This article immediately raised a lot of red flags. Lots of rhetorical techniques to create false familiarity and empathy ("Feeling like you’re doing the right

This article immediately raised a lot of red flags. Lots of rhetorical techniques to create false familiarity and empathy ("Feeling like you’re doing the right thing doesn’t mean you are. I just couldn’t admit it. My sense of identity was tied to my false beliefs about energy" ... implicity, just like you!). The repeated use of "false" and "untrue". The tie to basic propaganda levers like "security" and "liberty and self-determination" You then find: https://briangitt.com/how-to-win-the-energy-war-tell-better-stories/ https://briangitt.com/how-to-win-the-energy-war-tell-better-... where he basically admits it, "When it comes to ideological warfare, whoever tells the best story wins. Energy companies need to stop fighting a defensive battle and go on the offensive. Recapture the narrative high ground and craft compelling counter-narratives to highlight the essential contribution of fossil fuels to human well-being" For another taste of this, https://briangitt.com/solars-dirty-secrets-how-solar-power-hurts-people-and-the-planet/ https://briangitt.com/solars-dirty-secrets-how-solar-power-h... "In fact, solar panels require 10 times the minerals to deliver the same quantity of energy as a natural gas plant" Which is just a bald-faced use of misinformation there. I think a comparison to ongoing use of natural gas would look better, instead of "minerals". Intentional apples-to-orange comparisons are another part of misinformation techniques. Fortunately, he has a sloppy social media history - https://mobile.twitter.com/BrianGitt/status/1516098825449971716 https://mobile.twitter.com/BrianGitt/status/1516098825449971... "Thanks to @AlexEpstein I had an amazing weekend discussing the future of energy with @peterthiel , @ShellenbergerMD , & other energy leaders. I'm excited to watch Alex's book Fossil Future open people's eyes to the critical role energy plays in making the world a better place" It's clear if you go back in archive.org and look at his podcast history, it seems that he is very interested in communication and media. I would not be surprised, based on his site and social media presence, if he was being compensated in some form for improving the image of the fossil fuel industry. I don't disagree with him on every point, either. He's not wrong about nuclear and he's not wrong that renewables are a cure-all. That's the point of good misinformation, mixing truth in carefully to create certain outcomes. This is frightening though, it is crafted misinformation for a HN audience.