McKibben looks as a member of the Climate cult who is anxious about the eminent doom, probably he reads the Apocalypse every day and adapts it to climate catastrophe.
McKibben: here are 15 of the most horrible things that might, could, maybe happen because I and my friends say so. McKibben later: Alex didn’t say anything that made me feel good. I think this, in a very real way, is what many of the people who are alarmists want - they want to “feel good” about their lives and actions. It’s truly become a religion for some people.
This debate is ludicrous in that Bill has a list of negatives that will happen because of devastating results of co2 emissions - The other side of the argument is that this premise is isn't correct - there is no devastating climate change. One of these sides is completely wrong.
@@WillyWanka Usually all or nothing assertions are misleading. If there is no devastating climate change then it is business, as usual, it's not wrong. The other side is an all or nothing proposition. either you submit to our plans to control everything in your life (energy use impacts every single moment in life) or the world ends.
"The Netherlands is underwater". Yeah, must be because of all those fossils fuels they burned back in the 15th century. I guess this "professor" must have missed the part in geology class where we learned about this little event called the ice age that ended around 10,000 years ago and we been on a warming trend ever since. Couldn't possibly be why the oceans are rising, though.
We're still technically in an ice age, but we're in an "inter glacial" period within an ice age. We're actually due for a glacial--think glaciers in the Midwest, the most productive farmland in the world. Would be great if fossil fuels actually held off the next glacial for a few hundred years. :-P
"Everybody knows that in the future we're gonna power our lives with solar and wind" - Whoa, that is a HUGE statement to make, Mr Tribe Shaman Bill! Where did you get this arcane knowledge from? The guys who said that FireWire is the future? The Wii designers? guys who said CDs and DVDs are the medium of the future that we will use for centuries to come? Puh-lease...
We can see why the alarmists refuse any debate now, and people will just shut down any speaker who does not promote alarmism: they don't make any sense.
One wonders how oceans and ocean species survived from Cambrian to the Jurassic period when CO2 concentration was above 2000ppm if the current 400ppm can cause so much damage
McKibben seems to think that listing bad things that are happening is all you need to do to establish causation. _The point_ of this debate is to establish a causal link between the use of fossil fuels and a net negative effect on humanity, not to try to scare people with apocalyptic threats.
Consensus of scientists are with the causal link as presented by McKibben as I understand it, and Epstein refused to address any of them. I'm trying to keep an open mind but it's hard to take Epstein seriously if he doesn't even attempt to refuse the specifics as presented by McKibben. He's not trying because he can't, is what I take from it.
Scientists are our servants, not our kings. Scientists are humans who can be influenced or biased. We are their patrons through taxes / grants. The developing world will not stop using fossil fuels, because otherwise they will die. Therefore the climate change issue is a moral and philosophical argument NOT a scientific one. Besides the polar ice caps have been melting forever, how do you thing our ancestors got to Australasia?
1. Scientists can be biased. Yes they can, but a loosely connected group of experts, who earn from various and varied employers (or not at all), and dispersed through out the world arriving at the same conclusion, is much less open to bias (exponentially so) than an open consultant for the fossil fuel industry. 2. Is moral issue *only*, not scientific one. Patently false as although I agree in that it is a moral issue, it is also a scientific issue with apparatus measurables and expert knowledge employed at every juncture. Epstein had to clue himself up to the climate-scientist-level because experts carve their profession on it. To say it is not a scientific issue at all is to say that rocket science and brain surgery aren't either, becuase they may also have philosophical/moral implications, which is anti-intellectual and simply absurd. 3. Fossil fuelds provide food and save lives. This is true and is acknowledged by all parties (McGibben had to repeat it several times because Epstein kept referring to it as if it went unacknowledged). To say that we should not do anything to invest in alternatives in the internet and silicon chip age is a nonsense and current tech trends agree. 4. Polar ice caps always melting. I've looked this up and they simply disagree with your implied lack of causal link between fossil fuels and this. On this climate change denial, it goes back to my old record: It's their word against yours. I suppose you will simply not acknowledge their expert authority on this issue as you have done above and that is your prerogative.
Yeah you're actually dead wrong. First of, the casual links between the effects on society is not something scientists deal with. This is for social science. And the last IPCC report that had anything on discount rate showed that it was not worth to do anything about it for 60+ years, because first then is the discount rate low enough. Meaning: We have a bunch of other problems to solve first before we solve this one. At this moment in time, the consensus is that it would be a waste of money and resources. Most of what McKibben presented is pure speculation on what will happen. And there scientists disagree. Like take malaria for instance, it might very well decrease because of the effect on wetlands. It probably will, since wetlands is a bigger factor for mosquitos than temperature. I live in a part of Sweden where sometimes of the year you can't even be outside because there's so many mosquitos. That's not due to it being warm, but due to it being wet at the beginning of the summer.
Visfen Oh Jesus don't tell me you think the climate is a social construct? I like the rest of your points, but social scientists might be the least useful people to ask if raising C02 would have catastrophic effects on human life, how it is caused, and what we should do about it.
Dear God, McKibben doesn't understand what correlation versus causation is. Japan uses half as much energy and has longer life expectancy? Yea, and the number of shark attacks is directly correlated with ice cream consumption. So what? That's literally all of his data. Correlative. That one guy's question was spot-on. Then he has the gaul to point to single years of hot weather. This is the number one criticism these people level against "climate deniers", that they don't know the difference between weather and climate. Yet they're allowed to do it for some reason. And did he actually suggest quadrupling the amount of farmers as a necessary outcome of switching from fossil fuels? He literally thinks 3% of the nation will switch to farming? This guy is anti-human bonkers. He defends his point about "ocean acidification", but fails to actually talk about Alex's point, which is that oceans are BASIC in nature, and they got .1 points LESS basic. Technically that is the same as "becoming more acidic", but this is a room of uninformed viewers. So to use those exact words is extremely misleading. The common person has a very different understanding of what "acid" means. So to say the oceans are "turning acidic" is rhetorically irresponsible. Honestly, the open and shut case is that he's against fracking. Which is, by any stretch of the imagination, a scientific miracle. These people are so obsessed with wind or solar that they literally will not listen to other ideas. It's a freaking religion.
In a world of political correctness and other progressivism madness, it is refreshing to hear the intellectual level and maturity of the questions of the students of that university, no matter the side they were on. It almost restored my faith in the future of mankind.
Lying is an art form for some. Call your moral position 'progressive' when it's clearly 'regressive' and you've nearly shut down comments on how your position will surely result in a return to feudalism.
My husband was working in the oil fields doing fracking. He drove the trucks with the liquid that is injected into the sand. After about 1 1/2 years his hair and teeth started to fall out. I made him quit and we left that area (Oklahoma Panhandle). The problem stopped. No one can tell me that those men were not exposed to toxins! I feel that we should seek another solution. Just thought you should all know this from first hand experience.
well the solution is using protective gear. That argument has as much value as me burning my hadn repeatedly from using gas stove for cooking. It can never be argument to not use gas just as much your experience is not argument to not use fossil fuels.
McKibben immediately responded by explaining the causation between increased temperature and reduced grain yields and citing a highly reputable source. In fact, Epstein committed the same logical fallacy of mixing up causation and correlation when referring to increased fossil fuel use and reduced "climate-related deaths"
@@c.j.h1611 To be fair, I don't think Epstein was attempting to suggest that fossil fuels CAUSED a reduction so much as to demonstrate that the people who "predicted" that climate-related/caused catastrophes would happen during that period if we continued to use fossil fuels were all clearly wrong.
@@thekalamerchant Even given that charitable interpretation, it's still an incoherent point. Climate related deaths are very difficult to isolate (if we count deaths due to a storm, how many of those deaths are due to climate change induced increased magnitude of the storm? How can we determine how many extra people died in a heatwave because of the extra intensity due to climate change?) but even if we could measure them, their increased number could be outweighed by other progress made, such as improved access to malaria medication or reduced child mortality. Does this mean that hostile-to-humanity climate conditions are not a problem?
@@c.j.h1611 I don't see how the point is incoherent. Even if we were to allow for a considerable margin of error and attribute ALL of those climate-related deaths to fossil fuel induced climate change with 100% certainty, the trend is still negative, at most, stagnant, which is still completely the opposite effect of what we should expect to see given the catastrophes that were predicted would happen. They said if we continue to use the same amount of fuel that was used at that time (70/80s, I believe) continuously for a certain period we would experience x catastrophic effects. Meanwhile, we used even MORE fossil fuels at a higher rate and got nowhere near those effects. That's the point I believe Epstein was attempting to illustrate, and he made such a point in his book. But because of the nature of this debate, it made it more difficult for him to go into depth about that. He also states in his book that climate is indeed dangerous and even deadly, but that the technology that we create using fossil fuels allow us to more greatly and easily mitigate against those dangers, and indeed, ALL dangers associated with our environments. His essential point seems to be that the bulk of all of our technological advancements is due to the plentitude, affordability, and reliability of fossil fuels and that other energy sources do not (yet) even come close to providing us with what we need and will continue to need in this regard for the foreseeable future.
C.J. H , by your own admission “ climate related deaths are hard to isolate”. On what basis then McGibben claims that climate change increases human mortality with such certainty?
"The fact, fact and more facts". He just keeps repeating his facts, when they are not facts at all but conclusions. And the other side questions the validity of these conclusions.
He is a realist who is trying to move the needle towards the preservation of human life. How you get "delusions of grandeur" from that... is perplexing. Most especially since he isn't stating anything without backing it up with hard data, unlike the other guy. EDIT: Im sorry... for some reason I thought you were talking about Epstein... please revise accordingly :-) I do not like McKibben.
I always was puzzled with the whole climate changing end of the world scenario, I always wondered if increased CO2 would actually mean greening of earth due to fertilization, thus increase in fertility, considering dinosaurs lived in a more CO2 world and there was more life and vegetation and everything was bigger. Turns out I was right al along, read an article 2 weeks ago about how the satellite photos over the years show that the world is actually greening. So I embrace climate change, it looks like we are making the world a better place. in 30 years time this whole Climate Change era will be seen as nothing but annoying hippies 2.0, who just needed an excuse to make tents in public and have a reason to justify their lives.
One thing that bugs me about the "can't grow food any more" argument is it pretends that new farm land isn't opened up at the same time old farm land is rendered untenable. Could you imagine if Alaska could be farmed year round? It's half the size of the continental US, and there is nobody there. What about Canada? They are even bigger than the US, I bet they could supply the entire world several times over if they could farm year round. Not to say either of these would be a net good, but it's incredibly dishonest to ignore the very real positives that come with warming. You need to look at both sides of the equation and find the balance, not just decide one side is right and ignore everything else.
Whatever you think about either McKibben or Epstein, this is exactly the kind of more sophisticated debate that we need to be having. Epstein is, I think, very brave to stand up to orthodoxy on this, and call BS on some fundamental points that are generally under-considered, without sinking to crude or misleading debating tactics. That said, Mckibben is also well informed, and generally debating in good faith. I would love to see them try to hash this out even more in depth in future.
+rastamasta91, bravo! Well-reasoned comment. We certainly need more of this. In the end, the best solution will be some kind of balancing act. No one solution is best for everyone or every form of life. Oceans will benefit far more from global warming. Cooling now, would have oceans suck up more CO2 and become even more low pH. I don't call it "more acidic," because you cannot make more acidic what is not acidic in the first place. That would be like telling a skinny New York model that she is becoming more fat. The wording is extremely misleading. We live in an Ice Age. During the most recent glacial phase of this Ice Age, CO2 levels got within 30 ppm of the deadly "Red Line" of extinction. Many of the talking points against Global Warming mentioned in the press are outright lies, or half-truths, at best. Chief amongst them are, -- Global warming is bad. -- CO2 causes global warming. -- CO2 is bad. -- Global warming causes more droughts and deserts. -- Global warming results in more and stronger storms. Take the one about droughts, for instance. Ask yourself, How does land ever get water? Hint: Cold oceans don't evaporate enough. When the Holocene ends, we'll likely have something like 90,000 years without summers, rain, crops, food or civilization. Glacial periods are that brutal. Warming of as much as 20C would turn Earth into a veritable calm garden. The tropics would remain unchanged (minus the storms), deserts would shrink (like the Sahara becoming green for 3,000 years during the far warmer Holocene Optimum), and temperate zones would stretch all the way to the poles. Ice would either be seasonal or nonexistent. Those with an ice fetish can visit Europa or Callisto.
"I don't call it "more acidic," because you cannot make more acidic what is not acidic in the first place." Of course you can, is like making something that is heavy lighter. And is THE correct term scientifically too.
Rod Martin, Jr. 😂😂 "Those with an ice fetish can visit Europa or Callisto." Bravo man, best comment I've read here in my opinion. I like that you actually understand what the greenhouse effect is, and what it isn't. Carry on 👌
David V - Rod Martin Jr said: "Ice would either be seasonal or nonexistent". According to the USGS (United States Geological Survey) if all the ice on earth melted, sea level would rise by 80 meters (263 ft) Go see at: pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ Scroll all the way down to “Table 1” Where would all those people go? Rod Martin Jr said: "Warming of as much as 20C would turn Earth into a veritable calm garden". Read From The Guardian Monday 20 March 2017 20.39 EDT Record-breaking climate change pushes world into ‘uncharted territory’ Earth is a planet in upheaval, say scientists, as the World Meteorological Organization publishes analysis of recent heat highs and ice lows. Following 2016’s record-breaking heat (the year marked a new record as regards global average temperature), and 2017’s already quite strange weather, we are now in “truly uncharted territory,” according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organization. The last time that the world was this warm was around 115,000 years ago, and the last time that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were as high as they are now was around 4 million years ago. Read the full article at: www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/21/record-breaking-climate-change-world-uncharted-territory Read From The Guardian Thursday 1 December 2016 01.00 EST Climate change will stir 'unimaginable' refugee crisis, says military Unchecked global warming is greatest threat to 21st-century security where mass migration could be ‘new normal’, say senior military. R Adm Neil Morisetti, a former commander of the UK maritime forces and the UK’s climate and energy security envoy, said: “Climate change is a strategic security threat that sits alongside others like terrorism and state-on-state conflict, but it also interacts with these threats. It is complex and challenging; this is not a concern for tomorrow, the impacts are playing out today.” Read the full article at: www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/climate-change-trigger-unimaginable-refugee-crisis-senior-military Rod Martin Jr played you for a fool. He knows nothing.
Except McKibben kept interrupting Epstein when Epstein was taking time to rebut McKibben's accusations against Epstein. "He's filibustering!" Well no, he is responding to you, but he has no time to finish his thought he is expounding upon while you interject.
Epstein makes a lot of good points. I think the solution isn't to limit the use of fossil fuel through ban or restriction, but to render it obsolete and costly through technology. If we want to phase out fossil fuels, let's support research of alternative energy sources, or as Epstain argues, use fission nuclear energy.
Great stuff there, Epstein. What you're doing is really inspiring. I come from Norway, and sadly, there are almost no intellectual defending cheap, realible energy in this country.
@@ujjalshill6442 - one does not need to be a scientist to research and understand the science, that’s an old chestnut, good way to destroy the argument.
Since plants use CO2 to make Chlorophyll (along with Oxygen and carbohydrates), thus making the plant greener, how can anyone who wants to reduce CO2 call themselves "green" with a straight face?
+merry clingen You forget that we are an oceanic planet. And the vast majority of those life-forms are anarobic. Besides, drought kills more plants than a lack of CO2 by far.
+gugeyewalker Increased level of atmospheric CO2 is more beneficial for vegetation in arid areas than for plants in humid areas since increased atmospheric CO2 increases the plants water efficiency. It turns out you actually can have the cake and eat it too.
stian johansen This argument assumes that the eco-systems in play for the last several million years are no longer important, since you are talking about the destruction of certain plants in certain ecosystems, and then the dominance of different plants changing the ecosystem. Maybe this should be thought about eh? So which species of plants benefit from less water and more co2?
+gugeyewalker I think the assertion here is the "destruction of certain plants in certain ecosystems". Are there plants that respond negatively to increased atmospheric CO2?
What's clean energy! Solar? Where's the panels made? China. What's the panels made of? Materials that the west like USA and Canada and others have too many regulations, and if we're producing it the prices we could not afford. Disposal? What and Where? Wind? Steel main pool and the top mechanical part is made from oil and gas energy. The wings is all material made from chemical, about 8 to 10 tons each that could last ten years tops. Disposal? What and Where? The concrete foundation 80 feet in diameter by fifty feet deep is a large amount of material that's made from oil and gas energy, plus the steel rebar [ 500 tons ] in the concrete. Disposal? Just live it? What about the land it occupied? For every wind mill it need a minimum a thousand feet from one to the other, and the so called the vibration of wind waves that so many peoples are complaining from? Solar and Wind and other so called renewable energy are founded by our tax dollars, and the price increases now day is just from that. Thorium is the answer.
Even 6% misleading because its intermittent. 100% solar is bad because its intermittant. More, solar is parasitic on fossil fuels in operation and manufacture. Intermittant is a killer, eg, hospitals in Africa.
From my observation, it seems that McKibben's arguments are almost entirely appeals from authority. What I find refreshing about Epstein's argumentation is his use of clear reasoning and logic, rather than purely expecting spectators to trust in authority figures and their claims.
McKibbens point about vaccines is silly. Humanity wouldn’t have time to develop vaccines or any other scientific development of the last 100 years. We would be working 12 hours a day in the fields to grow food. He is inadvertently making Alex’s point and he doesn’t even realize it
If this was a boxing match it would have been stopped in the second round. No one should have to take that much punishment. Congratulations Mr Epstein.
Bill McKibben and the rest of the climate alarmist want us to be fearful. They want us to vote on lawmakers and make policies based on our emotions and don’t educate ourselves with proven facts. I respect Alex Epstein and belive he is genuin when he is advocating for fossil fuels for the betterment of the human species. He has to do it in face of an ideologicly driven opposition that has almost saturated the western world.
If the science is settled as Bill says it is, can he please cite what percentage of climate change is due to human activity and what percentage is due to natural variability present throughout the geological and historical record. This still hasn't been answered. Thank you both for your willingness to debate.
Can science stick a percentage on the influences of nature and nurture? Rather we should study each individual influences and see what we can do to utilize it for good
Unfortunately we still dont know how greatly large amounts of co2 in the atmosphere effect global temperature. We have no idea so we're just saying more is bad. There are soooooo many variables when dealing with global warming or cooling that to say co2 is the smoking gun is irrisponsible and arrogant.
none sense historically co2 is one of the primary drivers of climate its non-debatable. that isnt to say other factors can't effect the climate like variations in solar out put which by the way is decreasing despite the fact temperatures are increasing.
+Derek farmer well primary driver is even something with 5% influence. So the question stands. Role of this " primary driver" can be at the end insignificant.
@@derekfarmer7444 well, then provide me with just one graph that shows this link. There a literally hordes of scientists trying to explain why CO2 lags temperature in the ice core datasets. Because the obvious reason, that CO2 has only a little influence, is something that is forbidden in this religion.
Amazing debate. In the end I gotta give the W to Alex. Stayed on point in message. The other guy had some great stuff, but failed to make a real, cohesive argument and depended a lot on a scary future bagging necessity for more government power.
Impressive! Dr McKibben insults our intelligence in mere seconds, by telling us he knows we can't keep up with him, so he's been good enough to number talking points for us!
10 minutes in and I've already hit my Doom limit. We get it everybody everywhere is going to die. If I had a nickel for every time somebody predicted this level of Doom I'd be able to cure global warming by myself.
Me too. I remember Mrs. Anderson in 5th grade (probably 1982 or so) scaring our class with the coming global warming catastrophe. I clearly remember learning that coastal areas would be flooded, crops would fail and people will die if we allow accelerants in hairspray and Freon to continue to destroy the ozone layer, ultimately leading to mass destruction. That’s really all I remember from that long ago but the fact that I can remember Mrs. Anderson’s warnings is evidence that official climate science is based on the most powerful motivator in the world- FEAR. Fast forward to any year since and we’ve been 20yrs away from disaster…as it turns out, for over 100 years. What bothers me the most about this and many other modern debates is, as President Obama so eloquently said, “The science is settled.” I’m no scientist but I’m pretty sure that science is never “settled”, “scientific consensus” is often wrong and we are now learning is often funded (or not) by those who have something to gain from specific findings. My concern is that generations are making decisions based on a bad premise. The legal metaphor, “the fruit of the poisonous tree” is the best way to describe how life works…if one approaches a problem with bad information, every decision going forward becomes orders of magnitude worse leading to totally avoidable REAL problems. My concern is not limited to this issue. It is truly unsettling that so many people have been convinced that so many issues are “settled” and are relegated to the bin of common knowledge therefore I see no path to rational, predictable and good outcomes. This issue is the same as so many others- ultimately leads to shifts or maintenance of money and power. It’s that simple. realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/
"I don't know why you haven't just given up, I don't know why we're having this debate, I don't acknowledge any of your statements, therefore I have won." -Bill McKibben
Wait? If fossil fuel companies are the only industry that doesn't have to throw away their waste, where does the waste from wind soil and hydro go? Mckibben is full of it.
It is Anonymous, the horrifying troll. Be sure to toss salt over your left shoulder after you speak their name, spin thrice turnwise and spit to the direction the sun sets. Then they won't come for you to curse your leftover goat milk, making it sour and rancid.
I think Epstein refined his arguments much better over the years than he performed in this debate, eventually framing the conversation as the goal being human flourishing instead of impact prevention.
The Green Lobby, never discloses that fact that the production & maintenance of solar & wind is extremely destructive to earth's environment. The rare earth metals & minerals, and base metals needed in their construction, as well as the batteries required to store their energy has an irreparable impact on the environment, not to mention the carbon footprint produced in the massive increase of mining, refinement and manufacture of the required materials. Paired with the fact that both solar panels & wind turbines, have to be replaced within a decade of installment, is another destructive factor the Green Lobby conveniently overlooks. The mining of rare earth metals needed for solar panels and batteries is brutally destructive to the environment.
Yes, let's trust the CDC that vaccinations have helped with longevity when the CDC owns many vaccine patents. No conflict of interest there... The fact that fluoridation of water was on that list discounts the entire list...
I like how after Alex says that the Maldives need to industrialize, McKibben's asked how the Maldives will be able to industrialize if they're underwater. Are you McKiddin me??? As if the ocean will rise 10 feet in 10 days or something!
He lost me at ocean acidification. If the earth is warming up so much from CO2 then the ocean should be warming as well which would make the ocean degas. That’s why ice floats. Also why weren’t the oceans acidic when CO2 was dramatically higher in ancient geologic history? There are thousands of feet of Calciferous rocks to prove they weren’t. Come on man if you are going to argue please bring something that passes common sense.
I’ve read Moral Case for Fossil Fuels Ver1 and I noticed Bill referring to solar heating water for some people somewhere. That’s true. My parents have solar water heating and it does work well in my experience. Now it’s efficiency may have been the grant it got in my country (Ireland) and I also don’t think that’s the case. I recommend Alex for Ver2 of his book place a paragraph differentiating between on-site in the home solar water heating, and solar PV for electricity. It seems the water heating part is pretty good as part of a process. The insulated water tank is the battery and the “battery” doesn’t have to store the heated water for very long to still work well. Solar PV is a totally different story and large scale PV the same. And large scale solar water heating off site is also not workable it seems.
Mr. McKibben, let me tell you this from my point of view here in Germany: in opposite to the things that you picked out of the context, just to paint our energy-change program in beautiful colours, the reality looks different and is full of unsolved problems. Electrical energy costs are highest in Europe what makes many industrial processes uneconomical here. It leads to industry subsidies or move into other countries. Half a million private homes could not afford the costs and were switched out
It's weird. Most of us don't envision Germany having a large underclass of impoverished people poor enough to be having their gas and electricity turned cut off, and yet they exist.
54:55 That's an incredibly unethical argument, and a logical non-sequitur. As someone who works in the broader agricultural realm I gotta say this irked me. He implies that because we have used more fossil fuel in recent years this caused us to "eat more than we grew". He does not explicitly say it, but this is the conclusion he wants the listener to presume. It's an incredibly omissive and/or ignorant statement that makes no logical sense at all. How can consuming more fossil fuels make us eat more? There is no explanation at all, because he just wants to play word association games between fossil fuel use and starvation when it's the opposite correlation. By extension of his logic he wants people to believe that reducing fossil fuel use will somehow feed more people when it would actually starve them. This is a bunch of unethical rubbish. EDIT: He goes on to say that organic food yield has caught up to convention yields. This is laughably untrue. I work in organics, and while our food is BETTER we do not have AS MUCH of it. Not even close to the same yield per acre as our big brothers. He goes on to acknowledge that organics is significantly more labor-intensive (which is true), but leaves out the crucial point that if he gets his way and FF use is restricted that the cost of organics increases EVEN MORE, while forcing many people back to the farm where their earnings will be a part of that increase in cost, meaning any pay raise will raise the cost of the food they are farming to provide for themselves. I love organics and it is my passion but I am not naive. Organics is not in the place to replace even a significant portion of industrial agriculture, and I don't need him thinking he represents us folks in organics. We are a smart bunch. We know that people would very definitely starve if it were left solely up to us.
This is one of the major flaws and openings that expose the massive flaws in the global warming narrative. Many of the theories contradict the science of other fields and concentrations, and they generally only rationalize that this is due to the fact that we don't understand "their science." So much of the arguments of the global warmists are based on appeals to history, and once you match them up with the history of their ideas and predictions, you are left with nothing except for skepticism. This is one reason why the free market needs to grasp academia, it's the only place where you can consistently pass down legacies of failure from one generation to the next, especially when it comes to prediction; even in Religious Institutions, if you make a bad prediction about God, you lose membership. In academia, as long as you have tenure, or you have the ideological ideal of a government agency or special interest group, you will always be upheld, until the paradigm shift comes about.
I think he first opened with that as one of his points, in refference to his claim that grain production was decreasing. He wasn't saying warming names us eat more, he was claiming that global warming was preventing us from growing enough food to match our intake.
A little late to this, but one logical connection between an increase in fossil fuel consumption leading to an increase in eating is that, as a result of fossil fuels, there are more people alive to eat the food. This might be a better argument for Alex if you take the position that humans being alive is a good thing.
If the climate continues to warm, vast expanses of land will become arable in both Russia and Canada. Just this will increase food production immensely
I sincerely believe that McKibbern was blindsided by Epstein's debate tactics. Epstein didn't say all that he could say, but McKinbbn prepared for arguments over the tiny details in various ecological surveys over many different areas of the world while Epstein just ignored all of it to make his own independent points. This drags McKibben to argue either on his turf, a losing game, or to argue over which should take priority: The quality of human living or the list of doomsday scenarios that, well, could be solved by using fossil fuels to create infrastructure that defeats the risk of such doomsday scenarios. If I were him, I'd just plant myself on one or two that's hard to circumvent. How do you un-acidify the oceans, praytell? What if we lose the whole aquatic ecosystem to acid? Dump tons of baking soda?
Biological systems unacidify the oceans. I recently acquired a turtle. I learned that amonia spikes (due to my little turtle pissing in the water) are a real danger in aquariums, and a bad spike could easily kill my turtle. Do you know how you prevent amonia spikes? Don't change the water too often, because bacteria that likes amonia naturally grows in the water and keeps the levels at a reasonably low level. The same thing happens in the ocean as it becomes more neutral - certain plants and animals thrive at those levels, and they tend to make the water more basic.
pH is logarithmic and a change of .1 is around 30%, 1 is a power of 10x or 1000%. That said, his assumption that 30% is inherently bad and cannot be adjusted to is not necessarily true either. Just because 30% seems like a large percentage doesn't mean it has a large effect. Theres a reason why pH is logarithmic and that's because there is a diminishment of effect. It's like decibels, I can increase my speakers from 60 to 61 which is also "30%" but that 30% is rather indistinguishable. For reference talking is 60 D and shouting is around 70D, so imagine how small "30%" is if talking to shouting is 1000% difference in amplitude. Many scientist, especially climate scientists, favorite tools is using statitics without appropriate context
~1:34:00 in. "If you install solar panels you have to clean up your mess." Wait a minute i thought that solar was clean energy. What is there to clean up? Starting to sound like solar may have some dirty little secrets, too. Look in to how and what solar panels are made of...
Solar can only produce electricity, but needs storage once the photo-voltaic cells react to the sun.... So those panels are a mess, and the batteries that store the energy as well only have a shelf life of 7 years or so.
I am watching this after I've watched planet of the humans (April 2020) and it shows Environment advocate Bill McKibben advocating logging companies to produce biomass. It just goes to show!
I'm only a short way into this but I'm already laughing out loud at the list of stuff global warming apparently causes. I'm surprised he can say it all with a straight face.
[cont.] I won't go into detail in these posts, but here are a few links to help you understand (Replace DOT with a .): (The interview towards the end in this one is the most important, so watch the whole thing!) youtuDOTbe/LOyBfihjQvI (Highly controversial, many deniers here may not agree with it, though they are being foolish to simply dismiss the information out of hand.) youtuDOTbe/5yZhh2leRJA
This was a great debate. I think Alex makes a better argument. You can’t just ban cheap abundant energy until you are able to replace it with another form of cheap and abundant energy.
Alex Epstein is an honest and more educated debater. His logic in his presentation is much superior to that of McKibben. The philosophical and scientific point of views presented by Epstein has convinced me that at this time in our history fossil fuel is a good thing. I'm very much impressed by his presentation which lack the fear-mongering on which McKibben base his argument.
