Nuclear is expensive because it is vehemently opposed by the Green Lobby. Long delays, legal costs and activism has shut down or prevented the building of nuclear plants, which are safe and have zero emissions, as Steve said.
Nuclear is cheaper than solar and wind when you add the cost of energy delivery and grid setup. Most of the nuclear cost is because it is over regulated. Other countries building them at half the cost.
@@aliendroneservices6621 yes it is . Your not considering the ecological damage of fields after fields taken over by glass and metal. Go visit a site with decommissioned wind turbines and non functioning solar cells. We don't have enough space in us to trash them now. We are leasing land in Africa to dump. Solar and wind are not a viable reliable or affordable choice at least now and near future unless half of the world population dies for no energy/power. More research on alternative energy is needed, just because fossil fuels some day will be exhausted. Carbon pollution is not at all the driving force.
Try running an Aluminium smelter with a continuous 500MWe demand with just a Solar farm and Gigabattery packs. The solar would need to have a 2000MW output averaged over 6hours then need at least18×500MWh = 9GWh batteries to get through the nights. That's capital cost of: 4×500,000×$1500/kW= $3billion + 9000MWh×$1000,000/MWh(= $9billion) = Total capital cost/kW. = $12×10⁹/500,000 = $24,000 per kW for 24/7/365 demand C.f one of Indonesia's PPA for 8×500MWe TMSR at sa capital costs of $800 - $1000 per kW = 24 to 30 times cheaper than the capital cost of a stand alone combined Solar + Batteries. (NOTE: Both supply 500MW × (6+18)hours = 12,000MWh/day) but the SWB required 86× the 1.16Ha area needed for TMSR plus an area for the 9GWh batteries
EVs will NEVER dominate transportation in our lifetimes! They are based upon fairytale science and are only practical in very specific areas. Battery technology is the main obstacle.
Good debate/discussion. It wasn't Koonin's strongest presentation. I think he should have pushed harder against the underlying climate warming claims of Schrag. And you cannot use specific weather events to argue for the impacts of climate change. I also notice that Schrag can't resist at the end in returning to a catastrophe narrative. I'd would love to ask him why he thinks another 1.3 increase in global temperature leads to catastrophe. Does he see a tipping point of no return for the next 1.3 increase.
*Write a summary of the transcript of the debate on the resolution, "Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."* _Here is a summary of the key points from the transcript of the debate on the resolution "Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions":_ *_•_*_ The affirmative side (Daniel Shrag) argued that climate change is real, human-caused, and poses significant risks if emissions are not reduced rapidly. He cited evidence of rising temperatures, melting ice sheets, extreme weather events, and future climate projections. He argued that ambitious goals, innovation, and clean energy investments can drive rapid emission reductions and help developing countries._ *_•_*_ The negative side (Steven Koonin) argued the proposition is unjustified, immoral, and fantastical. He claimed climate impacts have been modest so far and future projections are exaggerated. He argued against disrupting reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy in developing countries. He advocated for adapting to climate change, improving climate science communication, thoughtful decarbonization, and more R&D on clean energy alternatives._ *_•_*_ Both agreed nuclear power and carbon capture may play future roles but differ on the urgency of emission reductions._ *_•_*_ The audience poll showed little change in opinions before and after the debate, with a majority still disagreeing that climate science compels rapid emission cuts._ *_•_*_ The debate highlighted different perspectives on climate science, energy policy, and morality, but was overall quite civil and respectful between the debaters._ -Anthropic Claude-2-100k
*Present the arguments in favor of the resolution.* _Here are the main arguments made in favor of the resolution "Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions":_ *_•_*_ Evidence shows temperatures have already risen 1.2-1.3°C due to increased greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels. This matches predictions made over 100 years ago._ *_•_*_ There are clear signs of climate change impacts - melting ice sheets, extreme weather events, and displaced populations. Climate models project significant future warming, even if emissions are reduced._ *_•_*_ The scale and long timescales of the climate system mean we are unleashing irreversible changes. Reducing emissions now is prudent risk management._ *_•_*_ Clean energy technology costs have fallen rapidly (e.g. solar, wind) and innovations will drive further cost reductions. Rapid transitions are possible, as shown by wartime mobilization examples._ *_•_*_ Developing nations have huge opportunities for economic growth through renewable energy rather than being constrained by fossil fuels. Morally, they have contributed little to climate change but will suffer major impacts._ *_•_*_ Ambitious emission reduction goals drive technology innovation and progress, even if targets are missed. We have repeatedly exceeded the expected progress._ *_•_*_ Co-benefits like reduced air pollution provide additional reasons to transition from fossil fuels even if climate risks are uncertain._ -Anthropic Claude-2-100k
*Present the arguments against the resolution.* _Here are the main arguments made against the resolution "Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions":_ *_•_*_ Climate impacts so far have been modest - no long-term trends in extreme weather, economic losses declining. Models are too uncertain about regional impacts to compel drastic action._ *_•_*_ Future warming of 1-1.3°C is unlikely to derail progress. IPCC projects continued economic growth even under high-emission scenarios. Existential threat claims are exaggerated._ *_•_*_ Reliable, affordable energy is a key priority for developing nations. Fossil fuels remain the most viable option for them to reduce poverty/improve lives._ *_•_*_ Requiring developing nations to forego fossil fuel growth is unjustified and immoral "carbon colonialism." The West cannot pay the huge costs of rapid developing world decarbonization._ *_•_*_ Large-scale renewable energy has reliability challenges. Backup systems like nuclear, batteries, or carbon capture are not yet adequate or affordable._ *_•_*_ Rapid reductions will be extraordinarily disruptive and expensive - 5-7% of GDP per year for decades in the US. Other societal priorities may provide better returns on investment._ *_•_*_ Global net zero emissions by 2050 are likely a fantasy given technical and economic realities. Emission reductions beyond the developed world are unrealistic anytime soon._ *_•_*_ Exaggerated climate catastrophe claims induce unwarranted eco-anxiety in youth and erode credibility. More measured communications on climate science are needed._ *_•_*_ Adaptation and building resilience to climate impacts may be better strategies than costly attempts at rapid emission reductions._ -Anthropic Claude-2-100k
*Which debater presented the most compelling arguments?* _Both debaters made some reasonable points, but in my assessment, Daniel Shrag presented the most compelling arguments overall in favor of the resolution. Here's why:_ *_•_*_ He effectively cited empirical evidence of climate change that is already occurring, such as rising temperatures and melting ice sheets. This lends credibility to projections of significant future warming._ *_•_*_ He made a strong case that the long time lags and irreversibility of the climate system warrant prudent risk management via emission reductions. The possibility of catastrophic impacts if he is right justifies some insurance actions._ *_•_*_ His point that developing nations can leapfrog fossil fuels and build economies on increasingly cheap renewables was persuasive. This challenges the view that fossil fuels are essential for their development._ *_•_*_ He compellingly argued that setting ambitious goals drives innovation beyond expectations, giving real-life examples like wartime mobilization and vaccine development._ *_•_*_ He pointed out co-benefits like reducing deadly air pollution provide immediate reasons to transition from fossil fuels._ _While Koonin made reasonable critiques about reliability, costs, and feasibility, Shrag's evidence-based urgency argument, coupled with a feasible path forward via innovation and opportunities for developing nations, was more compelling overall._ -Anthropic Claude-2-100k
*Assume the role of an expert on both energy usage and climate change. Which debater presented the most compelling arguments?* _As an expert on both energy usage and climate change, I believe Daniel Shrag presented the most compelling arguments in favor of the resolution to compel large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Here is my assessment:_ _From the energy perspective, Shrag made a critical insight that just because fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution does not mean developing nations must follow the same dirty path. Renewable energy technology has advanced tremendously, and costs have declined rapidly. Developing nations can leapfrog to take advantage of cheap clean energy to power their growth._ _On climate change, Shrag armed his arguments with empirical evidence - temperature rise, melting ice sheets, and extreme weather. As a scientist, I'm persuaded by verifiable facts. Shrag also explained the long-time lags of the climate system and why substantial warming is likely locked in already. This warrants prudent risk mitigation now through emissions reductions._ _Shrag pointed out that setting ambitious innovation goals has repeatedly exceeded expectations. As an expert, I concur that driving innovation could catalyze our transition to a low-carbon energy system faster than conventionally assumed._ _While Koonin made reasonable points about costs, technical challenges, and uncertainties, Shrag's evidence-based urgency perspective coupled with a feasible clean energy innovation path was more compelling from my dual lens as an expert on both energy and climate change. The climate risks he highlighted justify prompt, accelerated action on emissions reductions._ -Anthropic Claude-2-100k
Familiar with that debate. If you just look at the as a regular inquisitive and analytical mind, you will find out one important aspect and how poor the concept of greenhouse gas causing anything major. 95 percent of greenhouse gas is water vapor, not Co2 no methane. Since we can't do much about the water vapor which is a major element, poor scientists want to bring attention to carbon, since that can be used to falsely believe and make changes that will have no noticeable effect. Don't be fooled. Carbon is the building block of life. Don't mess with it. If you do there would be not enough food for living. There is no climate catastrophe. Humans always find a better and cleaner way to survive. Ford did not invent the car because there were no horses, the cave man did not come out of the stone age because there were no more stones. They just did it to better their lives. Think about the waste boproducts of fossil fuels when it started. We were very worried about boproducts for pollution, but now look around your house and you will notice 90 percent all the household usable stuff are made from boproducts of petroleum.
very little carbon was used to ship that water :-) ... less than it took to ship it from port to shop of course branded fancy water is stupid, but shipping costs are not the issue :-)
Our lifespan is too short to state that “the record temperatures in 2023 or talk about our lifetime” which is insignificant compared to the millions of years of climate change and evolution of the earth. We should listen to the scientists who explain all these aspects of the climate change, the time line and the measurements of the temperatures of our planet through millions of years. There is not climate crisis.
So in my lifetime scientist have told us the world is gking end about 5 or six times. Bugger me Im still here. Even after in the 70s we were going freeze in an ice age. The arrogance of men who believe we can control the climate is beyond belief.
@@Jc-ms5vv"The critical temperature beyond which photosynthetic machinery in tropical trees *_begins to fail_* averages at about 46.7 degrees Celsius or about 116 degrees Fahrenheit." Aug 23, 2023
I think one has to propose to the young people: are you willing to go w/o using a gas car, not be able to charge your phone b/c the utility wants you to exercise a 12 hour blackout, give up the ability to listen to your stereo or watch tv or use your computer. How about we close down movie theaters-takes electricity to run a projector. What about using electric tools in arts & crafts & home improvement things. What if the govt tells you not to use AC because they say it adds too much emissions?
They dont have to worry the plan is reduce the population too 500, 000,000 so they preserve the resources for them selves. COVID was just their trial run
People are willing do die for their cars, phones and AC. Even better if it's somebody else dying. You can watch it on your phone, in your car with the AC on.
A debate amongst men who all agree that CO2 is causing the world to warm. I would like to see a debate between those who think CO2 causes warming and those who think warming causes more CO2
No debate is needed: the warm ocean waters are saturated with dissolved co2 , the arctic cold waters absorb vehemently co2 from the air, because the solubility of co2 is temperature dependent enourmous when cold, and small when warm, just look up the measurements published in scientific reports. The vast majority of all co2 is dissolved in the oceans, according to the carbon dating community. And it is simple to determine this in simple experiments .Without the co2 in the ocean the alkalinity if the ocean would not correspond to 8.2 but to 11, neutral is 7, with todays temperature it is impossible to make the oceans acidic. Ph value less than 7 . It is obvious that with warming seas great amounts of co2 are released into the greening areas bordering the sahara and all low lattidude regions. In summary the co2 increases from the warming oversaturated oceans Look up Prof. Murry Salby, who determined the phasing process
If the affluent thought climate change was a real problem they would downsize to smaller living facilities, move away from ocean front property and ditch their jet aircraft.
Imaging how many things Earth can fix with the 180 Trillions $$$ needed to reach Net Zero. How many poor people can be lifted out of poverty and how much the human condition can improve! How many horrible diseases can be eradicated !
Give you facts on co2 China will do what they want and India Russia south Africa ect They have no intention of stopping coal If you denie this you don't no want your talking about
We have to mixed but it is very expensive compared to just using fossil fuel. It is to practical and economically not affordable for most developing countries.
First speaker: "we are not depriving poor countries of energy". Well, if you stop funding hydrocarbon development through the World bank etc and only support green tech you actually ARE stopping them. However, this wont work. There is alternative financing fr non western countries. That stranglehold of the west is over..
A global mean temp rising to 5 degrees would be a disaster for large scale agriculture. You do know that none of the systems human civilization depends on would function in Dinosaur World. Radically different ecosystems then and now.
Joseph told Pharaoh that seven years of abundance would be followed by seven years of famine (Genesis 41:28-32). After seven years, the amazing prosperity in Egypt's fields comes to an end
Ok. Climate models are the best representation of future climate? No, they are all representations of a fixed set of undetlying assumptions w a large climate sensitivity factor. That's why they dont line up w observations. Well, i should say didnt because now they are manipulating the actual data to fit the equations they like to see. So, A leads to B. If A does NOT lead to B change the way you calculate A. Et voila!
There's no question but what 16 billion people can enjoy wonderful lives and ski vacations forever and ever because personal fusion and UltraFlexinol supersubstance is just around the corner. We'll genetically produce whatever companion species we want at the moment. Got at thing for moose? Poof, you got moose. Moose kick you in the head? Poof, you're ready for the Steamboat Institute.
This discussion is best resumed by the water bottles on the desks: Fiji water. All of them on the panel are totally delusional. We could have prevented the coming crisis, by turning our backs on the consumption economy, when smart people (club of Rome) understood where we were heading to. We didn't and so now it's too late.
If buildings are the biggest users of energy (40%) then they as the biggest users should adopt systems and technologies that reduce this amount of use and therefore require smarter technologies to get them there.
Make sure you ignore the record smashing global average temps in 2023, Steve. Ignore the 115F that has withered Spain’s olive crop. Ignore the 115F in Brazil this week that threatens their soybean crop intended to feed Chinese factory farmed chickens. Definitely do not mention the aerosol masking effect from coal burning that has kept summer temps artificially suppressed in Eastern US, East China, India and Kazakhstan.
@@shoobidyboop8634 Seems the weather’s getting a bit hot. Except in India, the Eastern US and East China. Those sulfates from burning fucktons of coal are pretty effective at keeping a lid on hot weather aren’t they. Brazil sure could use some this week.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 China burns fucktons of coal, and Dan's pointing the finger at the US, like the phony he is. As for heat waves, that's just weather, just like when there's a cold snap somewhere. I didn't make the rules, shirtless Karen, I'm just here to use your rules against you.
@@anabolicamaranth7140People are more resilient, the more power they consume (or, energy over time). Increases in consumption of all legitimate fuels are helpful in this regard. Any climate-effects from this would be both far in the future, and minimal. Near-term weather variability isn't affected to any measurable extent by this year's carbon emissions.
@@aliendroneservices6621 Near term CLIMATE is not effected by this year’s carbon emissions either. India’s coal burning has allowed them to run AC and avoid excessive heat.
Careful analysis including trapped micro bubbles of gasss in ancient ice cores show temperatures rise first then CO2 follows. Same today. We are seeing that there are myriad cycles including solar and extra solar gamma flux that have amplfying effects on climate.
I had never seen Dr. Steve Koonin so disgusted with his counterpart’s arguments. I have followed Koonin for a while and I believe his scientific stand point. Solar energy is no cheap and it’s not green.
I have been following this for years. I am a biologist. I am convinced from the current unbiased data on recent and all past climate related events shows nothing but natural cycles and changes that can not be attributed due to human existence. Carbon is the last thing we should be worried unless we have a way to grow plants and be green without Co2. I also understood, that majority of the climate Scientists (there is no climate science as a discipline in science) are biased to publish results that worries people and will generate funds for research. They also do not appreciate that how complex is the climate to understand. We are human, and our inventive mind will handle any climate change if we try to analyze without bias and work on the technology to withstand any natural climate disaster that may come. No, Climate catastrophe, IT IS MADE UP. Climate change is real and it will change all forms of life on earth for ever. Since 95% of the green house gas is water vapor, should we try to de vaporize this universe? This subject became insanely worthless.
Yeh, bojrn lomborg and his crew addressed this issue pretty well. The debate should have move onto other things a while ago, but there is too much political pressure and social contagion involved. There are literally dozens of global issues that are far more impactful than climate change that we never hear about.
You are absolutely correct. I would love to see us spend much more on research and development than throwing our money into things we know will "Never" meet our energy demands. We could do more research into nuclear energy. Why not use Thorium instead of uranium. We could also spend more on the search for recycling plastic. Including the collection, cleaning, point-of-use advantages, and end uses. Why are we not spending on these types of studies? We give Trillions of dollars to research a biased climate change study. The payback of research over 30 years will far exceed these lame studies on climate. We can and should be doing better than installing $ trillions into very iffy remediation of climate change. If we must spend on solar and wind, why not give that technology to those Third World countries to improve their welfare?
The aIarmists here are charlatans. In reality…. US strong tornadoes have been DECREASING for 60 years (see NOAA data). Hurricanes and Typhoons have been STEADY for 45 years (see Dr Ryan Maue data). Heatwaves over 100 f have been DECREASING since the 1930s (see NOAA data). N Hemisphere snow extent has been INCREASING for 50 years. (see Rutgers snow-lab). Polar bear numbers have been increasing for 60 years. (see DR Sue Crockford data:) S Hemisphere sea-ice extent was INCREASING for 40 years, before a storm in 2017. (and extent is climbing back up again) (see NSIDC on climate4you) Ralph.
In cold climatic periods the vegetation is strongly reduced world wide because the co2 goes vehemently into solution into the colder water, at -2C the solubility is maximum reducing the available co2 to values found today in the high areas, primarily on the Aliplano where the co2 content is 2/3 of the 0.49 gram per m³ in low regions, making the growth of trees impossible, except for Eucalyptus trees. where I grew up. We had a finca, where we enhanced the growth of vegetation by combustion co2 enriched air in closed green houses
EV car manufacturers are facing big problems right now... The cars are too expensive for regular folk. Without subsidies the demand for them drops off. Most manufacturers are making massive losses on their EVs and their debt levels are going way up. Charging infrastructure isn't great. Oh, and when they catch fire they're practically impossible to put out. It turns out they're not even that 'green', and require massive ongoing mining of resources that will only get more difficult to come by. So, will we really be driving EVs in the near future?... Unlikely.
@@TheBSDetector99and tires…EV’s go through more tires…don’t know how much CO2 emissions are needed to manufacture tires but I’m sure it’s not small per tire…then there is the used tires…what to do with…
Problems with EVs: there are bottlenecks in the electrical transmission and production; 2) There are severe restrictions on copper, cobalt, lithium and other rare metals needed to produce batteries. (Cobalt production is produced in significant proportion by slave and child labor . )
@@Dreadnought16 "don’t know how much CO2 emissions are needed to manufacture tires" You don't need to. Simply calculate cost-per-mile. "but I’m sure it’s not small per tire" It's tiny: around 1 cent per mile, for my car. Compare that to around 10 cents per mile fuel-cost for my car.
The fact that Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, fellow Great Resetter Charles over in the UK, Bergoglio over at the vatican, Tedros from the WHO, and also the United Nations, all push the anthropogenic climate change narrative, tells me everything I need to know.
The largest electric grid is in the soil. It is composed of fungi etc. Carbon based and pumps fluids even up hill. Carbon Dioxide and some carbonates tend to move downward. Natural systems tend to sequester carbon faster as more CO2 become available. Destroying,draining wetlands, Forests and farmlands for wind and solar, is idiotic. Mining uses more fossil fuels to produce and manufacture than it can ever pay back
Fossil fuels and carbonate-based rocks were once living plants and animals, which grew by consuming atmospheric and water-dissolved CO2 which recirculates.
Poor infrastructures Are not the fault of Climat Changes. They are the fault of mismanagement of funds that were granted to improve infrastructure yet only improved CEO bank accounts the 500 year drought or flood is here early, or was it the 200 year event.
Wow, this is the most emotional and weakest climate argument I’ve ever heard. I’m embarrassed for Daniel and that Steve had to dignify the argument without ever once hearing a challenge to his claims. A non debate debate.
Try running an Aluminium smelter with a continuous 500MWe demand with just a Solar farm and Gigabattery packs. The solar would need to have a 2000MW output averaged over 6hours then need at least18×500MWh = 9GWh batteries to get through the nights. That's capital cost of: 4×500,000×$1500/kW= $3billion + 9000MWh×$1000,000/MWh(= $9billion) = Total capital cost/kW. = $12×10⁹/500,000 = $24,000 per kW for 24/7/365 demand C.f just one of Indonesia's 8×500MWe TMSR capital costs of $800 - $1000 per kW = 24 to 30 times cheaper than the capital cost of a stand alone combined Solar + Batteries. (NOTE: Both supply 500MW × (6+18)hours = 12,000MWh/day)
No we can not run industries,especially aluminium or smelting of any kind ,on unreliables,an impossibility,they need 24 hour base load reliability ,that's why total reliance on solar panels and wind farms is a pipe dream,and why the Asian countries are building at least another 100 coal fired power stations,of which China alone is building another 60,so all we are doing is virtue signalling and wasting trillions of dollars,borrowed dollars I might add,on net zero by 2050,total lunacy!@
you can talk about this until the cows come home. There are now vast fortunes being made in the process of decarbonization, new kinds of cement, new sources of energy and amazing efficiencies. While experts who like the sound of their own voices talk, we entrepreneurs will fix the problem. Now it is time for action.
Nuclear is expensive because it is vehemently opposed by the Green Lobby. Long delays, legal costs and activism has shut down or prevented the building of nuclear plants, which are safe and have zero emissions, as Steve said.
Nuclear is cheaper than solar and wind when you add the cost of energy delivery and grid setup. Most of the nuclear cost is because it is over regulated. Other countries building them at half the cost.
@@subhenducWind and solar are not merely *_more_* expensive than uranium. They are *_infinitely_* expensive, on a sustained basis.
@@aliendroneservices6621 yes it is . Your not considering the ecological damage of fields after fields taken over by glass and metal. Go visit a site with decommissioned wind turbines and non functioning solar cells. We don't have enough space in us to trash them now. We are leasing land in Africa to dump. Solar and wind are not a viable reliable or affordable choice at least now and near future unless half of the world population dies for no energy/power. More research on alternative energy is needed, just because fossil fuels some day will be exhausted. Carbon pollution is not at all the driving force.
@@subhenducRead my comment, and then quote the part of my comment you are replying to.
Try running an Aluminium smelter with a continuous 500MWe demand with just a Solar farm and Gigabattery packs. The solar would need to have a 2000MW output averaged over 6hours then need at least18×500MWh = 9GWh batteries to get through the nights.
That's capital cost of:
4×500,000×$1500/kW= $3billion +
9000MWh×$1000,000/MWh(= $9billion) =
Total capital cost/kW. = $12×10⁹/500,000 = $24,000 per kW for 24/7/365 demand
C.f one of Indonesia's PPA for 8×500MWe TMSR at sa capital costs of $800 - $1000 per kW = 24 to 30 times cheaper than the capital cost of a stand alone combined Solar + Batteries.
(NOTE: Both supply 500MW × (6+18)hours = 12,000MWh/day) but the SWB required 86× the 1.16Ha area needed for TMSR plus an area for the 9GWh batteries
Terrify. Get grants. Repeat.
EVs will NEVER dominate transportation in our lifetimes! They are based upon fairytale science and are only practical in very specific areas. Battery technology is the main obstacle.
The aim is to have reduced car ownership and car companies are looking to move to a business model based on renting
Good debate/discussion. It wasn't Koonin's strongest presentation. I think he should have pushed harder against the underlying climate warming claims of Schrag. And you cannot use specific weather events to argue for the impacts of climate change. I also notice that Schrag can't resist at the end in returning to a catastrophe narrative. I'd would love to ask him why he thinks another 1.3 increase in global temperature leads to catastrophe. Does he see a tipping point of no return for the next 1.3 increase.
*Write a summary of the transcript of the debate on the resolution, "Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."*
_Here is a summary of the key points from the transcript of the debate on the resolution "Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions":_
*_•_*_ The affirmative side (Daniel Shrag) argued that climate change is real, human-caused, and poses significant risks if emissions are not reduced rapidly. He cited evidence of rising temperatures, melting ice sheets, extreme weather events, and future climate projections. He argued that ambitious goals, innovation, and clean energy investments can drive rapid emission reductions and help developing countries._
*_•_*_ The negative side (Steven Koonin) argued the proposition is unjustified, immoral, and fantastical. He claimed climate impacts have been modest so far and future projections are exaggerated. He argued against disrupting reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy in developing countries. He advocated for adapting to climate change, improving climate science communication, thoughtful decarbonization, and more R&D on clean energy alternatives._
*_•_*_ Both agreed nuclear power and carbon capture may play future roles but differ on the urgency of emission reductions._
*_•_*_ The audience poll showed little change in opinions before and after the debate, with a majority still disagreeing that climate science compels rapid emission cuts._
*_•_*_ The debate highlighted different perspectives on climate science, energy policy, and morality, but was overall quite civil and respectful between the debaters._
-Anthropic Claude-2-100k
*Present the arguments in favor of the resolution.*
_Here are the main arguments made in favor of the resolution "Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions":_
*_•_*_ Evidence shows temperatures have already risen 1.2-1.3°C due to increased greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels. This matches predictions made over 100 years ago._
*_•_*_ There are clear signs of climate change impacts - melting ice sheets, extreme weather events, and displaced populations. Climate models project significant future warming, even if emissions are reduced._
*_•_*_ The scale and long timescales of the climate system mean we are unleashing irreversible changes. Reducing emissions now is prudent risk management._
*_•_*_ Clean energy technology costs have fallen rapidly (e.g. solar, wind) and innovations will drive further cost reductions. Rapid transitions are possible, as shown by wartime mobilization examples._
*_•_*_ Developing nations have huge opportunities for economic growth through renewable energy rather than being constrained by fossil fuels. Morally, they have contributed little to climate change but will suffer major impacts._
*_•_*_ Ambitious emission reduction goals drive technology innovation and progress, even if targets are missed. We have repeatedly exceeded the expected progress._
*_•_*_ Co-benefits like reduced air pollution provide additional reasons to transition from fossil fuels even if climate risks are uncertain._
-Anthropic Claude-2-100k
*Present the arguments against the resolution.*
_Here are the main arguments made against the resolution "Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions":_
*_•_*_ Climate impacts so far have been modest - no long-term trends in extreme weather, economic losses declining. Models are too uncertain about regional impacts to compel drastic action._
*_•_*_ Future warming of 1-1.3°C is unlikely to derail progress. IPCC projects continued economic growth even under high-emission scenarios. Existential threat claims are exaggerated._
*_•_*_ Reliable, affordable energy is a key priority for developing nations. Fossil fuels remain the most viable option for them to reduce poverty/improve lives._
*_•_*_ Requiring developing nations to forego fossil fuel growth is unjustified and immoral "carbon colonialism." The West cannot pay the huge costs of rapid developing world decarbonization._
*_•_*_ Large-scale renewable energy has reliability challenges. Backup systems like nuclear, batteries, or carbon capture are not yet adequate or affordable._
*_•_*_ Rapid reductions will be extraordinarily disruptive and expensive - 5-7% of GDP per year for decades in the US. Other societal priorities may provide better returns on investment._
*_•_*_ Global net zero emissions by 2050 are likely a fantasy given technical and economic realities. Emission reductions beyond the developed world are unrealistic anytime soon._
*_•_*_ Exaggerated climate catastrophe claims induce unwarranted eco-anxiety in youth and erode credibility. More measured communications on climate science are needed._
*_•_*_ Adaptation and building resilience to climate impacts may be better strategies than costly attempts at rapid emission reductions._
-Anthropic Claude-2-100k
*Which debater presented the most compelling arguments?*
_Both debaters made some reasonable points, but in my assessment, Daniel Shrag presented the most compelling arguments overall in favor of the resolution. Here's why:_
*_•_*_ He effectively cited empirical evidence of climate change that is already occurring, such as rising temperatures and melting ice sheets. This lends credibility to projections of significant future warming._
*_•_*_ He made a strong case that the long time lags and irreversibility of the climate system warrant prudent risk management via emission reductions. The possibility of catastrophic impacts if he is right justifies some insurance actions._
*_•_*_ His point that developing nations can leapfrog fossil fuels and build economies on increasingly cheap renewables was persuasive. This challenges the view that fossil fuels are essential for their development._
*_•_*_ He compellingly argued that setting ambitious goals drives innovation beyond expectations, giving real-life examples like wartime mobilization and vaccine development._
*_•_*_ He pointed out co-benefits like reducing deadly air pollution provide immediate reasons to transition from fossil fuels._
_While Koonin made reasonable critiques about reliability, costs, and feasibility, Shrag's evidence-based urgency argument, coupled with a feasible path forward via innovation and opportunities for developing nations, was more compelling overall._
-Anthropic Claude-2-100k
*Assume the role of an expert on both energy usage and climate change. Which debater presented the most compelling arguments?*
_As an expert on both energy usage and climate change, I believe Daniel Shrag presented the most compelling arguments in favor of the resolution to compel large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Here is my assessment:_
_From the energy perspective, Shrag made a critical insight that just because fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution does not mean developing nations must follow the same dirty path. Renewable energy technology has advanced tremendously, and costs have declined rapidly. Developing nations can leapfrog to take advantage of cheap clean energy to power their growth._
_On climate change, Shrag armed his arguments with empirical evidence - temperature rise, melting ice sheets, and extreme weather. As a scientist, I'm persuaded by verifiable facts. Shrag also explained the long-time lags of the climate system and why substantial warming is likely locked in already. This warrants prudent risk mitigation now through emissions reductions._
_Shrag pointed out that setting ambitious innovation goals has repeatedly exceeded expectations. As an expert, I concur that driving innovation could catalyze our transition to a low-carbon energy system faster than conventionally assumed._
_While Koonin made reasonable points about costs, technical challenges, and uncertainties, Shrag's evidence-based urgency perspective coupled with a feasible clean energy innovation path was more compelling from my dual lens as an expert on both energy and climate change. The climate risks he highlighted justify prompt, accelerated action on emissions reductions._
-Anthropic Claude-2-100k
Familiar with that debate. If you just look at the as a regular inquisitive and analytical mind, you will find out one important aspect and how poor the concept of greenhouse gas causing anything major. 95 percent of greenhouse gas is water vapor, not Co2 no methane. Since we can't do much about the water vapor which is a major element, poor scientists want to bring attention to carbon, since that can be used to falsely believe and make changes that will have no noticeable effect. Don't be fooled. Carbon is the building block of life. Don't mess with it. If you do there would be not enough food for living. There is no climate catastrophe. Humans always find a better and cleaner way to survive. Ford did not invent the car because there were no horses, the cave man did not come out of the stone age because there were no more stones. They just did it to better their lives. Think about the waste boproducts of fossil fuels when it started. We were very worried about boproducts for pollution, but now look around your house and you will notice 90 percent all the household usable stuff are made from boproducts of petroleum.
So interesting to them drinking Fiji water ! How much carbon did it take to ship that water half way around the world ! Stop the hypocrisy!
very little carbon was used to ship that water :-) ... less than it took to ship it from port to shop
of course branded fancy water is stupid, but shipping costs are not the issue :-)
@@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi so what saying is shipping isnt part of the carbon foot print
@@JG-us9lu it is but it is a lot smaller than you believe
@@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi Bit like EVs right?
Science is no more science!
Our lifespan is too short to state that “the record temperatures in 2023 or talk about our lifetime” which is insignificant compared to the millions of years of climate change and evolution of the earth. We should listen to the scientists who explain all these aspects of the climate change, the time line and the measurements of the temperatures of our planet through millions of years. There is not climate crisis.
So in my lifetime scientist have told us the world is gking end about 5 or six times. Bugger me Im still here. Even after in the 70s we were going freeze in an ice age. The arrogance of men who believe we can control the climate is beyond belief.
Humans have never occupied this earth with ice at the poles. The temperature millions of years ago doesn’t matter
Carbon dioxide is plant food. Shouldn't plants have a voice?
Photosynthesis slows at 104 and stops at 113f. Nothing will survive on a dead planet
@@Jc-ms5vv"The critical temperature beyond which photosynthetic machinery in tropical trees *_begins to fail_* averages at about 46.7 degrees Celsius or about 116 degrees Fahrenheit." Aug 23, 2023
climate cult
I think one has to propose to the young people: are you willing to go w/o using a gas car, not be able to charge your phone b/c the utility wants you to exercise a 12 hour blackout, give up the ability to listen to your stereo or watch tv or use your computer. How about we close down movie theaters-takes electricity to run a projector. What about using electric tools in arts & crafts & home improvement things. What if the govt tells you not to use AC because they say it adds too much emissions?
Plastic is made from oil.
They dont have to worry the plan is reduce the population too 500, 000,000 so they preserve the resources for them selves. COVID was just their trial run
People are willing do die for their cars, phones and AC. Even better if it's somebody else dying. You can watch it on your phone, in your car with the AC on.
@@chesterfinecat7588 Ooooh you have really drank the coolade
It's not about the climate. It's not about pollution. It's about socialism.
It’s been high Jack by politics and money
Absolutely farcical. Where do they find these slime balls in human form.
When these people ban private jet use among themselves others may listen
A debate amongst men who all agree that CO2 is causing the world to warm. I would like to see a debate between those who think CO2 causes warming and those who think warming causes more CO2
YES
the latter
visit the most recent presentation by prof William Happer.
No debate is needed: the warm ocean waters are saturated with dissolved co2 , the arctic cold waters absorb vehemently co2 from the air, because the solubility of co2 is temperature dependent enourmous when cold, and small when warm, just look up the measurements published in scientific reports. The vast majority of all co2 is dissolved in the oceans, according to the carbon dating community. And it is simple to determine this in simple experiments .Without the co2 in the ocean the alkalinity if the ocean would not correspond to 8.2 but to 11, neutral is 7, with todays temperature it is impossible to make the oceans acidic.
Ph value less than 7 .
It is obvious that with warming seas great amounts of co2 are released into the greening areas bordering the sahara and all low lattidude regions.
In summary the co2 increases from the warming oversaturated oceans Look up Prof. Murry Salby, who determined the phasing process
@@Arturo-lapazhapper is a paid liar
Especially since there is no correlation between climate temps and CO2 levels. And this throughout earth’s history
If the affluent thought climate change was a real problem they would downsize to smaller living facilities, move away from ocean front property and ditch their jet aircraft.
Hard to believe these 2 are wealthy PhDs.
This "debate" was made-for-TV pablum.
the earth has self defense.. hot sun.. more clouds. etc
The fear factor doesn’t allow us to be objective. We are not saying ignore, we are saying monitor but don’t over do it or exaggerate it.
Boo hoo!
Seriously?
Liars liars your pants are on fire….
47:00 The most important statemant.
Watch Steve’s body language. His opponent lacks credibility.
They could not even design proper chairs for these people to sit in.
Imaging how many things Earth can fix with the 180 Trillions $$$ needed to reach Net Zero. How many poor people can be lifted out of poverty and how much the human condition can improve!
How many horrible diseases can be eradicated !
What or who are these Climate scientists that the first speaker is talking about. And where is the data from their aparent evidence.
Give you facts on co2 China will do what they want and India Russia south Africa ect They have no intention of stopping coal If you denie this you don't no want your talking about
We have to mixed but it is very expensive compared to just using fossil fuel. It is to practical and economically not affordable for most developing countries.
First speaker: "we are not depriving poor countries of energy". Well, if you stop funding hydrocarbon development through the World bank etc and only support green tech you actually ARE stopping them. However, this wont work. There is alternative financing fr non western countries. That stranglehold of the west is over..
what will happen if temperatures rise to 5 degrees - dinosaurs will come to life in Antarctica and it will be like in the 'Jurassic...' movie.
A global mean temp rising to 5 degrees would be a disaster for large scale agriculture. You do know that none of the systems human civilization depends on would function in Dinosaur World. Radically different ecosystems then and now.
Solar and wind not Green, total lies.
Joseph told Pharaoh that seven years of abundance would be followed by seven years of famine (Genesis 41:28-32). After seven years, the amazing prosperity in Egypt's fields comes to an end
Ok. Climate models are the best representation of future climate? No, they are all representations of a fixed set of undetlying assumptions w a large climate sensitivity factor. That's why they dont line up w observations. Well, i should say didnt because now they are manipulating the actual data to fit the equations they like to see. So, A leads to B. If A does NOT lead to B change the way you calculate A. Et voila!
There's no question but what 16 billion people can enjoy wonderful lives and ski vacations forever and ever because personal fusion and UltraFlexinol supersubstance is just around the corner. We'll genetically produce whatever companion species we want at the moment. Got at thing for moose? Poof, you got moose. Moose kick you in the head? Poof, you're ready for the Steamboat Institute.
In any debatesa, Physicists are always correct and objectives with statistics data, not campaign.
just leave the climate alone and find a real job...
This discussion is best resumed by the water bottles on the desks: Fiji water. All of them on the panel are totally delusional. We could have prevented the coming crisis, by turning our backs on the consumption economy, when smart people (club of Rome) understood where we were heading to. We didn't and so now it's too late.
If buildings are the biggest users of energy (40%) then they as the biggest users should adopt systems and technologies that reduce this amount of use and therefore require smarter technologies to get them there.
Arrhenius was....erroneous
Make sure you ignore the record smashing global average temps in 2023, Steve. Ignore the 115F that has withered Spain’s olive crop. Ignore the 115F in Brazil this week that threatens their soybean crop intended to feed Chinese factory farmed chickens. Definitely do not mention the aerosol masking effect from coal burning that has kept summer temps artificially suppressed in Eastern US, East China, India and Kazakhstan.
That's weather.
@@shoobidyboop8634 Seems the weather’s getting a bit hot. Except in India, the Eastern US and East China. Those sulfates from burning fucktons of coal are pretty effective at keeping a lid on hot weather aren’t they. Brazil sure could use some this week.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 China burns fucktons of coal, and Dan's pointing the finger at the US, like the phony he is. As for heat waves, that's just weather, just like when there's a cold snap somewhere. I didn't make the rules, shirtless Karen, I'm just here to use your rules against you.
@@anabolicamaranth7140People are more resilient, the more power they consume (or, energy over time). Increases in consumption of all legitimate fuels are helpful in this regard. Any climate-effects from this would be both far in the future, and minimal. Near-term weather variability isn't affected to any measurable extent by this year's carbon emissions.
@@aliendroneservices6621 Near term CLIMATE is not effected by this year’s carbon emissions either. India’s coal burning has allowed them to run AC and avoid excessive heat.
Careful analysis including trapped micro bubbles of gasss in ancient ice cores show temperatures rise first then CO2 follows. Same today. We are seeing that there are myriad cycles including solar and extra solar gamma flux that have amplfying effects on climate.
Propaganda.
I had never seen Dr. Steve Koonin so disgusted with his counterpart’s arguments. I have followed Koonin for a while and I believe his scientific stand point. Solar energy is no cheap and it’s not green.
Agreed and indeed, his face at the outset showed that he expected what he got subsequently.
to be precise - energy is 'green' but the means to produce the equipment to obtain it are not 'green'.
he's not disgusted. it's just how his face folds
I have been following this for years. I am a biologist. I am convinced from the current unbiased data on recent and all past climate related events shows nothing but natural cycles and changes that can not be attributed due to human existence. Carbon is the last thing we should be worried unless we have a way to grow plants and be green without Co2. I also understood, that majority of the climate Scientists (there is no climate science as a discipline in science) are biased to publish results that worries people and will generate funds for research. They also do not appreciate that how complex is the climate to understand. We are human, and our inventive mind will handle any climate change if we try to analyze without bias and work on the technology to withstand any natural climate disaster that may come. No, Climate catastrophe, IT IS MADE UP. Climate change is real and it will change all forms of life on earth for ever. Since 95% of the green house gas is water vapor, should we try to de vaporize this universe? This subject became insanely worthless.
Yeh, bojrn lomborg and his crew addressed this issue pretty well. The debate should have move onto other things a while ago, but there is too much political pressure and social contagion involved. There are literally dozens of global issues that are far more impactful than climate change that we never hear about.
I agree. The entire CO2 narrative is untrue.
You are absolutely correct. I would love to see us spend much more on research and development than throwing our money into things we know will "Never" meet our energy demands. We could do more research into nuclear energy. Why not use Thorium instead of uranium. We could also spend more on the search for recycling plastic. Including the collection, cleaning, point-of-use advantages, and end uses. Why are we not spending on these types of studies? We give Trillions of dollars to research a biased climate change study. The payback of research over 30 years will far exceed these lame studies on climate. We can and should be doing better than installing $ trillions into very iffy remediation of climate change. If we must spend on solar and wind, why not give that technology to those Third World countries to improve their welfare?
The aIarmists here are charlatans.
In reality….
US strong tornadoes have been DECREASING for 60 years
(see NOAA data).
Hurricanes and Typhoons have been STEADY for 45 years
(see Dr Ryan Maue data).
Heatwaves over 100 f have been DECREASING since the 1930s
(see NOAA data).
N Hemisphere snow extent has been INCREASING for 50 years.
(see Rutgers snow-lab).
Polar bear numbers have been increasing for 60 years.
(see DR Sue Crockford data:)
S Hemisphere sea-ice extent was INCREASING for 40 years,
before a storm in 2017. (and extent is climbing back up again)
(see NSIDC on climate4you)
Ralph.
In cold climatic periods the vegetation is strongly reduced world wide because the co2 goes vehemently into solution into the colder water, at -2C the solubility is maximum reducing the available co2 to values found today in the high areas, primarily on the Aliplano where the co2 content is 2/3 of the 0.49 gram per m³ in low regions, making the growth of trees impossible, except for Eucalyptus trees. where I grew up. We had a finca, where we enhanced the growth of vegetation by combustion co2 enriched air in closed green houses
EV car manufacturers are facing big problems right now...
The cars are too expensive for regular folk.
Without subsidies the demand for them drops off.
Most manufacturers are making massive losses on their EVs and their debt levels are going way up.
Charging infrastructure isn't great.
Oh, and when they catch fire they're practically impossible to put out.
It turns out they're not even that 'green', and require massive ongoing mining of resources that will only get more difficult to come by.
So, will we really be driving EVs in the near future?... Unlikely.
The weight of the batteries chew up the road surfaces.
@@TheBSDetector99and tires…EV’s go through more tires…don’t know how much CO2 emissions are needed to manufacture tires but I’m sure it’s not small per tire…then there is the used tires…what to do with…
Problems with EVs: there are bottlenecks in the electrical transmission and production; 2) There are severe restrictions on copper, cobalt, lithium and other rare metals needed to produce batteries. (Cobalt production is produced in significant proportion by slave and child labor . )
@@Dreadnought16 "don’t know how much CO2 emissions are needed to manufacture tires"
You don't need to. Simply calculate cost-per-mile.
"but I’m sure it’s not small per tire"
It's tiny: around 1 cent per mile, for my car. Compare that to around 10 cents per mile fuel-cost for my car.
@@rosela41 Yes I know. Those poor children are in hell in those mines. Black Lives Matter is BS.
Not to mention how much it would help if Congress would just repeal those Laws of Thermodynamics. Maybe the Supreme Court could help.
How arrogant is Daniel Schrag, and trying to convince people with a false climate crisis.
The fact that Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, fellow Great Resetter Charles over in the UK, Bergoglio over at the vatican, Tedros from the WHO, and also the United Nations, all push the anthropogenic climate change narrative, tells me everything I need to know.
Would love to have seen Professor Ian Plimer included in this debate!
And Willian Happer and Richard Linzden
How about Jean Curry?
@@thomasadams3614 Judith?
@@archibaldikowski3646 ah yes...Judith. Thank-you for the correction!😊
The largest electric grid is in the soil. It is composed of fungi etc. Carbon based and pumps fluids even up hill. Carbon Dioxide and some carbonates tend to move downward. Natural systems tend to sequester carbon faster as more CO2 become available. Destroying,draining wetlands, Forests and farmlands for wind and solar, is idiotic. Mining uses more fossil fuels to produce and manufacture than it can ever pay back
Exactly
A lot of assertions. Very little and poor evidence.
Fossil fuels and carbonate-based rocks were once living plants and animals, which grew by consuming atmospheric and water-dissolved CO2 which recirculates.
Poor infrastructures Are not the fault of Climat Changes. They are the fault of mismanagement of funds that were granted to improve infrastructure yet only improved CEO bank accounts the 500 year drought or flood is here early, or was it the 200 year event.
Wow, this is the most emotional and weakest climate argument I’ve ever heard. I’m embarrassed for Daniel and that Steve had to dignify the argument without ever once hearing a challenge to his claims. A non debate debate.
Try running an Aluminium smelter with a continuous 500MWe demand with just a Solar farm and Gigabattery packs. The solar would need to have a 2000MW output averaged over 6hours then need at least18×500MWh = 9GWh batteries to get through the nights.
That's capital cost of:
4×500,000×$1500/kW= $3billion +
9000MWh×$1000,000/MWh(= $9billion) =
Total capital cost/kW. = $12×10⁹/500,000 = $24,000 per kW for 24/7/365 demand
C.f just one of Indonesia's 8×500MWe TMSR capital costs of $800 - $1000 per kW = 24 to 30 times cheaper than the capital cost of a stand alone combined Solar + Batteries.
(NOTE: Both supply 500MW × (6+18)hours = 12,000MWh/day)
So no solar aluminum smelting? We can always use titanium.
@@chesterfinecat7588 not unless you are an idiotic Green billionaire - who would buy your aluminium at 10× the market price?
@@chesterfinecat7588 sure - and titanium you can produce in your kitchen?
that is correct only if next day guarantee sunshine.
Shame on you for lying!
Pure BS..
A 'climate scientist' - jack of all trades, master of none
"-but often better than a master of one" that's the full quote 😀
@@Adam-Hobbesoften but not always
@@JG-us9lu of course as with most things.
Yer l must admit Koonin SEEMEDa bit subdued The other guy was over the top Does he win
Even in Singapore’s, solar energy is unreliable.
Science is descriptive not prescriptive. Science doesn’t tell us to do anything nor should it.
Is Daniel Schrag paid by Big Green?
Yes can we smelt aluminium and other metals using wind and or solar and how efficient is that. Or add concrete to the equation
No we can not run industries,especially aluminium or smelting of any kind ,on unreliables,an impossibility,they need 24 hour base load reliability ,that's why total reliance on solar panels and wind farms is a pipe dream,and why the Asian countries are building at least another 100 coal fired power stations,of which China alone is building another 60,so all we are doing is virtue signalling and wasting trillions of dollars,borrowed dollars I might add,on net zero by 2050,total lunacy!@
😂😂😂😴
👍😊🇬🇧
you can talk about this until the cows come home. There are now vast fortunes being made in the process of decarbonization, new kinds of cement, new sources of energy and amazing efficiencies. While experts who like the sound of their own voices talk, we entrepreneurs will fix the problem. Now it is time for action.
There is no need to fix a non existent problem, and money spent chasing this issue is a resource that could be better utilized to fix real issues.