Good reporting! I am sensing a widening crack in the armor of the "climate change" narrative. Common Sense Analysis is becoming relevant to the CO2 debate. We are almost at the point where "everyone knows" that the climate emergency is a scam. But most people who know this don't yet know that practically everyone else knows it, too. Maybe Chris Wright will be the child who says, "The Emperor has no clothes on!" And that might be the point at which everyone knows that everyone else knows that they have been scammed. That will be when the sentiment will change quickly and radically. I am rooting for Chris Wright, big time.
A fabulous job outlining a very important/difficult narrative. As for MSM they are still somewhat relevant because many people watch them on the morning or evening “newscasts”. But with podcasts and so many very well informed writers on Substack the truth is slowly becoming known by more and more people. It’s only baby steps but that seems to be very effective at getting people to listen and educate themselves. Please keep up your excellent work and effort! 🗽🧹👊🇺🇸
Great post! The first quote you provide (from ABC News) is a good example of the legacy media distortion field:
> one of the most outspoken critics of efforts to combat climate change
That’s a very negative framing of Chris’s position. He has argued _for_ energy abundance and making sure everyone one in the world can benefit from plentiful energy, just as we can in the western world.
He is also advocating for low carbon energy. However he doesn’t make carbon reduction his only goal.
> Posting this video on LinkedIn in the last year. ‘There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition either.’ But 99% of climate scientists agree humans are causing global warming and climate change.”
These two sentences conpare two different things and misleadingly give the impression that Chris either rejects the existence of climate change or humans impact on it. He does neither. He is saying that climate change is real but it’s not a crisis. As Roger Pielke Jr points out, if you actually read the IPCC AR6 reports (not the summary for policymakers or press releases!) you’ll arrive to the same conclusion.
Thank you for your well-chosen transcript of Chris Wright's YouTube video. With some light editing, it could serve as the executive summary of Chris Wright's 2024 book "Bettering Human Lives (BHL)." A no-cost download of his excellent book is available at https://libertyenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Bettering-Human-Lives-2024-Web-Liberty-Energy.pdf The Liberty Energy BHL page includes a form where you may request a printed copy of Chris Wright's book at no charge.
This is a great post, thank you, but even greater is the choice of Mr. Wright and Mr. Burgum for key cabinet positions. I pray they can lead us back to a world where first, humanity matters, and second, it is understood that affordable, reliable energy is the only pathway to improving that humanity. Early this year, Mr. Wright's company published “Bettering Human Lives.” A thorough and insightful review of this work would be a great subject for a future post. One of the key takeaways from that effort is this statement: “Zero Energy Poverty by 2050 is a superior goal compared to Net Zero 2050.” Personally, I think this statement worries the climate crazies far more than his stance on the climate “crisis.”
A recent study from UNC found “substantial instances of energy poverty in the United States – 16% of households experience energy poverty as presently defined as spending more than 6% of household income on energy expenditures.” Energy poverty is a term far better understood and far more immediate than the esoteric, not to mention incredibly ambiguous term climate change. “Zero energy poverty” is a campaign slogan that can be easily identified with real needs and real problems.
In the US, most energy poverty arises from inability to afford rising energy prices for heating and cooling. Globally, it arises from the lack of access to modern energy services. Families are still cooking with camel and buffalo dung. Instead of programs to make rich men richer (renewable subsidies), why not programs to help with energy costs and access to safer indoor energy sources. Energy poverty is a subject I would like to see addressed in this space. Additionally, how the improvement of safer indoor heating and cooking can reduce the overall death print of fossil fuels.
So it sounds like using ever increasing fossil fuels will not have an adverse effect on the environment as long as there are no particulates, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides or ground level ozone . . . life will be good.
Good reporting! I am sensing a widening crack in the armor of the "climate change" narrative. Common Sense Analysis is becoming relevant to the CO2 debate. We are almost at the point where "everyone knows" that the climate emergency is a scam. But most people who know this don't yet know that practically everyone else knows it, too. Maybe Chris Wright will be the child who says, "The Emperor has no clothes on!" And that might be the point at which everyone knows that everyone else knows that they have been scammed. That will be when the sentiment will change quickly and radically. I am rooting for Chris Wright, big time.
A fabulous job outlining a very important/difficult narrative. As for MSM they are still somewhat relevant because many people watch them on the morning or evening “newscasts”. But with podcasts and so many very well informed writers on Substack the truth is slowly becoming known by more and more people. It’s only baby steps but that seems to be very effective at getting people to listen and educate themselves. Please keep up your excellent work and effort! 🗽🧹👊🇺🇸
Great post! The first quote you provide (from ABC News) is a good example of the legacy media distortion field:
> one of the most outspoken critics of efforts to combat climate change
That’s a very negative framing of Chris’s position. He has argued _for_ energy abundance and making sure everyone one in the world can benefit from plentiful energy, just as we can in the western world.
He is also advocating for low carbon energy. However he doesn’t make carbon reduction his only goal.
> Posting this video on LinkedIn in the last year. ‘There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition either.’ But 99% of climate scientists agree humans are causing global warming and climate change.”
These two sentences conpare two different things and misleadingly give the impression that Chris either rejects the existence of climate change or humans impact on it. He does neither. He is saying that climate change is real but it’s not a crisis. As Roger Pielke Jr points out, if you actually read the IPCC AR6 reports (not the summary for policymakers or press releases!) you’ll arrive to the same conclusion.
Thank you for your well-chosen transcript of Chris Wright's YouTube video. With some light editing, it could serve as the executive summary of Chris Wright's 2024 book "Bettering Human Lives (BHL)." A no-cost download of his excellent book is available at https://libertyenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Bettering-Human-Lives-2024-Web-Liberty-Energy.pdf The Liberty Energy BHL page includes a form where you may request a printed copy of Chris Wright's book at no charge.
This is a great post, thank you, but even greater is the choice of Mr. Wright and Mr. Burgum for key cabinet positions. I pray they can lead us back to a world where first, humanity matters, and second, it is understood that affordable, reliable energy is the only pathway to improving that humanity. Early this year, Mr. Wright's company published “Bettering Human Lives.” A thorough and insightful review of this work would be a great subject for a future post. One of the key takeaways from that effort is this statement: “Zero Energy Poverty by 2050 is a superior goal compared to Net Zero 2050.” Personally, I think this statement worries the climate crazies far more than his stance on the climate “crisis.”
A recent study from UNC found “substantial instances of energy poverty in the United States – 16% of households experience energy poverty as presently defined as spending more than 6% of household income on energy expenditures.” Energy poverty is a term far better understood and far more immediate than the esoteric, not to mention incredibly ambiguous term climate change. “Zero energy poverty” is a campaign slogan that can be easily identified with real needs and real problems.
In the US, most energy poverty arises from inability to afford rising energy prices for heating and cooling. Globally, it arises from the lack of access to modern energy services. Families are still cooking with camel and buffalo dung. Instead of programs to make rich men richer (renewable subsidies), why not programs to help with energy costs and access to safer indoor energy sources. Energy poverty is a subject I would like to see addressed in this space. Additionally, how the improvement of safer indoor heating and cooking can reduce the overall death print of fossil fuels.
Please keep up the good work. Thank you.
Nonsense is all they have now… and it is really obvious.
So it sounds like using ever increasing fossil fuels will not have an adverse effect on the environment as long as there are no particulates, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides or ground level ozone . . . life will be good.