Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "A Moral Case For Fossil Fuels? (Pt.1) | Alex Epstein | ENVIRONMENT | Rubin Report" video.

  1. Alex Epstein is of course perfectly aware that eugenics is a social philosophy and not a scientific theory.
    8
  2. *****  It's always a good sign that the conversation is grown up, when the participants show they know anatomy.
    4
  3. ohmandamp: ... It actually is a fact that human emissions are a single digit percent of annual emissions. What this guy isn't telling you is that that is a complete bullshit number to throw out if you actually want to talk about the problem science describes. These ~5% is a surplus which are not re-absorbed in the carbon cycle as the rest, so they contribute to a slight increase in the absolute level (around 2-3 ppmv/year) ... and it is the "ACCUMULATED* CO2 level which is the problem. If we had only increased the CO2 level by 2-3.75% ... yeah... that wouldn't be a problem. But that's not what we are talking about. He just throws out that number because he wants you to think of some small number to get a feeling that there's insignificance to the problem. AND THAT kind of tactics is why it's a waste of everybody's time to give these deniers a platform.
    3
  4. ***** Good thing we have the entire scientific community to listen to instead of Al Gore then.
    3
  5. Aanthanur DC ... and btw... it would be easier to take Gad Saad serious here if he stopped mocking Bill Nye and sat down and had the conversation with him.
    3
  6. John Cobalt "Nevertheless the consensus among scientists was at the time that the world was getting dumber," I'd like to see a reference for that claim. "Climate change isn't a scientific theory" Anthropogenic Global Warming is a well established scientific theory - just as evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics and so on...
    3
  7. krix pop "I will call "Climate"   a  Science when it will actually produce indisputable facts." ... I'll advice you to read some climate science then and a little less WUWT and "Daily Mail" ...
    2
  8. ***** .. yeah... or evolution or any of the other leftist conspiracy theories... right...
    2
  9. Dark-EyedTraveler No ... you just don't get the logic. Scientific questions are not settled in online (or offline) discussions amongst laypeople. They are settled through the scientific literature. ... where - if you participate and publish relevant research - you are by definition a scientist a certain degree of expertise in the field. In the same way Ken Ham can write as many books as he wants, create as many websites and videos as he wants and build as many museums and arks as he want ... he's still not participating in the scientific method and until he does, he's opinion on evolution is probably not worth wasting time on.
    2
  10. Simon WoodburyForget Science is not a democracy. Science doesn't advance by consensus. It advances by the weight of the accumulated evince. Consensus arises from that process. ... but if you don't participate in that process, you'd better damn well know what the consensus is. ... and not just "ask your neighbor".
    2
  11. Mikko Haavisto Thank you ... And that's actually the underlying issue I have with much of the "movement" Alex Epstein is a part of. ... They think it makes sense to arrange this as a debate between them and another non-scientist and make people believe it makes sense to form their opinions on who can "win" such debates. Like Alex Epsteins current $100.000 offer to Al Gore to debate him. What good would come out of that in terms of educate people about the science? Neither of them are scientists. It can only have one purpose: Create manufactured doubt.
    2
  12. Mikko Haavisto English is my second language too... but I don't think I've misunderstood anything. The issue here is that there's a difference between scientific knowledge and just "knowledge". You can know more or less about the science, but you don't construct scientific knowledge by chatting with your neighbor. What's true or not is not the result of what you can agree on. Science advances in the scientific literature.... so if you want to know what's true about science, don't ask a guy like Epstein... ask the scientific community.
    2
  13. "Listen to his ideas instead, and scrutinise them." We need to have Ken Ham on, so we can listen to his ideas and scrutinize them too ...
    2
  14. So... we need to have Ken Ham on to "rebalance" the discussion about evolution.
    2
  15. CrusaderLogan ... and I'm sure it's not equally bad everywhere. But it sure would be hard to understand what fossil fuels are, if you are told the earth is only 6000 years old. ;-) Anyway... Alex's entire argument is bullshit.
    2
  16. How many would be happy if they found out they were wrong? ... I'm pretty sure James Hansen would be as happy as a grand dad can be. ... why do Alex Epstein feel the need to daemonize those who warn about the danger like that? ... and btw: The reason people scream at you Alex, when you try that stunt, is because it's a stupid argument.
    1
  17. Rob Rocket ... sorry ... but that's mostly nonsense in relation the the problem at hand. Yes, the human releases of CO2 is about 2-4% of the yearly release. ... You obviously want to make that look like a small number. But the problem wrt. the greenhouse effect is NOT the yearly difference, but the ACCUMULATED CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
    1
  18. John Cobalt "Ken Ham was denied platforms as he was peddling silliness" I must admit I fail to see the difference... apart from the serious consequences of the silliness of course. "Epstein is under indirect investigation by the US government for stating opinions and they are calling it fraud and obviously this is political." Easy now... EXXON is being investigated. It's perfectly natural that the Attorney General  subpoenas people in order to collect evidence. "It does absolutely nothing in terms of changing the point I'm making with the statement as I only put some numbers on it to show that it was a range." Ok... so you haven't yet gotten the entire thing. It's not only a range... it's also a likelihood distribution. So we DO actually know much more than you wanted it to look like. "There is only one effective solution to the opposition to "green scare" to borrow a phrase and that is that the Greens stop using scaretactics." * sigh * ... I couldn't care less about "the green". I care about the science and what the scientists tells us. Right now we have every single relevant scientific society acroos the entire globe telling us we have a major problem ... Fuck Greenpeace... listen to the Royal Society, Natianal Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union etc. etc. etc etc... don't give me that "the Greens" BS. "regarding the acceleration effect,..." No no no. and just no ... I don't care about anecdotes about somebody heard something in school once. I care about what the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS are telling us RIGHT NOW "The equivalence he is making is that climate change has a consensus..." Yes it does. And so has evolution. And so has relativity. And so has Quantum mechanics.... So.. how do you want to "challenge it" ?... by running around telling people the scientist are lying?, ... by writing a book? or by doing ACTUAL RESEARCH and getting it published in the scientific literature?
    1
  19. John Cobalt I'm kinda baffled by that post. Do you really think you addressed the subject? Just doing a google search and finding "stuff" where the words "accelerate" and "co2" appears doesn't in any way guarantee to turn out anything relevant. These links speak about things like "accelerated uptake by plants" ... This was NOT what Epstein was taking about. He was saying the scientist claimed that the greenhouse it self was accelerating. Your links are totally off topic.
    1
  20. John Cobalt Timestamp is: part3, 3:41 And no. Your links are not in any way about what he said. If anything the first link is about quite the opposite. It talks about "accelerated takeup" by plants ... which (if taken literally and isolated) would decrease the effect of CO2.
    1
  21. John Cobalt "Do you know what he is referring to more precisely?" No. - because (as I said) it's a lie - or at best a strawman. NOBODY is predicting "accelerated warming".
    1
  22. John Cobalt "Yeah I will give you that it's a bit dishonest at a closer look." Thanks... and that's only one of the claims he made. Although I'll gladly admit that he has been a lot more explicit about his science denial in other places than he was in this interview.
    1
  23. John Cobalt I've been listening to these denier talking-points for over 7 years now ... I have absolutely no reason to believe he wasn't just trying to convince the audience he had a better understanding of scientific facts than his opponents - WHICH IS THE SCIENTISTS.
    1
  24. John Cobalt ... and that's where and why I object to strongly to what's happening here. The world shouldn't be like that the "job as a political commentator is to take a stance that is right on the edge of reality" The whole point of this show is (quote) "to make America sane again". (And I suppose that includes the rest of the world). The ideal is to (quote) "apply reason to the big questions of the day.". Applying "reason" is not to take a stance on the edge of reality. Alex Epstein is IMNSHO an example of everything that runs counter to the wish for a discourse based on reason. And btw: ... I really don't care about Al Gore. He's not a scientist. I haven't seen his move... I simply don't care. I care about what the scientists say.
    1
  25. Mann and Shermer are the only ones defending science which have been on... There's been a whole series of climate deniers on ... probably because there's an overlap between conservative/anarcho-capitalist science deniers and the enemies of the regressives, but still ... If Dave wants to raise above the debate and apply classical liberal principles and reason, he needs to not just run towards the ones the regressives hate. He won't find more "reason" there. Have people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins on instead. They are true defenders of reason.
    1
  26. krix pop "Climate on the other hand is more complex than the vast majority of people think." ... funnily... you seem very eager to simplify climate science down to a few talking points you've read in "The Daily Mail".
    1
  27. John Cobalt First of all. I don't agree with your representation of the state of the science. We know a lot more than you would like us to think. Secondly... I HAVE engaged in arguments at the same time at criticizing the format. Several people have done that. The threads are full of actual points addressing specific arguments. You just jump on the one sentence you have cherry-picked to attack. Thirdly... Much of Epsteins politics is premised on his denial of the scientific situation. Finally ... it's not "regressive" to point out that what's true about science is not determined in a blog or a Youtube Interview. It never was. Science is settled in the scientific literature. Not allowing Ken Ham to teach his "creation science" in the schools or not inviting him to to an episode of "Cosmos" is not "regressive" ... it's simply a matter of not creating a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance and pretending the issue is 50/50 just because there exist two opinions - when in fact one is science and the other is dogmatic nonsense. Science is not democracy. Not all scientific claims deserve the same respect. Don't mistake disrespecting scientific nonsense for "regressive" policing of opinions. ... else I'll ask you to not be "regressive" and let a homeopath treat half of the consultations at your local medical clinic.
    1
  28. Michael Strom The guy posted a gish gallop ... what specifically do you regard as so brilliant you need extra pointers to debunk it your self?
    1
  29. Drumsgoon That's just denialist newspeak.
    1
  30. Justin Mueller But you don't settle science in youtube interviews. If the denier side thinks they have a legitimate scientific case, then they have to do the work through the scientific literature ... trying to "spread the message" through blogs and videos on the Internet is just a way to produce a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy
    1
  31. Drumsgoon "even though this is an argumentum ad popolum" No it's not. That 9X% of scientists agree we have a climate problem is NOT the cause of the state of science. It's the consequence .... They didn't get to that position by voting. They got there because of the accumulated evidence. And I really don't care about what Al Gore says... the problem is bad enough as described by the scientists.
    1
  32. shlockofgod Of course it can be challenged - WITH SCIENCE
    1
  33. Jack LeVan If that was all he was saying, nobody would disagree.
    1
  34. There's a good chance of the latter.
    1
  35. John Cobalt ... I care about what the science says.  THEN we can discuss what to do. That actually ought to be the premise of The Rubin Report: Use Reason But... trying to become wiser on the scientific foundation by having laypeople with political opinions muddy the waters with half truths instead of actually listening to the scientific community. ... well... it just feel absurd.
    1
  36. ***** I'll happily explain it to you... if you mention what you didn't get.
    1
  37. Mark Efreet sigh
    1
  38. ***** You'll find plenty of criticism of the merits of Epsteins ideas in this thread too ... starting with the fact that he's just wrong about the science.
    1
  39. ***** Personally I'd be more than happy to see a political discussion of how to handle the problem based on what science actually tells us My issue here is that Epsteins position seems premised on rejecting or ignoring scientific facts (or misrepresenting them) and that it thus doesn't even constitute a part of such a discussion ... instead it creates a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance . That's a journalistic fallacy. Not everything is a 50/50 issue just because there's someone who disagree. The fact that Ken Ham does not agree with Biology doesn't mean that it's a good idea to give him half the time to discuss evolution as if there was a real scientific debate. The same goes here... it's a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy And it's totally incompatible with the otherwise stated goal of approaching the political debate based on reason.
    1
  40. StrategicWealthLLC Point being here - of course - that there is very little diversity of opinion wrt. climate change. There's a handful of loud contrarians (which I by now can recite in my sleep) ... but you can find that in any field. You can easily find biologist who doubt evolution.
    1
  41. ***** He's trying to paint the position of the scientific consensus as either wrong, or just not what it really is. I heard him regurgitate several denier talking points (*) and misrepresent science several times to shape the premise for his ultimate argument. *: Like equating earlier decades of "scares" with what the scientific community warns us about now and trying to paint global warming as just another temporary scare of the leftists enviromentalists. This simply lying to people about the nature of this problem compared to previous problems.
    1
  42. > His argument boiled down to: "Hey, we need fossil fuels for modern life!" Yes... and that's wrong. What we need is energy.
    1
  43. Fuddy Duddy It's not disingenuous that in general he's doing an appeal to emotion based on that argument ... and trying to make people ignore that fact that regardless of how great fossil fuels has been in the past, we now know it's not an option in the future.  
    1
  44. Fuddy Duddy I've stated very explicitly several times what my issue is here AT THE SAME TIME as I've argued against the arguments of Alex Epstein. ... You might not have read it, but I can't write it as a disclaimer in every post.
    1
  45. ***** I'm not aware of the context here either. What are you talking about? I can't find the post you are replying to. ... which is yet another reason why it's a very bad idea to expect anything useful to come out of this format where you take a very controversial subject with a scientific premise and a strong scientific consensus and make a uncritical Interview with some layperson rejecting the science ... and then expect a productive discussion to happen in Youtube broken forum format. It people can't even agree on the science or with the scientists about the science, then knowledge does not advance in online forum. Scientific truth advances in the scientific literature and that's where Alex Epstein should take his creative "alternative" opinions.if he really wanted to improve scientific understanding and not just spread misinformation and sow doubt.
    1
  46. ***** A simple search reveals that your earlier question was not in this thread... it's kinda confusing (for both of us obviously) that you bring it up here then... Let's make it simple then ... Alex postulates that the science shows the temperature rise will be small and manageable ... this is a gross misrepresentation of the science.
    1
  47. Zarrov I'm afraid you need to read up on some Chemistry and Thermodynamics. If you think it's efficient to do CO2 air capture compared to not releasing the CO2 at all, you are sorely mistaken. And if you think you can get the energy out of hydrocarbons and oxidate them without generating CO2 you are equally sorely mistaken. Compared to just doing the right thing and not release this fossil carbon into the carbon cycle in the first place, all this about "clean coal" is simply newspeak intended to confuse the scientific illiterate public.
    1
  48. Kathy Borthwick Educate ??? ... Given that Alex has the science all wrong, how can he possibly educate anyone?
    1
  49. Kathy Borthwick ok... if his intention is to educate, I would appreciate if he used fewer strawmen.
    1
  50. ***** He is welcome to have his opinion. He's not welcome to strawman the hell out of those who he disagree with in order to justify it.
    1
  51. matchesburn I call Godwin then...
    1
  52. Putin schick uns Panzer He does indeed deny the results of climate science. Our best knowledge of the consequences does in no way support the claim that his policies will lead to "mild" consequences.
    1
  53. Putin schick uns Panzer yeah ... right.... and since the days of Galileo you've been told by science how nature works. You don't get to pick and chose.
    1
  54. Putin schick uns Panzer Yeah... so is speculation about fields of science you don't know much about.
    1
  55. Social Justice Warrior  ... yeah... with the right spirit even facts don't matter.
    1
  56. Visfen "And either way. Why would we want a climate scientist on to discuss policy on climate?" I don't. But then ... I also don't want politicians to discuss policy on climate based on a pseudo-scientific premise. ... as I equally don't want to discuss health care policiy with a homeopath.
    1
  57. ***** "Politicians suck at science and scientists suck at politics. Big Whoop." Which is why Abraham Lincoln created the National Academy of Sciences http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/
    1
  58. ***** Do you have any better idea for how to make politicians base their decisions on our best understanding of the real world?
    1
  59. Visfen "I don't think natural science is actually that relevant to politics. Scientists have almost nothing to say that is relevant to politics." This explains a lot of our disagreement. "I don't think it's plausible to believe politicians would base decisions on real world, good science and reason. They have no incentive to." ... which isn't really something we should be happy about - is it? "I've worked on a political campaign. We don't care about truth or reason." Which country - which party? "Do you have a better solution?" Join a party which actually cares about using reason.
    1
  60. ***** "2)Teach children some basic understanding of science (mathematics, statistics, most imporantly formal logic, operationalization, etc...) in school, as now nobody is opposed to this safe a few Creationists 3)Have people vote for better politicians" Great... I agree ... and hopefully one day, this will lead to politicians who once again - like the time of Abraham Lincoln - will understand how to take the advice of scientists.
    1
  61. ***** "such a party simply does not exist." I would certainly hope the party I'm a member of will continue to give me the impression that's the case.
    1
  62. ***** .. probably more the latter ... :) ... although the party has been in government a few decades ago, so we are not entirely unknown. Anyway ... I don't agree that settles the question. We have gotten along way since the start of then enlightenment. The journey is not over.
    1
  63. Visfen "Sweden. Centre Party (right-wing green party)." Interesting... food for thought... I was expecting USA, GOP ;-)
    1
  64. Visfen Nope... Danish ...
    1
  65. Visfen How nice of you... I'm sad to inform you that contrary to you, I'll probably need a little more info than just nationality to decide whether the feeling is mutual.
    1
  66. Visfen Identity politics?
    1
  67. Lumping together people who are concerned with CO2 emissions and the people who attacked nuclear is dishonest. These are not the same people. Some are, - yes, but many are not. Several prominent climate scientists are actively advocating looking into nuclear as a part of the solution. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-must-make-a-comeback-for-climate-s-sake/
    1
  68. Ben Stringer I don't really care about "environmentalism" ... I care about what the science says. So to stay in your analogy: "Evolution" is true - and so is the theory of "anthropogenic global warming"
    1
  69. Chiki Lezhava Amen to that...
    1
  70. Mikko Haavisto The threads are full of counter arguments.
    1
  71. KDill893 If he didn't ignore most of the science - yes. But there's just too much hot air to legitimate ignoring the science.
    1
  72. Mikko Haavisto You are (wrongly) assuming there's a significant difference between what we know about climate change and what we know about cigarettes.
    1
  73. speculawyer I might have applied some non insignificant amount of sarcasm
    1
  74. db11289 Nobody claims the effect from CO2 is "accelerating". That the consequences will be "mild" is totally pulled out of a dark place. Temperature has risen as expected. There are no conflict with observations and theory. ... the list goes on an on.
    1
  75. Chiki Lezhava Hehe... yes... that was Gingrich. :)
    1
  76. Karan Desai You are of course aware that the "marketplace"of scientific ideas is not online forums, but the scientific literature. I'll invite Alex Epsteins to publish his "alternative" ideas about the science in the peer review.
    1
  77. Karan Desai "Well he's not a scientist," But yet - he makes claims about the science which is directly contrary to established science. As someone said on Twitter: "@alexepstein expertise is to exploit this sense of fairness, but that's not how science works" And Dave should be mindful that science-reporting has higher demands that other journalism and careful not to be exploited to create a  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
    1
  78. Mikko Haavisto I do welcome your input, but please mind that we needed to have the above exchange of arguments to clarify that the original post by Karan did not include the important nuances we seem to agree about. Just saying that this is the "free marketplace of ideas" without mentioning that it's not so simple for science, does not reveal our agreement.
    1
  79. db11289 Epstein invents his own facts.
    1
  80. Simon WoodburyForget Then tell me please - how does science advance in your opinion?
    1
  81. Simon WoodburyForget You are making no sense.
    1
  82. Jerry Taylor of http://niskanencenter.org/ (@jerry_jtaylor) Please have him on. He will give a good argument for the libertarian case for climate action.
    1
  83. Edward Clements “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
    1
  84. Juan Clark But the only way that could be an argument is to ignore that although fossil fuels still are good at producing energy, we now KNOW that if we keep doing it, we'll have a huge problem.
    1
  85. ***** This story about Bill Nye is getting ridiculous. I didn't hear what he said originally, but even the way Gad Saad reported it that was not what he said. The correct way to address this issue would have been for Gad Saad and Bill Nye to sti down calmly and listen to each other - instead of just continuing to propagate myths. Now... Bill Nye might not think the problems Gad Saad focus on are as important as you and I, but climate change does cause local problems wrt. agriculture and the ability of the land to sustain population. And this will lead to conflicts  ... whether that was the case in Syria - I don't know - but there was a drought. It's also true that droughts other where in the world haven't led to terrorism, so it's clearly not the only factor ... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of that more conflicts around the world could be a consequence of climate change.
    1
  86. ***** CO2 from non-fossil sources are not increasing the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. It was plants/animals only a few years ago. Fossil carbon is the problem.
    1
  87. ***** "f the science is robust, why were the elite climate scientists not educating the public and answering questions?" First of all - they are. Second of all ... for many scientists such public interaction has not come naturally . Scientists often prefer to just do their science. Having realizes lately that the politicians they informed about their results in many case are the most bone-headed ignoramuses they have begun lately to try to teach the public. "Yet we are force-fed global warming and even simple questions receive no answer....Answering questions is something legitimate scientist enjoy. Just one specific, newly defined area of science must not be questioned. How dare you?" You are simply lying ... No one is objecting to questions. If you actually did ask a question many you would know. The scientists are answering plenty of questions. What's being objected to is the dogmatism which show its ugly face when the questions has been answered.
    1
  88. ***** ... there's not much an argument to relate to in your post.
    1
  89. Jevioso Orishas Oh the irony ...
    1
  90. So .. when has Sam Harris presented him self as an authority on climate change?
    1
  91. I have to agree with you - (except I don't know that he's paid). Alex is - at the least - straw-manning the science in order to justify his arguments. He says all the right things about how to think, but he doesn't live of the the standard he holds other people to. You forgot his claim that established science is talking about a "runaway" greenhouse effect and that the effect of CO2 will be "accelerating" ... No it doesn't. He pulls that out of thin air.
    1
  92. ***** You are just plain wrong... stop guessing and take a course in climatology. You cannot argue about significance of greenhouse gases based on concentration alone and you cannot assume the system is a simple single feedback over the entire spectrum. Actual scientists have done the physics calculations and the result of positive feedbacks raising climate sensitivity above the 1.1 C/doubling CO2 alone would do is not an infinite run-away feedback loop.
    1
  93. User No one deserves to be lied to. So what I like to hear is the truth and a rational political discussion about how to handle it. Not some crackpot telling me the earth is flat. Remember... this is about approaching the world and political discourse based on reason and secular liberal principles. Not about saying everything is 50/50 and needs equal time, regardless of whether it's creationism, homeopathy, flat-earthers or climate science deniers. There's a name for your argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
    1
  94. ***** His discussion of moral is premised on ignoring scientific facts.
    1
  95. ***** Methane from cows originate in carbon already present in the carbon cycle (plants) ... that's not the problem (de-forestation is though) ... the problem is adding fossil carbon to the carbon cycle which hasn't in in circulation for millions of years.
    1
  96. Mikko Haavisto So you believe this forum is the right place to settle science? Then what do we use the scientific literature for?
    1
  97. Mikko Haavisto So you think it's a good idea to use random discussion on YT or the blogosphere to make your mind about scientific questions? So if you want to know whether homeopathy is real, you'll find some guy on youtube explaining its wonders ... or would you listen to the actual scientific consensus?
    1
  98. Gh05t Ok ... We need to have the flat earth society on then.
    1
  99. John Cobalt Let me start by pointing out the irony in you finishing with just calling what I wrote "pure nonsense" and at the same time complaining about "just calling him a denialist". The state of the science is that we based on multiple lines of evidence has a good estimate of the distribution of the likelihood of different amounts of warming. It's not just (as you seemed to suggest) a wild guess anywhere from nothing to 4 degress. We actually know that the most likely range is around 3 degrees/doubling CO2 and (just as importantly) that there is a long tail in the distribution of high levels of warmning (although with low likelihood). Now ... IF we end in these high level of warming scenarios, we have a real planetary catastrophe. ... so a bit of risk management should be warranted. To illustrate: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n4/images/nclimate1385-f1.jpg Wrt. saying Epstein is denying science... First of all he's ignoring the long tail and the risk management I described above. Secondly ... he peddles several denier talking points. In this Interview he tried to paint the current climate problem as just another environmentalist scare which they replace every decade. (he had some semi-religious theory) ... To not see that what's happening now and the worry it has created in the scientific community is on a completely different level than anything prior to now. ... and we must not forget that some of the prior warnings (like Ozone layer) IS actually a serious problem, but we managed to get it under control, by NOT DENYING it and ACTING.  ... The Ozone layer is not restored until ~2060, but the reason it is not a bad problem now is because we listened to the scientists and did something! Epstein also put forward several strawmen... he claimed that those warning about the consequence of CO2 postulated an "accelerating" effect. ... that's just a plain lie. He even started by equating climate science to eugenics... If that was not an attempt to question the validity of climate science... please tell me how we should interpret such a dishonest attack.
    1