Comments on: The ethics of fossil fuel use

By: Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 11:30:34 +0000

Congratulations on watching the whole thing. I too was very angry by the end of it.

By: Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 11:29:21 +0000

Epstein was not so much twisting words as dodging the issues McKibben raised. I also repeated numerous fallacious arguments. The global warming has stopped argument reduces to the deliberate selection of comforting data and/or dismissal of any rebuttal on the grounds that it is politically motivated (i.e. reality inversion).

By: jpgreenword

jpgreenword — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 01:24:16 +0000

I just finished watching the debate… and I feel like punching someone!
Thanks for the video, Martin. It was an interesting debate. However, I believe “Bill” is the winner here. “Alex” only has an argument if you assume that all climate scientists are wrong. Unfortunately, they are not. Actually, that’s not true. As more and more research is showing, climatologists have been conservative in their projections and the climate disruption is happening faster than they projected only a few years ago.

By: jpgreenword

jpgreenword — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 00:22:14 +0000

One person uses facts, statistics and common sense. One twists words.
And how come people are still trying to say that the last 14 years haven’t seen any warming? 2005 and 2010 are the warmest on record!

By: Another Week of GW News, November 11, 2012 – A Few Things Ill Considered

Another Week of GW News, November 11, 2012 – A Few Things Ill Considered — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:43:13 +0000

[...] 2012/11/08: LoE: The ethics of fossil fuel use [...]

By: Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:56:04 +0000

Thanks for the clarification. I do not think it is at all certain that Epstein is deliberately deceiving people. On the contrary, I think he himself has been misled by the erroneous thinking of people like Lindzen and Monckton. In common with the vast majority of people, unless he chooses to investigate rebuttals, he does not have the expertise to spot the flaws in arguments contrarians like these continually spout.

By: Lionel A

Lionel A — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 22:17:56 +0000

I was thinking of his Empty rhetoric, and considering your assessment that makes him out as intending to continue the delusion of the ignoratti.

By: Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:45:52 +0000

McKibben did well to avoid being riled by Epstein, especially when he tried to paint all environmentalists as being anti-progress (i.e. anti- nuclear and anti-HEP). McKibben did not try and defend his 95% reduction figure; but he did not retract his assertion that we have 5 times more fossil fuels than it would be safe to burn. Fossil fuels are useful for many things; and where their use cannot be substituted (plastics and aviation fuel) it will have to continue. However, wherever its use can be substituted it should be. McKibben’s very final remark was thus very well made: Fossil fuel companies need to reinvent themselves as energy companies; or they risk consigning themselves and civilisation to history.

By: Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:37:13 +0000

Epstein got a Degree from Duke University, so he cannot be stupid. Therefore, one is forced to conclude he is just a very bad judge of character.

By: Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:35:09 +0000

Did you mean “impending”? If you did, I think you will be proven right.