossil fuels on the ascent, it is surely time to feature the world’s hottest energy philosopher. Thus, this February 22, 2016, post is reprinted verbatim.

“If good and evil are measured by the standard of human well-being and human progress, we must conclude that the fossil fuel industry is not a necessary evil to be restricted but a superior good to be liberated.”

“We don’t need green energy–we need humanitarian energy.”

– Alex Epstein, “At CERAWeek Fossil Fuel Leaders Should Make A Moral Case For Their Industry,” Forbes.com., February 18, 2016.

For many years, make that decades, I have noted Daniel Yergin’s political bias at the annual CERA conference here in Houston.…