Here we go...LinkedIn has, without explanation, taken down my popular evisceration of COP 26. The last time they took down a post of mine they ended up reinstating it and apologizing...

Help fight suppression of the truth by continuing to share the Twitter version of this video.
Here's what happened the last time LinkedIn took down a post of mine...they were obviously wrong, and to their credit, reinstated the post and apologized. But it took a lot of public attention to get there.

@reidhoffman want to help expedite the process?…
As I said in the video that LinkedIn is currently suppressing, if platforms are doing fact-checking they shouldn't be trying to fact-check me--I have the best research team in the world on these issues--they should be trying to hire me and my team.
Update: After I publicly complained about LinkedIn removing my post, LinkedIn followed up quickly.

But then LinkedIn removed my post complaining about LinkedIn removing my post!

So now LinkedIn has two posts they need to reinstate...
CC @reidhoffman

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Alex Epstein

Alex Epstein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlexEpstein

11 Nov
Before and during COP 26, I have claimed that it is not a scientific conference but a pseudoscientific, anti-human conference that is pursuing mass-genocide.

The COP 26 Agreement has proven me right. Here are the top 5 reasons the Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human.
Reason 1 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It calls for the rapid elimination of fossil fuels—the source of 80% of the world’s energy—without addressing the *cost* of doing so. In fact, the word “cost” is not mentioned once in the Agreement!
Reason 2 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It totally ignores the benefits of low-cost, reliable energy in general and fossil fuels in particular. The word “energy” is not mentioned once, even though COP 26 is trying to eliminate 80% of the world’s energy!
Read 7 tweets
10 Nov
John Kerry casually mentioned in a COP 26 interview that the US won't be using any coal by 2030.

What an ignorant and presumptuous wannabe dictator he is.

In the last several years, reliable, *resilient* coal has bailed out solar, wind, and even natural gas many times.

This past winter, reliable, resilient coal bailed out solar/wind (which largely disappear when it's very cold) as well as natural gas (which is more vulnerable than coal to supply disruptions) in many states including OK--see this quote from @GovStitt.
The disastrous TX blackouts should have taught us that we need power plants that are 1) reliable and 2) resilient. Reliable means: they can produce as much power as we need, when we need it. Resilient means: they can keep producing power even under adverse conditions.
Read 8 tweets
9 Nov
Since the global media have no interest in publicizing the pro-energy activists in poor countries who are challenging COP 26, I will. Here are some comments by @nj_ayuk, head of the Africa Energy Chamber, who points out that "600 million Africans have no lights."

"I respect China and Russia who aren’t attending #COP26. They’ve no intention of playing games and will drive up their energy industry while the West impoverishes their citizens through radical action."
--African energy leader @nj_ayuk
"Ironically not attending is better for the planet than the hypocrites arriving by private jets and burning a few million litres of rocket fuel through the atmosphere every 5 minutes to show off to their friends and lecturing Africans to go green immediately..."
Read 8 tweets
8 Nov
Barack Obama is at COP 26 telling young people "vote like your life depends on it, because it does." That's true, but not the way Obama means it. Hundreds of millions of young people's lives depend on voting against fossil fuel elimination policies.…
The fossil fuel elimination policies Barack Obama is advocating would prevent billions of people, including hundreds of millions of young people, from getting the low-cost, reliable energy they desperately need.
Fact: Escaping poverty requires using lots of low-cost, reliable energy.

Fact: only 1.5B people use even 1/3 as much electricity as the avg American.

Fact: over 3B people use less electricity than an avg American refrigerator.

Eliminating fossil fuel would make this far worse.
Read 4 tweets
3 Nov
How passing the reconciliation bill will destroy American energy, part 2

The reconciliation bill's 10-year extension and increase of solar and wind subsidies will drive more and more reliable power plants off the grid, lead to skyrocketing prices and frequent blackouts.

The reconciliation bill calls for a 10-year extension and increase of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) subsidy for solar and the Production Tax Credit (PTC) subsidy for wind, which pay utilities to slow down or shut down reliable power plants whenever the sun shines or wind blows.
Solar+wind cannot provide the reliable energy that our amazing electrical grid requires 24/7. That’s why every place in the world that uses unreliable solar+wind depends 24/7 on massive amounts of reliable energy from coal, gas, hydro, or nuclear plants.
Read 13 tweets
3 Nov
At COP 26, politicians and celebrities are calling for the world to rapidly eliminate fossil fuels because otherwise we will pass the dreaded 1.5°C threshold of warming.

But we should not fear 1.5°C--we should fear the genocidal consequences of eliminating fossil fuels.

A goal of limiting warming to 1.5° since the 1800s has no scientific basis whatsoever. The 1800s were a very cold time (Little Ice Age) and the 1°C warming since then has coincided with the greatest improvement in human life in history—in large part due to fossil fuels.
When people talk about 1.5°C of warming as catastrophic, it's even more absurd than it sounds because it's not 1.5°C warming starting now, it's 1.5°C total since the 1800s. Which means 0.5°C warmer than now--in a world where far more people die of cold than of heat.
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!