Should World Governments Enact Net-Zero-By-2050 Policies?, a debate by John Doggett and Alex Epstein
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 พ.ย. 2022
- For more information about the Objectivism Program and upcoming events you can sign up to our mailing list: salemcenter.org/research/obje...
I work in Africa. When Benin can't pay its energy bill, Nigeria shuts the country down. The locals then use gas driven generators. In this case, gas is the solution for getting around government incompetence. Benin has large reservoirs of petrol, but is not allowed to develop them. This is artificial scarcity. Electrical technology is also excludable, or can be weaponized.
Good god. Im a Texan and now am embarrassed by the quality of Taxas academe! Alex slayed A&Ms Dessler and now UTs Dugget. Phew
Diversity is perversity....
I’ve seen Alex debate Dessler twice, who was brave enough, I give hime that), to come back for another butt kicking.
Finally watched the interview.
I see why people avoid debating Alex - Fear? He is a beast! John is a worthy opponent despite interrupting Alex and making some strawman arguments. He is well read and his stay in the developing world gives him an upper hand because experience.. but Alex makes obvious points. Relatable. Well researched and most self-explanatory. The human flourishing argument has no counter arguments.
Keep up the good work Alex, Einstein.
Fossil fuels have a lifespan of 50 years. No matter what, we are going to run out of oil in less than 50 years.
@@lazarus8828 The problem isn't finding more fossil fuels. The problem is finding reserves and getting them out of the ground cost-effectively. Solar, wind, and geothermal will continue to drop in price while fossil fuels price themselves out of business.
@@lazarus8828 There is a difference between running out of oil and no longer being economically feasible I'll grant you. There is also a difference between the hair in the crack of my ass and on top of my head as well.
@@lazarus8828 "there are a lot of reasons that would not happen." It is predicted that we will run out of fossil fuels in this century. Oil can last up to 50 years, natural gas up to 53 years, and coal up to 114 years. I wouldn't bet a civilization on that when .1% of the heat in the ground will last humans millions of years. Geothermal is our best option at this time. Who's investing in the research? Chevron and BP.
"Even your own argument relies on improvements to wind, solar, and geothermal energy to make them cheaper." Wind and solar are already the cheapest energy sources available today. The downside is they are intermittent. Geothermal is 5X more expensive than both. The good thing is geothermal is operational 84% of the time and is considerably cheaper than batteries. If you run the three together, you can operate cheaper than natural gas power plants with a stable grid.
"Why is the improvement to extraction methods of fossil fuels not also viable?" All the large oil fields have been found. Increasingly, the governments of the world
are going to force the fossil fuel companies to pay external costs which will increase costs to the customers.
"Cheap energy is good." I agree as long as all external costs are paid for by the customer. Whatever it costs to remove CO2 back out of the atmosphere, should be an added tax to pay for that removal.
"The complaints come when people are forced to buy energy from more expensive sources and consequently use less energy and see the price of everything increase." Somewhere along the line, all costs will be absorbed within a system. It's the total costs over a 300 to a 1,000-year period that must be factored in.
"This reduces people's freedoms and quality of life." The question is , "Who pays". You or your children and grandchildren...?
@@Cspacecat wind and solar are absolutely not the cheapest source of energy today. The only reason they are even available is subsidies.
Giving "renewables" time is a dumb point, really dumb. Time is not going to change the fact that wind and solar are very low energy-dense, intermittent sources.
Renewables have been given millennia of time, with zero success in creating or sustaining a modern civilization.
Agreed. The ironic thing is the people trumpeting renewables are the ones screaming “we are running out of time!”
HORSESHIT. There is nothing more that contributes to MY freedom than a roof fucking COVERED with solar panels. Who the fuck cares they source from China? My wallet don't care.
If we do fucking NOTHING we may die.
I we FIX this, we live.
not to mention, I had no problem giving renewables time to get better (they've been around for decades with very little notable improvements) but once you set a timeline for us to go off fossil fuels and also be punished the entire time for using them (taxes) then they'd better get way way better way way faster.
@@comerunwithmig Nope, you got it all WRONG. It is a race between human moronic behavior and the technology that can kill him. Darwin or Stupidity? who shall be the victor?
So you want to save the fucking PLANET but expect it to be FREE?
How FREE is that gas YOU pump into that tank? What was the price per gallon the first time in your life you filled that fucking tank? FREE? What is the price per gallon the last time you filled that fucking tank? FREE? The price has CLIMBED all your life but relax, the Oil Will Run Out. It will be done for us and your great-grand-kids (have you bred yet?
Alex is a top notch debater and correct too! Well done.
I'm trying to give Mr. Doggett a chance in my mind but he keeps getting worse and worse with weaker and weaker arguments. Without his constant appeal to authority arguments, he would have to just go sit down.
His argument about solar working in developing countries was beyond pitiful, seriously wth.
This guy John Dogett is really confused 😐.
I’m with ur thinking, Alex.
Net-Zero will herald a time of trouble the World has never seen.
HORSESHIT. That side of the debate simply protects the OBSCENE revenues and profits of the CARBON industry while the Earth cooks.
If we FIX this we live.
If we do fucking NOTHING we may die.
Idiots, morons, ignoramuses, debaters, and crazies pick the later.
Before Henry Ford opted for petrol power, when Edison could not supply enough batteries and motors, unwanted petrol was poured down the drain, as only paraffin was saleable. A network of filling stations sprang up virtually overnight. No subsidies.
So the fuck what?
@@mrunning10 ...impressively articulate and well reasoned...
@@Ironic1950 You must be a "bot" they don't answer as well
@@mrunning10 ...any AI will appear more human than a Brunobot. Just because Bruno does not comprehend, does not mean his interlocutor is a cybernetic organism, and why would Bruno not like that?
Bravo! Both speakers are knowledgeable, eloquent and clearly have intelligent something to say.
Alex’s Human Flourishing/Energy Freedom/Climate Mastery arguments are strong, balanced and difficult to honestly refute.
There is nothing more that contributes to MY freedom than a roof fucking COVERED with solar panels. Who the fuck cares they source from China? My wallet don't care.
The best way to stop an opponent from interrupting - other than a stern warning from the moderator - is a stern warning from the person being interrupted.
Stare directly into the interrupter and say in a clear, direct voice:
"Sir, you are interrupting my answer. Please stop."
Try to make eye contact and continue to stare at the interrupter until they break eye contact. Don't worry about being seen as rude or dominating...after all, your opponent chose to be rude first and you must assert your right to speak.
*What's highly amusing - and richly ironic - is that John Doggett made An Appeal to Authority by citing his "work" in the Third World.*
*Slight problem: his "work" has nothing at all to do with energy. Doggett's expertise is in entrepreneurship/global competition and sightseeing with MBA students.*
Fossil fuel is cheap and greener than all other sources except for nuclear
Hydroelectric. The ocean is endless power.
@@tysonthompson3661 transmission lines....
Alex is very good. I am going to do a video of my rural area energy structure.
to what purpose?
Prof. Doggett's opening argument about flaring "inefficiency" is not good. The cost of flaring is included in the price of the final product.
Small correction at 29:00 John mentions the first French tidal power plant. He says it produces 500 Gigawatts of energy a year but that is the wrong unit. He meant 500 Gigawatt hours a year. 500 gigawatts is 5 times the current US nuclear power fleet's output power. While 500 Gigawatt hours is 6% of the energy that the US nuclear fleet produces each year.
45:16 , markets can't decide shit when there is the holy government supporting anything, either for FF or against it. That is the whole problem with freeing the energy in the world. Government shuldn't support anything because that allows for money to corrupt it in either direction. That is NOT how free market works!
Not an impressive showing from a UT professor.
Hands down Alex Epstein won this debate. You don't convince anyone with strawman arguments and by distorting what your opponent has said John Doggett.
It was a good debate and I thought John made better sense.
Both Alex Epstein and Steven Koonin have problems finding someone to debate them. I enjoy watching them when they get on Sky News Australia.
Nice discussion. It would have been nice to see the slides.
Alex Epstein- on subject, fact based rationality with sane use of logical cost/benefit analysis to promote Human flourishing as the only standard.
John Duggett- strawmanning his opponent, deflection of subject matter, appeal to authority and a lack of insight into the disasters of statism which, amongst other things, seemingly indicates economic illiteracy.
But those just my opinions, so perhaps no surprise who easily won the debate for me.
Not to overshadow the particular debate, but I think Dr. Salmieri's open remark on the value of debate is particularly profound.
We sit around "debating" while the fossil fuel industry continues taking in their fucking OBSCENE revenues and profits while the Earth cooks. The planet will decide this issue.
If we FIX this we live. If we do fucking NOTHING we may die.
Idiots, morons, ignoramuses, debaters, and crazies pick the later.
Bringing up the mobile phone leapfrogging landlines is a terrible analogy. To the contrary, not only is the infrastructure much more costly assuming comparable reliability, but one could equally argue renewable electricity-for everything from heating to transport-is to fossil fuels what landlines are to mobile. Containers and pipes are far less leaky than wires and batteries.
Mobile infrastructure is cheaper than fixed line. Though I'm not saying that renewables are better (reliable and cheap).
I think that the clear winner of the debate was Alex. He starts with his first principles and shows why they are true in relation to the real world.
I would pose a question to Prof. Doggett. He repeatedly asserts that while we can't possibly achieve Net Zero by 2050, the central position of the affirmative, it's good to have this as a goal. This begs the question, 'Why should we set about working towards an unachievable goal?' What makes such a goal good? His arguments in this debate make no attempt to support this as a goal. He simply takes it for granted that this is and should be the goal. And the ultimate truth of why people don't want to identify the principles they are operating on is because if they did, they would not be able to justify them. Whereas this is exactly what Alex has done in his framework of showing that the first principles he operates on are pro human flourishing, and those of the Net-Zero movement are anti-human.
He’s a leftist through and through.
Net zero at 2050 may not be possible, but every slight increase in temperature means a more difficult existence for everything and everyone on this planet. It is worth trying even if the target is unrealistic. Pro climate is pro human. Without action we are condemning the human race. People like Alex, sponsors of (and sponsored by) big oil are only muddying the waters.
@@graham4889 Prove that *_lack of energy_* hasn't ever made existence difficult for anyone.
@@graham4889 False. Even green/left governments like Trudeau's in Canada are tacitly admitting that the economic effects of GW will be negligeable. Search for "The Parliamentary Budget Officer just debunked climate alarmism" by the Financial Post.
@ElizarTringov Except net zero by 2050 is not a worthwhile goal in the slightest. On the contrary, even baby steps in that direction has led to dramatic increases in energy costs and, consequently, in the cost of living.
A lot of strawmanning and and projection by Doggett. Also, I would have liked to see the slides that both Epstein and Dogget were showing.
58:09 "Take Elon Musk's best battery prices: if you want to back up the whole world for three days, it's $400 trillion."
😳😬...
So you’re saying there’s a chance…
@@commentorinchief788 what is the current gross income of the world?
@@wheel-man5319 Go ask an Oil Company.
Greate debate. tbh I dont' really understand John Doggett's position. At the end he said something like "china & Russia control a ton of the fossil fuels, and therefore we have to be for alternatives." Why? Why not instead build our own resources so we don't depend on them? I guess I don't understand his "we need to be net zero because China and Russia" argument.
Fantastic, Alex! Keep up the great messaging.
Net-Zero looks really bad. Mr. Doggett is not even arguing for net-zero and still not making much sense even for a similar direction. How is it possible that this nonsense movement is so widely spread?
Oh yeah....but let's have Artisanal miners dig for Cobalt....🤦🏼♂️
Honestly,Energy freedom for all and may the best ideas win out...that's how we as a society should view the whole energy situation.
Fair play to John for taking part in the debate but he was playing catch up from the off .
As a Nigerian all my life, John Doggeth just lie out-right for saying there's oil spills every year in the country and no one talk about it.
He meant to say oil thief guys....
You emit CARBON "all my life" too?
The fact that Dogget is using some of Alex's terminology shows that the battle is starting to be fought on the pro fossil fuel ground
The battle is decided by simple calculations, Do the numbers , the only way to do comparison.
Energy in oil 43000 kiloJules per kilogram
daily solar energy collected from 1 m² solar panel one 1/2 kilowatt hour over 6 hours
when the panels are fixed, double if they track the sun. zero for 14 hours before sunset to just after sunrise , and on a cloudy day.
Power produced at the most for a wind turbine
is (2/3 wind)³ times density times turbine disc area
52:32
We lived on a finca (farm), 22 kilometers from the next town at 12000 feet altitude, we had a single piston 2 HP generator running on gasoline, but broken most of the time and lived using kerosene lamps every evening. Not a problem to raise 1200 sheep and 80 cows, with occasional visits from the cute vicuñas. Never saw a powerline in the region at all
The Town : Eucalyptus 🇧🇴
For the question at 48:00, I would have loved to here Alex mention that it depends on local terrain. If you are surrounded by rivers, hydro is a likely source of energy. If you are in a reliably windy area, wind+ another fuel for base load. If you are in a volcanic area, geothermal may be a solution.
This would have been a way to explain why energy freedom is needed since no solution fits all terrain
I agree. In some places solar or wind make total sense. In other places, they make no sense.
No one makes the point that wind & solar require more fossil fuel energy to mine, fabricate, transport, and transmission system to connect to the grid, than the quantity of energy they will ever create in their lifetimes, and that does not even address the problem that wind & solar kit is non-recyclable. The latest giant wind equipment is also very fragile, breaks frequently, and thus has a much-reduced long-term reliability. AND, to ensure baseload power supply, the same amount of fossil fuelled power stations are required to come on instantly there is lack of wind/solar availability.
I feel like I'm watching the wrong debate.
John Doggett doesn't seem to be even trying to defend the proposition 🤷
Nobody can! If they can't math, they know someone that can, and none of it adds up.
Goals should be achievable. Net zero is not achievable by 2050. Good debate!
6:10 John ignores the role of green activists in blocking natural gas pipelines. If gas companies were allowed to built more pipelines and other important infrastructure (LNG terminals), there wouldn't be as much flaring.
Thanks to John for participating in this debate!
This is a trick question. There shouldn't be world governments. I want to live in a sovereign nation.
Thank you for the debate We need more debating on this issue
Within the first minute, I made an evaluation ... there would be no point in debating John. I could spend a year refuting every second word of his opening statement.
This shouldn’t even be a debate
Immediate straw man construction by John, right after Alex’s opening statement-claiming Alex thinks France getting 70% of its electricity from nukes “is a disaster, because it’s not fossil fuels”. Huh?
Solar panel fields and wind farms KILL WILD LIFE! Solar fields flare birds that perceive lakes as they fly over. Wind mills beat birds of prey to death. Did I mention the mechanical failure in adverse weather conditions? How about the mess of mining the rare earth materials and refining the ore for use? Let's start there.
Alex structered and John all over the place even with his opening summary! but credit to John for having the balls to takenon this debate when no one else would,
In relation to energy, John is a fully paid up member of the mass pathologically credulous cohort. People like him who are far too eager to believe in anything are dangerous. Hydrocarbons have been foundational in relation to human progress over the last 200 years. To say they weren't is moronic.
@@dipladonic Up until 20 years ago, the Earth was greening due to the increase in CO2 fertilization. In 1998, the additional greening stopped due to temperatures rising but water vapor wasn't keeping up causing a global atmospheric drought. Even though absolute humidity increased globally by 8%, global drought increased by 29%. No one talks about this because this knowledge will basically shut the fossil fuel industry down.
@@Cspacecat Any basic fundamental analysis of your last post clearly demonstrates that it is yet another fake invisible assertion which catastrophizes climate.
@@dipladonic It appears that you are not either smart enough or interested enough to Google the information. Bigotry and stupidity are always easier.
STW, stomp your feet and hurl insults, that'll prove your point.
Oh and crying, crying will sometimes get you your way, step it up!
DEBATE between "True science" backed by data vs. "Unproven fancy theory."
@28:53 John Doggett uses of the Rance Tidal Power Station in France as an example of the promise of renewable energy. He said it produces 500 GW every year. It actually produces 500 GW-hours per year, an average of 57 MW, about the output of a nuclear reactor on a submarine.
How is it that he doesn't understand that starting with a dishonest goal with a dishonest premise is definitely a negative way to form public policy is so telling. Jordan Peterson recently quipped that you don't get away with any lies ever whether it's within your lifetime or in the future Every Lie is held to account. So we should try to be as honest as we can with our stated goals and our premises.
I’ve been in the gas & power business for 20 years and “clean” does not mean anything close to what he said around 99:30. He obviously thought Alex made him look foolish and made something up on the spot that made him look even more foolish.
There is no "99:30" timestamp in this video. Could you give us some more clues as to which part of the video you're referring to?
@@aliendroneservices6621 at 58:36
@@commentorinchief788 Thanks. He seems to be correct, except he said energy instead of power. Found this definition: "Clean electricity is electrical power that is free from voltage spikes and drops. Voltage ripple or noise that is outside the ideal sine waveform is sometimes referred to as dirty electricity or electrical pollution."
@@aliendroneservices6621power (specifically electricity in this case) and energy are 2 different things, so he is not correct. Alex was correct, when referring to clean "energy" the inference is wind, solar, hydro etc. John conflates the two and appears the fool.
Well done by Alex with good arguments and centered correctly in the debate. John was unclear and dishonest.
No one mentions "climate sensitivity", possibly because it is a hard concept to grasp, and the net-zero people tend to oversimplify. Climate sensitivity is the effect on temperatures caused by a doubling of CO2 (not "carbon") in the atmosphere. Scientists have calculated this factor to be less than one degree centigrade, or not a problem. IPCC and most "climate scientists" make wild and unsubstantiated claims of 3-7 degrees centigrade. Proof they are wrong is that in the 70 years up to 1940, the climate warmed at the rate of one degree centigrade. In the to years since 1940, the same, warming of one degree centigrade. This warming is natural, having come about since the mid-1800s and the end of the Little Ice Age. The warming is beneficial. The demonization of fossil fuels is a product of misanthropy, or hatred of humans. This is why we find eugenicists like Bill Gates at the center of it. Gates wants fewer people, and sees restriction of fossil fuels as the means. That is why we are even having this crazy debate.
Someone gets it. This is fundamentally just an anti-human movement that seeks to eradicate the growth and advancement of modern society. It is quite literally a mind virus.
OMG. That African professor has been living under a rock!
this debate is basically an embarrassment and not even close. its factual and common sense the net zero and ESG Bullshit that is being spewed. Johns arguments are not intellectually sound. Alex is a Beast with his knowledge and ability to debate and shut this misinformation down
What you don't ever hear is what happens if we dramatically reduce the amount of CO2 in the air? I'm not taking about net zero, I'm talking reducing the ambient amount in the air. I bet we get cooler, less plants grow, etc. Which is not good thing.
NO. There's no need for debate. The seas rise at 3mm/year just as they have for over a hundred years with no change in sight. I think we'll manage.
Not to mention that NET ZERO hits the wall of the laws of Physics and Thermodynamics. So how is NET ZERO achieved?
Electricity is not a source of energy it is only transmitting energy, which must be generated first.
Did you ever see a truck with solar sails, like a schooner transporting 30 tons up hill?
you need 2 trailers covered with solar cells behind a Tesla to charge it while 1 day parking .
Most important information in this debate: The conclusions of the IPCC studies are being completely distorted by midia and policy makers. There is no one conclusion in the thousands of pages of the IPCC reports indicating a relevant threat and an unbearable and disastrous climate situation for our dear planet.
John constantly appealing to authority, strawmaning, and cutting Alex off. Please debate facts, not life experiences! He came across very immature, and with ideas not nearly as fleshed out as Alex.
Totally disagree. John did not constantly cut Alex off. He did initially but then there was uninterrupted discussion. Alex was at times arrogant eg maybe I am smarter than you. Alex not more factual. Conflates energy with fossil fuels, conflates renewables with only wind and solar. Very misleading.
@@graham4889 I beg to differ. It is not arrogant to remind someone who is clearly being condescendingly patronising on the basis of being older than you and have done some work in different countries. My response would also include " so what " ? John's theme was also partially reflected in the somewhat worn "how old were you when you were born" analogy he used on a questioner. If John had the insight and confidence in his argument he wouldn't have used those ironically somewhat childlike comments in the first place. Sorry, but his commentary was clearly flawed and nowhere near as objectively thought through as Alex Epstein's. He therefore didn't just lose the argument, like so many with similar thoughts - he didn't really have one initially.
@@phil3572 Thanks Phil, I accept that the quality of the debate could have been better and more professional, which is frustrating because I see Alex as misleading on fundamental points of the consequences of climate change.
@@graham4889 yea... I'm sure you do. What I see is this; climate alarmism is a serious threat to human flourishing. It's THAT simple. These people are religious zealots demanding we propel ourselves back into the dark ages, just because! I mean, there is no climate crisis and handing over our money to the government to solve a problem that doesn't exist is madness.
The electric car was invented before the combustion car .... I don't think the "Give it time" idea worked well for the EV.
3.8 trillion has been spent on wind and solar in the last 10 years yet fossil fuel in the global energy mix has only changed from 82% to 81%. I had to write that one down.
Is Doggett really a professor we're supposed to take seriously? His straw mans and sidesteps were completely embarrassing to listen to. His opening statement was almost cogent but once the interruptions and guffaws started being aimed at his opponent he totally lost me.
On its face, the restraint of net zero emissions is unsound engineering, it is very likely the optimal engineering solutions will be excluded by this constraint. Furthermore, if CO2 goes below 150ppm everything dies; food supply must be part of the optimization for energy production solution
Comparing a baby growth to the development of renewal energy is ludicrous….what a ridiculous and irrational statement.
Great point
45:35 "The *_Rance Tidal Power Station_* is a tidal power station located on the estuary of the Rance River in Brittany, France."
"Opened in 1966 as the world's first tidal power station, it is currently operated by Électricité de France and was for 45 years the largest tidal power station in the world by installed capacity until the South Korean Sihwa Lake Tidal Power Station surpassed it in 2011."
My thumbs up if for Alex. Doggett had no substance or argument to take away from this except the fact that these "experts" are iether extremely corrupt at worst or extremely naive and emotional at less.
The debate degraded from a "Net zero by 2050" to some political posturing for renuables.
To me, on the debate topic, both agree to stop a global "net zero policy for 2050" as it is unatainable, with goals to increase renuable technology using eergy freedon policies.
The fossil fuel industry certainly wants YOU to believe it is "unattainable." They win.
If we FIX this we live.
If we do fucking NOTHING we may die.
Idiots, morons, ignoramuses, debaters, and the crazies pick the later.
I don't see any of the "slides" mentioned.
Well done Alex. His thoughts make the most sense for our future.
While I generally agree with Alex I do think there are some weaknesses in his argument.
1. Just because fossil fuels have encouraged human flourishing in the past does not mean one can extrapolate that outwards into the future. Too much of a good thing can be destructive.
2. While I have no doubt that human beings can adapt to a warming planet that does not mean that the broader ecosystem and the living things within it are necessarily equally adaptable. His argument his human centered and is too narrow to be completely persuasive.
3. I see a long term need for products derived from fossil fuels and it seems crazy to me to be burning it as a fuel if we can find other comparable alternatives.
Of course not. It's never been colder in the UK for July.
so the FUCK what?
What can we do to solve the climate crisis?
Allen Savory says that by allowing livestock to graze grass in a controlled manner (planned grazing) CO2 from the air through photosynthesis of the plants will be stored in the soil.
A microbiologist Walter Jehne who says that by always having the soil covered with green growth, the evaporation of water will lower the temperature considerably. He claims that about 95% of the temperature is controlled by water evaporation and about 4% is controlled by CO2. So it becomes very important to keep the soil covered with green growths all the time.
What we also need to be aware of is the large temperature difference between uncovered bare soil, which receives a strong heating and heat radiation, and soil that is covered with green growth. What we should do is always have the earth covered with green plants and trees so that we can capture the maximum amount of CO2 and at the same time facilitate water evaporation from the plants so that the temperature is lowered.
Allan Savory - How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change
th-cam.com/video/vpTHi7O66pI/w-d-xo.html
Walter Jehne - Climate Solutions for a Blue Planet
th-cam.com/video/DQN9t-g2J-0/w-d-xo.html
The Magic of Soil
th-cam.com/video/AWILIYSf5ts/w-d-xo.html
Doggett claims 50% of gas is flared. This is nonsense, about 3.5% of gas is flared. He goes on to discuss oil spills in Nigeria while ignoring the biggest cause of those spills, theft and illegal refining encouraged by corrupt officials. He then implies new battery technology to store renewable energy is just around the corner when there has been no significant new battery tech for 50 years. Some of his points are interesting but his obfuscation defeats his credibility.
This professor just made me think twice about McCombs's business school. So much misinformation
Doggett's analogy of cell phone transmission to power transmission is ridiculous on its face, and illustrates his lack of understanding of the underlying technology. He is right on one thing...we need to let the market work.
debate aint what it once was.
The comment section here is missing Alex Epstein's goal. He's not arguing for a pro-fossil fuel future. This talk about "ah, Doggett is using Alex's terms. A win for fossil fuel!" is misrepresenting Epstein. It's not about a fossil fuel future, it's an energy use freedom future. That could mean continued use of fossil fuels, it could also mean total switchover to renewables should the become a more viable alternative.
Agreed. Allow the free market to do its job.
That a modern climate model makes an argument or that this argument violates all three of Aristotle's Laws of Thought is inconsistent with the Net-Zero policy.
I read somewhere that CO2 is critical for life on earth and that going below 150ppm will not sustain life on this planet. It further stated that warming, supposedly by burning fossil fuel, is not an issue at all. My high school biology taught me that plants require CO2 for food and they, in turn, release oxygen into the atmosphere. I also read that doubling the CO2 (415ppm to 830ppm) would certainly help plants grow much better however the rise in temperature would be less than one degree C. Satellite photos show that the earth is actually getting greener because of the higher CO2 levels. I also read that the earth is actually in low CO2 level crisis. I believe that this perceived climate “crisis” is nothing more than perceived. The “alarmists” are blowing billions of taxpayers dollars on very inefficient renewables and want to get away from fossil fuels by 2050. Other than ruin the economy, the rapid switch to renewables is not realistic at this time. I think that this green hysteria has to be brought under control as we are on a slippery slope. This could mean the difference between life and death, of civilization, on this planet.
Mr. Doggett, using China in your (many) appeal to authority arguments is a poor choice.
Very rude interjections by the first speaker. A sign of insecurity
There is no valid reason to ban fossil fuels.
I live in Israel and my building does not have a solar hot water heater. It is not mandated by law.
Alex is very persuasive in this debate.
The facts are on his side, and he knows how to use them.
Doggett lost this debate in his opening statement. He couldn’t defend the premise so he moved it to fossil fuels vs renewables. Got completely off topic. The moderator didn’t correct him. Fail
Prof. Doggett argues that "clean" energy is required for economic growth. This is demonstrably false. China has experienced massive economic growth as well as quality of life increases with coal power much dirtier than coal power in the West.
11:02
The Boeing 367-80 was the prototype of the B 707, the Kc135, is a narrower, shorter development of the dash 80
not the precursor of the 707 at all. It did fly before the first 707, because of the stricter regulations for commertial aircraft. The development of the shorter, narrower kC135 was ordered by the Air Force and paid for it, not so the 707 which had to be proved before skeptical airlines bought it
11:21 totally in accurate state ment the 367-8 had been flying and was demonstrated with the famous roll maneuver on the first flight by Tex Johnson😮 the KC 135 is smaller and narrower than the dash 80, Different tools!
Yooo the greg cameo!
Alex started to takeover the debate ehen the debate moved onto subsidies....Doggett tried to go for everyone gets subsidized argument when Alex then tried to drill down to the 1) How much and 2)for How long ...
“Energy alone is not enough for economic growth” continues to state it is one of the TWO factors. LOL
I have a question for all those that claim global temperatures rising ia bad. If the global temperature increases will it not lower the causes for hurricanes and such to develop as there would be far fewer extremes of warm fronts colliding with cold fronts? How many will answer the question and how many will start straw man arguments and how many qill xome at me with personal attacks i wonder.
This would be easy for me. There's no such thing as net zero.
What's the point of a debate, when the topic at hand isn't disputed
Unlike a modest body of reverse engineering, innovation is not made on command or under fear. Yet both ardent advocates of NZ policy and greatest beneficiaries of one firmly believe not only innovation but every human activity can be efficiently carried out of essentially a projection of one's will. This is magic thinking, with projection of will being key component in dictionary definition of magic. Also extremely outdated, originating in middle Bronze Age.
WHERE ARE THE SLIDE DECKS?
I get the impression that Doggett has almost no experience being challenged from Epstein’s point of view. He became less and less coherent and more and more reliant on sound bites and unserious mischaracterizations as the debate went on.
Obviously Alex won. Not that difficult when you are right.
This prof should stay in a government job... something useful, like wave counting on the beach.