Alex Epstein | Thinking About Climate Change
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2024
- #AlexEpstein #GlobalWarming #ClimateChange
In this segment of "Exploring Minds", Alex Epstein discusses how he views climate change in the context of "Human Flourishing".
_
Alex Epstein is a philosopher who argues that “human flourishing” should be the guiding principle of industrial and environmental progress. He is the author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (Penguin, 2014), a New York Times bestseller arguing that if we look at the whole picture, human flourishing requires that humanity use more fossil fuels not less. Alex has been featured hundreds of times on TV, radio, and in print, including Rolling Stone, the New York Times, and Fox News. You can sign up for his newsletter at alexepsteinlist.com.
-
SUPPORT US ON PATREON:
/ exploringmindsshow
FOLLOW ALONG FOR UPDATES AND NEW EPISODES:
Discord - / discord
Facebook - / exploringmindsshow
Twitter - / exploreminds_tv
Instagram - / exploreminds_tv
Website - exploringminds.show
-
Exploring Minds with Michele Carroll is the online show committed to exploring the world beyond talking points.
Thank you for watching!
Wow! This guy is amazing! Thank you for having content that acknowledges reality. So refreshing!
I enjoyed his book and this interview. His book is very persuasive.
It would be fun to watch him have a debate/conversation any of the popular climate change alarmists. Bill Nye, Al Gore, etc I would like to see how they respond to his arguments and evidence.
He has had multiple debates on UA-cam. He would debate those guys in a second, but they would never agree
i guess Im kinda off topic but do anyone know a good site to watch new movies online?
@Jake Jacob I watch on flixzone. You can find it by googling :)
@Deandre Trey yup, have been using flixzone for since march myself :D
@Deandre Trey Thank you, signed up and it seems to work :) Appreciate it!
Excellent, thank you for having Alex on your show!
Imagine if someone complained that people who worry about the threat of antibiotic-resistant becteria don't talk ebough about how nice antibiotics are.
Complained may be a term I wouldn't use, rather than criticize. Nevertheless, it is one thing to worry, yet another to call for an end to their use. What he is saying is that many alarmist do not take into consideration, fair and charitably so, the great benefits of fossil fuels.
unlike with antibiotics there are clear alternatives to hydrocarbons that need to be accelerated
like? Elaborate.
god Alex Epstein is a refreshing mindset. I sincerely hope his voice/ideas gain much more traction quickly
just not happening
I’m glad this show brings on just diverse guests, hearing arguments from all sides is the only way to pop our personal bubbles.
For the most part though, this guy was supremely unpersuasive. He’s unlikely to get any further attention from me
Did you find anything incoherent or unfactual?
Schway is obviously a troll. He has no intention of answering anything. He just wants attention.
Makes incoherent sounding strawman of conventianal anti fossil fuel argument - then says "there is no conherent argument" wow.
I believe he said that the latter argument out of the two he provided for the anti fossil fuel argument is the incoherent one, and thus there's no version of a coherent argument that does not address the benefits of fossil fuels. The former being the coherent, the latter being not.
he makes some good points but also draws some questionable conclusions
like?
@@sandrock605 still waiting
@@tonylahh and still
He keeps talking about how there were preiods of life "thriving" with much higher CO2 levels. Not human life.
ALL Life on Earth needs C02. Humans have only been around for a very small period of the Earth
Humans live in significantly higher levels of CO2 almost all of the time. Most homes, apartments, class rooms and offices have 2 or 3 times the amount of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere. When we exhale we emit 100 times the amount of CO2 we absorbed when inhaling. Airplanes can have more than 6 times the amount of CO2. The Navy and NASA consider submarines and space craft safe up to levels of 5000 PPM which 12 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The significance of the point he's making, is that it's not the Earth itself that is jeopardized by higher CO2 levels, only the comforts we have built for ourselves on the Earth. Acknowledging this means recognizing how stupid it is to say we're destroying the Earth
Woodson Sanders that’s one semantic argument that shouldn’t be conflated with the negative effects of fossil fuels on suffering, habitability, and thriving of human life.
He said not human life himself
This guy looks like a super villain.
He looks like he's been sniffing too many fossil fuels. His poor reasoning confirms it.
@CaptainRidley Human-based greenhouse gases cause rapid global warming: www.climatelevels.org
The total CO2 released from coal, oil & gas over the last 30 years, is greater than the rest of all human history.
ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region?stackMode=absolute
@CaptainRidley The likely global temperature increase by 2100 is around 3.2°C.
www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3352?foxtrotcallback=true
Expect 15%-25% reduction in global per capita output by 2100 with 2.5-3.0°C of global warming.
www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0071-9
Gary Sarela I don’t think computer models work: the cumulative errors make predictability quite alarming from the get go. 90% of the world is still fossil fuel powered (and that grew organically at a cost of trillions to lots of people). Energy transitions take ~50 years.
Vaclav Smils UA-cam clips are quite helpful in this regard.
Not trying to hurt any feelings just don’t think your facts are right
@@thepielife In his book, Vaclav Smil estimates there will be a temperature increase of 2.5 degrees to 3 degrees Celsius over the next hundred years. Smil is not a global warming denier, but more of a a global warming procrastinator, which is equally dangerous.
www.americanscientist.org/article/the-worst-is-yet-to-be
He calls rising sea levels "the most dangerous theoretical one" while sea levels are rising and ice is melting.
no it's not
Keeps talking about "climate mastery" and how we can supposedly deal with the changes ignoring the fact that there would be both initial and permanent costs associated with this, instead of allocating resources to having healthier and more sustainable forms of energy. also this idea that humans flourish in any* (existing) climate is misleading. Different environments have different costs associated with them. Even the most developed, richest metro area in the world, Tokyo, bears the burden of increased building costs and shorder buildings due to the much stronger earthquakes. This whole video is just him repackaging denier arguments in a non-confrontational way.
Your argument boils down to: making ourselves comfortable in any given environment costs resources, so we shouldn't bother. That's a fairly nonsensical position