For every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction
-Sir Issac Newton
The Green Elites howl until the cows come home that people who don’t subscribe to their positions on climate change and/or energy policy must be “tAkInG FoSsIl FuEl MoNeY.” While such a statement could be true, the accusation is also often made with no evidence.
But even if it is true, we offer the following advice: cry harder
takes it in a similar direction. In his Snappy Answers to Energy Questions post, one of the questions is, “do you believe in taking money from fossil fuel companies?” To which he replies, “I believe candidates should proudly take money from fossil fuel companies if they and the company support energy freedom policies. Fossil fuel companies are essential to the survival of 8 billion people for the foreseeable future.”Epstein has been accused by Michael Mann as being, "the Koch Brothers’ attack dog,” to which we ask Mr Mann, does the following look like a dog?
Epstein has clarified that accusation here and spoiler alert - the accusations are nonsense1.
Nearly individual or organization, no matter how noble or evil, is going to take financial support from others who share their views.
We offer a second piece of advice to those waxing hysteric and accusing others of conflicts of interest: show us any skeletons in your closet.
Are you taking money from special interests? The taxpayers? Etc?
As a hint: normal people can do this free of the fiat system, racism, sexism, or ageism.
Roger Pielke Jr. just published a piece somewhat suggesting just that. In, "When scientific integrity is undermined in pursuit of financial and political gain," he discusses his discovery of a climate researcher’s conflict of interest and among other things, just how common the phenomenon is among the circle who seem to be more than willing to fling the“tAkInG FoSsIl FuEl MoNeY,” at those they disagree with.
Among the many quotes he makes in that piece, one that really stands out is the following:"
Nothing could be more delegitimizing to climate science and policy than a toxic combination of unmitigated financial conflicts of interest and claims that climate researchers, by virtue of the noble cause, are exempt from the rules that govern every other setting where expertise and money intersect.
His piece also cites heavily the work of Professor Jessica Weinkle who also writes on Substack.
Pielke’s far more direct on Twitter however, which is what’s really interesting to us:
Peilke in his Subatack piece writes “I’m not naming the researcher (you can find him easily enough), because his case is far from unique in climate research these days, and this post is about a far bigger more important issue.”
He has his reasons, and we respect those, as for not specifying the exact person in his Substack piece, but we could not help but notice it was already online.
So here it goes:
To Jenkins’ credit as well, he did state he had a conflict of interest.
Sonoma Power is one of the Community Choice Aggregators we mentioned in the previous piece for what it’s worth.
And spoiler alert again: Epstein is a human, not a dog, or honey badger.
Honey badger don't care. LOL. Can't wait for the narrative to flip to "human flourishing actually depends on all forms of energy, especially the ones that are dense, low cost and already here for us to use."