From: David Okner
Date:12/30/2014 11:00 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: "dogw.email"
Subject: Re: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
And I’ll respond to your response:
1. The first and biggest point is you didn’t actually
read my submission, which was the book. I suggest you debate Alex Epstein, not
me. I know the book is a lot, but just say you don’t want to read it rather
than invoking logical fallacies.
Take a one look at Alex Epstein's
history and it easy to see this issue is entirely false.
The first clue is his education - a B.A. in philosophy.
Where are his scientific credentials to justify his claim he is smarter than
all of the world's climate scientists are wrong? Answer: He has none.
2. Seriously? This is a logical fallacy and actually a
philosophy background is exactly the best background to have to make sure
everything has been integrated to look at the big picture and thought of
correctly. That doesn’t come from credentials though. Climate experts are just
one area of expertise. If you had any background in philosophy you would know
that science is based on philosophy, reason. Perhaps you wouldn’t use so many
logical fallacies if you were familiar with logic. Smarter than all the world’s
climate scientists? Are you serious? Is that how you think science works? You
just give an intelligence test and then whoever is the smartest then whatever
he says is true? Also, Alex is not a climate scientist, he is showing you the
work of the “smartest climate scientists” you advocate. Alex never said he was
smarter than the world’s climate scientists. What you are saying is that you
are an authority to be obeyed, not an expert to be consulted.
The next clue? He actually brags about working for the
fossil fuel industry. It is not surprising he will simply, out-right lie for
them. Which he does. For instance:
“One point I like to stress is that we should think of coal,
oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.”
Nothing about fossil fuels could possibly be further from
the truth. I won't mince words, anyone saying this is a liar. All of these
energy sources listed are lethal poisons. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not
saying we need to get rid of them, I am simply pointing out they are lethal
poisons and not 'clean' as Mr. Epstein wants you to believe. The only possible
reason he would say something like that is to deceive because there is just no
truth to that statement. Hopefully, even the deniers can recognize the truth to
that.
'
3. Again, character attacks. Logical fallacies. I could also
attack your character and dream up hidden motives which are irrelevant anyway.
The idea that the only way somebody would support fossil fuels is if they are
paid off is ridiculous. You are looking for hidden motives and not examining
the arguments in the book. And likewise the only reason somebody would oppose
fossil fuels is because they are paid off is equally ridiculous in credit to
your side. That is not a valid argument.
I watched his video and I can sum it up with one word -
ridiculous. He begins right away with crazy claims that you are required to
accept as truthful without any supporting references or evidence. Not only is
it filled with nontruths (It is good the world uses fossil fuels and it would
better if we used more), but is, in essence, an enormous bait and switch.
4. The book is full of references, which you would know if
you actually read it. Just say you don’t want to read it instead of making
ridiculous logical fallacies. Debate Alex if you don’t want to read his book.
Show everybody how wrong his thinking is.
Here is the fallacy in Mr. Epstein's entire argument - he
wants you to believe the only kind of energy source are fossil fuels. He
states, 'the truth must be exposed'. Well, here is the truth about Mr.
Epstein's argument - it isn't fossil fuels that have improved lifestyles, it is
available energy at affordable prices, but Mr. Epstein wants you to believe the
only source of that energy is fossil fuels. That is the big lie he is selling.
He continues the lie by wanting you to believe it is a good thing for us to
change the environment and we need to do as much to change the environment as
we possibly can.
5. No fossil fuels aren’t the only source. There is nuclear
too, but that doesn’t cause greenhouse gasses, so who cares. If you read the
book you would know that fossil fuels are the cheap, reliable and plentiful
source of energy, which is what matters when it comes to energy. Energy that
doesn’t meet these requirements isn’t very useful. You can get energy from a
lot of things, but who cares.
Yes, no one will deny that fossil fuels have provided
affordable energy in the past, but now it is no longer true. The total cost of
fossil fuels has become unacceptable. The amount of damage to the environment
and climate and the world economies has reached proportions that it is lowering
standards of living around the world (contrary to his claims) and is resulting
in increased deaths (also contrary to his claims). Don't take my work for it,
do a little research for yourself. Here is just one study on the matter. And, another. How
about this one? Or, this one? And, don't forget this.
6. No, fossil fuels are the cheapest, most abundant and
reliable source of energy. Weather disasters happen and thanks to fossil fuels
climate related deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low.
There is no comparison. This is the issue of looking at the big picture.
You can’t ignore the positives and being philosophically minded like Alex and
myself allows one to make sure the big picture is being integrated and being
thought of properly. The first chapter of the book is free. http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com
So, Alex Epstein is accepting funds from the biggest
polluters the world has ever seen and telling us this pollution is not only
good for us, but we need to do more.
7. What? More character attacks about motives and also
ignoring the big picture? Pollution is at an all time low thanks to modern
filtering technology and also you can’t ignore the positives of fossil fuels.
It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t
provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If
we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our
protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions
would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for
our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our
environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of
your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live
and thrive on Earth?
A point made in the book is that some people have humans as
their standard of value and want to improve our environment. Others have a
totally different standard which is based on minimizing impact on “the
environment”, which means sacrificing humans for a untouched Earth out of a
bias against what humans do as morally wrong. If you want to minimizing impact
on our environment then I think Alex would agree with you that we should stop
using fossil fuels. But I and others in humanity want to maximize our impact on
our environment and do so in an extremely positive way so humanity can thrive,
because that is our standard of value. They are his ideas, just like your ideas
are yours. People who like your ideas pay you for your ideas. The question is
who has the right ideas. You don’t examine the ideas, you use logical fallacies
to evade.
Read the book if you care about the issue. There is no other
book that addresses the heart of the subject directly and in the big picture.
The first chapter is free: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com
-David
Response:
Paragraph 1:
One thing you are correct about is that I did not read the
book and I won’t be. That is pretty close to the only thing you are correct
about. Here are some references I consulted on the topic:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels-by-alex-epstein-1417477909
http://industrialprogress.com/about/
http://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein
http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443
No, I am not going to read the book. I don’t need to. It is
easy for people to tell a book’s claim is false without reading it – such as books
that claim the Moon landings were faked, the Holocaust didn’t happen, Elvis Presley
is alive and we are holding aliens captive in Area 51. For the record, yes, I
am grouping this piece of work in with those others and I apologize to those
other authors for including Alex Epstein in with them. Those others are merely
nuts, not overtly harmful.
Paragraph 2:
No, the best background to integrate science is a science
one. You continue to demonstrate your
logic failure by assuming I don’t have a background in philosophy. I do. And,
no, I did not use a logical fallacy by criticizing Mr. Epstein’s credentials.
Would you allow a philosophy major to perform surgery? Why not? After all,
according to you, it is the best background to integrate all of the issues to
obtain the big picture. I mean, don’t you want your surgeon to have the big
picture when he’s standing out your wide-open body? To answer my questions for
you, just to make sure you get them correctly – No, I want a surgeon that knows
the science and has the skills to perform the job. Same thing with science. It
takes decades of hard work to obtain the necessary skills. Mr. Epstein simply
decided one day that reading Aristotle and Kant was enough to be able to prove
all of the world’s scientists wrong. We aren’t even talking about climate
scientists alone because he isn’t limiting himself to the single most
complicated science of all, he’s taking on all of science and all scientists
everywhere. There’s a term for that in philosophy – hubris.
Paragraph 3:
Showing someone’s motives is not only valid, but is
critically important. Why is someone saying the things they are saying? We have
learned, from Mr. Epstein himself, he is saying the things he does because he
is funded by the fossil fuel industry. That is important information to know
and explains why people such as Richard Lindzen and the Oregon Petition Project
work so hard to hide that information.
Notice, did not engage in character attacks on Mr. Epstein.
I only questioned his motives. I did not discuss his sexual orientation, if he
kicks his dog, how he votes or if he undertips the waiter. Those would be
character attacks and those kinds of things would be irrelevant. Keep your
false arguments in line, please.
Paragraph 4:
I would love to debate him in a public forum.
Paragraph 5:
Fossil fuels are not so cheap anymore (Nuclear is not even
close to being cheap, and I’m a nuclear energy supporter.) Also, when you start
including the cost of damage done by fossil fuel they become one of the least
affordable sources of energy of all.
But, wait! We just identified why the fossil fuel industry
is supporting Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein wants us to believe fossil fuel
pollution is GOOD for us. So, when it spoils our water, poisons our air, makes
our children sick and kills us, it is all a GOOD thing for us and we shouldn’t
be saying bad things about those benevolent fossil fuel people. After all, Mr.
Epstein tells us they have made our lives so much better. And, don’t even THINK
about holding them accountable for their actions because changing the
environment is a GOOD thing.
Speaking of using false arguments, that whole line is
nothing more than a crock of horse manure.
Paragraph 6:
This paragraph has so many false statements (short and poisonous) that I don't know where to begin. Let's just address your claim that "thanks to fossil fuels climate related
deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low." Then, tell me how you explain these facts:
- Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
- Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
- The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.
- Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.
- Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health, particularly through reduced air pollution.
Source: World Health Organization
Paragraph 7:
Do you really expect someone to believe that pollution is at an all time low?
More of the same. Yes, I am justified in questioning his
motives, especially when they are so transparent and his claims are so false.
Then, you make a statement that is actually sick:
It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live and thrive on Earth?
So, the scientific evidence is conclusive – fossil fuels are
destroying the environment and the climate. And, you want to justify them by
saying “Can you fault us for loving our environment…..?” I can – and do – fault
you, but it’s for lying.
Just another one of your false arguments. You make the claim
that anyone not wanting to use fossil fuels wants to “sacrifice human” and that
you and others (presumably, those that want to use even more fossil fuels) “want
to maximize our impact on our environment and do so in an extremely positive
way so humanity can thrive.” These are both incredibly false arguments and you
will certainly get people to fall for them because they sound so nice. “Trust
us, we’re the good guys and those environmentalists over there are the bad
guys. They want to turn off your lights! They want all of you to die so the air
and water are clean. How unreasonable of them! Bad environmentalists! Bad! Bad!”
Some of the several false arguments you make with your
statement is that people that oppose the use of fossil fuels want to ‘sacrifice
humans’ when it is actually the opposite. By keeping the air and water clean,
it will improve the lives of humans, not sacrifice them. And, of course, the
biggest false argument you make is that the only way we can have energy is by
burning fossil fuels. This is not only every obviously false, but we are seeing
an increasing number of people turn to alternatives. Solar power alone will
likely rewrite the entire energy industry. That is another example of why the
fossil fuel industry is paying Mr. Epstein – they don’t want people to realize
they can break free of fossil fuels and IMPROVE their standard of living at the
same time.
And, when you speak of ‘maximize our impact on our
environment’ you automatically assume that any change is good. That is the
central false argument Mr. Epstein makes the entire time – the natural state of
the environment is actually bad for us, so changing it (no matter how or why)
has to be good. Go back to your philosophy and logic classes. This is a completely
false argument with nothing to support it.
Really, do you think I would hesitate to debate Mr. Epstein
on these issues in a public forum?
By the way, no one is paying me for my ideas. I would love
to get financial support from some source, but I don’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment