| Did you watch the video? I didn't get that he was denying climate change, merely arguing against sloppy thinking on the subject. @08:29: "We can't be sloppy. So, for example, if you say, 'Oh, there's sea level rise. CO2 levels contribute to sea level rise.' Well, is it a one foot contribution in the next century, as one of the major UN organizations says? Or is it 20 feet, as Al Gore says in 'An Inconvenient Truth'? Those magnitudes make an enormous difference." @08:54: "It would be like you're deciding whether to vaccinate your child---and you say, 'Well, how significant are the side effects?' And they just say, 'Vaccine side effects are real.' And you say, 'I know, but I want to know the magnitude.' And they say, 'What are you, a vaccine side effect denier?' The first 15-20 mins is presenting a framework for thinking about the subject. He suggests that typical discussion about fossil fuels focuses solely on their drawbacks and ignores their tremendous benefits (particularly their unique benefits), and prioritizes "low environmental impact" above "human flourishing"---i.e. anti-human. @14:53: "So, I describe my framework, if you want two terms would be: (1) full context---you want to look carefully at the positives and negatives; and then (2) human flourishing---we measure goodness by maximizing human flourishing, not minimizing human impact." @16:02: "We need to look at both the potential unique benefits of fossil fuels (access to energy, maybe CO2 could have some benefits) and then potentially unique risks (the risks of CO2 pollution, and then depletion---running out of them or running out of other resources)." |