{"id":453654,"date":"2026-07-03T10:09:46","date_gmt":"2026-07-03T17:09:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=453654"},"modified":"2026-07-03T10:09:48","modified_gmt":"2026-07-03T17:09:48","slug":"adaptation-think-about-it-a-free-market-jihadist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=453654","title":{"rendered":"Adaptation: Think about It (a \u2018free-market jihadist\u2019?)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From Master Resource<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Robert Bradley Jr.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ed. note<\/strong>: This exchange in 2019<\/a> between Robert Bradley and climate scientist\/activist Andrew Dessler<\/a> regards adaptation as the key climate policy. It is reposted for its relevance in today\u2019s debate over air conditioning (see yesterday\u2019s post<\/a>). \u201cClimate mastery\u201d via fossil fuels, as Alex Epstein has emphasized, is the natural, most rewarding public policy. [1]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWith the very unique situation of CO2 (a global externality of positives and negatives), government mitigation is doomed to fail. Sooner or later, you will have to admit that politics failed, that fossil fuels were just too good given the alternatives of non-use, renewables, nuclear.\u201d (Bradley to Dessler #1, August 3, 2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe have not only market failure<\/em> but also analytical failure<\/em> (imperfect you, me, others) and government failure<\/em>, which is magnified by 190 or so governments.\u201d (Bradley to Dessler #2, August 3, 2019)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I have been critical of Texas A&M climatologist<\/a> and Green New Dealer<\/a> Andrew Dessler for some time now. He is far too certain<\/a> about climate doom (\u201cclimate dystopia,<\/a>\u201d to use his term) and refuses to see the risks in climate policy<\/em>, not only physical climate change. Most of all, he seems blind to human ingenuity regarding anticipating<\/em> and adapting to<\/em> weather extremes and climate change from any source, natural or anthropogenic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forwarding Professor Dessler a post from Marion Tupy of the Cato Institute, \u201cThe Cost of Air-Conditioning Fell by 97 Percent Since 1952<\/a>,\u201d I made a case for fossil fuels being the answer whether or not fossil fuels were the problem. My communication was inspired by the fact that Dessler was revising his Introduction to Modern Climate Change<\/em> primer for Cambridge University Press, very timely given a need to rectify a number of important omissions (I listed 11 here<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seeing Dessler\u2019s Tweet (below) referring to me as a \u201cfree-market jihadist,\u201d I am inspired to share our entire exchange and let the reader decide who is on the right track, realistically imagining how free, enabled humans can survive thrive in a warming world (again, natural or human-caused).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dessler Tweet (August 7th)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Exchange: Bradley to Dessler (August 2, 2019)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor Dessler: You mentioned in a tweet that you are revising your science textbook, which hitherto has included a political economy section.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One point to inform your supporters and engage your critics. The debate over adaptation versus mitigation will only grow in importance because of the saturation effect of CO2 atmospheric concentrations on the one hand and the ongoing internalization of the costs of extreme weather (from whatever source) on the other (\u2018as if led by an invisible hand\u2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The weakness in your political economy argument is the affordability and thus practicality of Adaptation in free societies governed by private property, voluntary exchange, and the rule of law. It should be a reason that you favor free markets even more than if the climate issue did not exist. We need free trade (not protectionism, including CO2 tariffs) to increase wealth. We need free migration where people vulnerable to weather can vote with their feet (but not overrun a welfare state).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We need the world to be air-conditioned inside and outside (see below). We need underground walking networks like in Houston to avoid heat, rain, whatever. We need bubbles over large recreation areas in certain places.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is where the future is headed as our wealth increases to shape our world the way we like it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More CO2 emissions from all this? More negative climate change? Remember the positives from the CO2 fertilization effect and from climate change\u2014and note that the wealth from dense, reliable, carbon-based energy solves the \u2018problem\u2019 of climate change (or just extreme weather). And it has for a long time. Perhaps the most important statistic for the climate debate is the large reduction in climate-related deaths since measurements began.  See Bjorn Lomborg here<\/a>. If you dispute the statistics or have a different interpretation, do so in your books. (Don\u2019t duck!)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some wealth-is-health quotations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cClimate is no longer a major cause of deaths, thanks in large part to fossil fuels.\u2026 Not only are we ignoring the big picture by making the fight against climate danger the fixation of our culture, we are \u2018fighting\u2019 climate change by opposing the weapon that has made it dozens of times less dangerous. The popular climate discussion has the issue backward. It looks at man as a destructive force for climate livability, one who makes the climate dangerous because we use fossil fuels. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite; we don\u2019t take a safe climate and make it dangerous; we take a dangerous climate and make it safe. High-energy civilization, not climate, is the driver of climate livability.\u201d (Alex Epstein, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels<\/em>, pp. 126-127.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe don\u2019t need green energy\u2013we need humanitarian energy.\u201d (Alex Epstein, \u201cAt CERAWeek Fossil Fuel Leaders Should Make A Moral Case For Their Industry,\u201d Forbes.com., February 18, 2016.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Your books need to sharpen the discussion of energy density as a backdrop to the above debate (you do deal with intermittency). Vaclav Smil is the person you need to understand (he is Bill Gates\u2019s favorite energy analyst).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I hope this will inspire more analysis of the issues. And please let me know of your counter-arguments if you feel I am missing some important analysis. I\u2019m all ears and eyes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dessler\u2019s Response (August 2, 2019)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo your argument is that doing nothing about climate change and letting everyone take of themselves is better than the collective response of avoiding even the worst-case climate change scenario?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bradley to Dessler #2 (August 3, 2019)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Your formulation, which I know was a quickie, is not the way to characterize my position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You stated: \u201cSo your argument is that doing nothing about climate change and letting everyone take of themselves is better than the collective response of avoiding even the worst-case climate change scenario?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDoing nothing\u201d is a misrepresentation. I want to do a lot\u2014but not<\/em> use the power of government to override consumers\/taxpayers by pricing CO2 emissions, etc. to artificially hurt fossil fuels in the energy mix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n