By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Get off your high horse, all of us are ‘pro climate’, you just have a different view on how to achieve that. Mr. Bradley interacts with anyone who challenges his statements. As far as your charge that he, “declare a position”? He does so every day. Catch up….” Mark Rohrbacher to Thomas Ortman (below)

Social media exchanges between free market and government energy/climate proponents are an excellent way to understand the arguments, politics, and motivations of all involved. Cancel culture not, may the best ideas win. Here is a LinkedIn exchange of note, where I (and others) rebut a familiar ad hominem. In this case, one Thomas Ortman just … disappeared.

The exchange occurred with a post by Gavin Mooney, self-described “energy transition optimist.”. “Batteries have taken a huge leap forward in California this spring, soaking up solar during the day and discharging it when it’s needed in the evening” he wrote. I responded:

Sure, but at what cost, economically and ecologically? Resources are scarce….. Government does not create but redistributes from the many to the political elite.

A discussion followed from both sides (167 comments in the last week), including this ad hominem.

Geoffrey Lakings: what needs to be understood in regards to IER & their bias can be summarized in this one statement, “The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a nonprofit ‘partner’ organization of the American Energy Alliance, which is a 501(c)(4) grassroots organization designed to communicate IER’s policies to voters. The groups are run by Tom Pyle, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries.”

Mark Rohrbacher: All non profits have their benefactors, Greenpeace, Tides Foundation, Rockefeller, etc. Is it really necessary for us to “tit for tat” Soros and company vs. “ The Koch Brothers”?

I am so sick of “green advocates” painting their opposition as “evil” or posting with a ulterior motive just because of the organization that they belong to. It’s repeated over and over on LinkedIn and cheapens the level of discourse.

Rob Bradley: Geoffrey S Lakings Classical liberal on the education and public policy advocacy sides. Pro consumer, taxpayer, freedom, and environment. What is your beef? Our several thousand supporters want to know.

The idea that wind, solar, and batteries are ecological and that government should override consenting adults with their energy choices put the burden of proof on you.

Thomas Ortman: Thank You Geoffrey S Lakings. This makes all the sense in the world having watched Rob Bradley tossing hand grenades into any clean energy/ clean tech discussion for years. It was clear that there was a major bias, but I did not know the backstory.

Rob, we all have biases. Mine is strongly pro-climate and I am not paid to promote what I believe to be true and ethical. The difference is that you are clearly well informed on the subject and yet often toss out misinformation/disinformation which I find to be very disingenuous. It appears you take pleasure in tossing out an ounce of malcontent and generating five pounds of response. I suppose that as yours is a paid position, it would be reasonable to ask for you to declare your position and to come out in favor of *something*, ( as opposed to your constant brush fires with nothing constructive to offer).
If your bias/employer is to support oil and gas – fine, have sufficient integrity to claim as much. Then we can have an honest discussion regarding all of the critical areas that the O&G sector can provide critical and profitable contributions.

Mark Rohrbacher: “If your bias/employer is to support oil and gas … have sufficient integrity to claim as much.” He hides nothing. Get off your high horse, all of us are “pro climate”, you just have a different view on how to achieve that. Mr. Bradley interacts with anyone who challenges his statements. As far as your charge that he, “declare a position”? He does so every day. Catch up…

Rob Bradley: Thomas Ortman Wrong. You have reversed the causality. Beliefs first, funding last. And no, I do not carry the water for any company or industry but for consumers, taxpayers, freedom, and … the environment against wind, solar, and batteries.

I have been classical liberal since high school and through a corporate career where I challenged my Enron superiors who were pushing climate alarmism and promoting government subsidies for their wind and solar investments.

Read the emails here to judge for yourself.

Rob Bradley: Thomas Ortman Your business profile includes “Goal of expanding this base into related areas of … clean energy products, including; Solar Energy, Solid State Lighting, Energy, Energy Storage and Clean Technologies led to a merger with Voltabox of Texas, Inc.”

So note that I do not use ad hominem against you for your bread-and-butter. In fact, I never do so except in certain instances, such as the conflict of interest with Chris Tomlinson, business editorialist at the Houston Chronicle here.

————————–

And Thomas Ortman disappeared ….

By Jim Steele

The short answer, based on peer-reviewed science is, small increases in solar insolation increase the tropical trade winds. Stronger trade winds push the Pacific Ocean into a La Nina-like state that reduces cloud cover in the eastern Pacific and eastern Atlantic. Less cloud cover during La Nina-like conditions increase heat flux into the oceans, where the greatest heat flux is now observed. That greater flux warms the oceans and via ocean currents warms the world as it ventilates, as it does now. In contrast El Nino-like conditions increase cloud cover over the eastern Pacific and reduces heat flux into the oceans which cools the world as it did during the Little Ice Age.

In the American southwest, natural La Nina-like conditions induce dry climates and reduce vegetation. Panel “A” from Jimenez-Moreno (2021) using proxy evidence from precipitation-sensitive Pinyon Pines in southwest, illustrates 1200 years of climate change and the oscillating effects of EL Nino and La Nina. When solar irradiance was low during the solar minimums, reduced trade winds created EL Nino-like conditions that enabled greater precipitation across the southwest, and greater growth of Pinyon Pines during the Little Ice Age (LIA) from 1400 to 1850 AD.

Previously from 800 to 1400 AD, solar maximums increased the trade winds and caused the American southwest to suffer megadroughts due to dominance of La Nina-like conditions.

Panel “B” represents the standard contrast between El Nino and La Nino events. During La Nina-like conditions, strong trade winds blow warm water to the west and cause upwelling of cool subsurface water which reduces cloud cover. Reduced cloud cover amplifies solar heating of the oceans. Thus, Southwest megadroughts and warmer temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period strongly correlate with La Nina-like conditions.

During El Nino-like conditions the trade winds are weakened, allowing warmer water to slosh eastward increasing cloud cover over the eastern Pacific. The decrease in solar insolation cools the ocean and the climate and correlates with the Little Ice Age.

Panel “C” from Cronin (2024) illustrates the heat flux into the ocean during the instrumental period. The greatest heat flux into the ocean (red regions) happens in the eastern Pacific, exactly where La Nina-like conditions reduce cloud cover. That solar heat is stored in the subsurface and transported via ocean currents poleward. The blue regions represent areas where more heat ventilates out of the ocean than enters. Thus those regions do not warm the oceans, but cool the oceans. There is no global ocean warming. Ocean warming is local!

You can recognize ignorant climate alarmists who try to dismiss the effects of ENSO falsely stating there is no net warming from ENSO, because it simply causes a back and forth warming and cooling that doesn’t affect long term climate change. They are indisputably ignorant or dishonest.

Further discussion of ENSO and solar effects by Dr Javier Vinos are seen at :

How we know that the sun changes climate (II).