RE: "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels": An Unabashedly Biased Book Review
he result would be to reduce our species to a mode of existence that even the heartiest "outdoorsman" wouldn't choose, assuming he was able to withstand it.
That's utterly hyperbolic bullshit. We already have alternative fuel sources, electric cars exist now and were even built decades ago. We have renewable energy and could drastically lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. The reason we are not is because it is expensive to convert infrastructure over so corporations don't want to spend the money on it.
Banning fossil fuels does not take us back to the stone age, it forces us to switch over to newer technologies that we already have sooner.
Fossil fuels were definitely a great boon for humanity, but that does not mean it comes without cost. Nor does it mean we can't do better.
Yes, but where does the electricity for the cars come from? Almost all from fossil fuels and nuclear. And sure, "it is expensive to convert infrastructure over, so corporations don't want to spend the money on it," the point being that it's too expensive to be cost-competitive.
As for banning fossil fuels, let that start tomorrow, and see how long you live.
Which is to say that you're a Catastrophist who has missed Epstein's point entirely.
Again, an ever increasing amount of electricity could be coming from renewable sources.
Cost-competitive doesn't enter into it. If you built an entire infrastructure around fossil fuels, then renewables became cheaper it still might not make sense to tear down all that infrastructure and re-build.
Any ban would likely go into place over decades. It's not as if gasoline would disappear tomorrow, so again that's pure hyperbole.
Calling people concerned with anthropogenic climate change "catastrophists" is essentially an ad hominim, attempting to undermine their argument by labeling them as something negative. The reality is that the earth is warming, and greenhouse gasses are the cause. Your entire argument is based on Appeal to Anticonformity when you state that 97% of scientists could be wrong. In fact you provide absolutely no evidence attacking the actual science, as if you expect us to believe you simply because the majority isn't always correct.
Meanwhile we're seeing the earth warm, we're seeing more chaotic weather patterns because of it, and we could do something about it if people would think long-term instead of short term.
As I said, Catastrophists won't read Epstein's book, which is why, as I said in my opening sentence, my blog isn't addressed to you and your ilk, whose minds are closed books.
So you literally stated you don't want your ideas questioned or debated, but my mind is the closed one. Lol.
@telos, you are making arguments that are addressed by Epstein and the book. If you don't want to read it, listen to this podcast, which got me interested in what Epstein has to say.
(
Gotto love Bill McKibben. Who better than he to prove how catastrophically insane Catastrophism is:
https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii