Alex Epstein (2016)

Good question.

The need for demonstration applies not just to claims about science but also claims about what scientists believe about science. Consensus is an important concept in science as a guide to what may be true, though of course it has to be thought about independently.

See The Unscientific Consensus
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2014/02/27/the-unscientific-consensus/

As I mention in the recent Prager U 97% video (and my popular Forbes column on the subject) what scientists believe has been completely misrepresented. That is, you don't have these huge majorities believing in climate catastrophism. So part of the premise of your question is incorrect.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/do-97-climate-scientists-really-agree
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong

Beyond that I do think that most scientists expressing opinions on the subject are overconfident in the degree of warming influence of CO2. There's selection bias there (it's easier and more media friendly to express that opinion). But also people in immature sciences, and climate prediction is pre-infancy in terms of results, have a tendency to overstate their claims. Now their claims may invoke demonstrated science as part of the argument but as an integrated whole their arguments are anything but demonstrated.

That's a big topic, so I'll just say this: if you're concerned about the deaths and mistreatment of innocent blacks you need to look carefully at what the major causes are. That includes injustices by white policemen against blacks and also the scourge of black on black crime. I don't hear the latter mentioned very often. It should be.

In general political correctness prevents us from having honest debates.

I'll do the second one first. I'm not sure what qualifies as "short" but I recently wrote out a 2-page summary of the whole Moral Case. Hopefully it'll be valuable as a reference.

How to think about our energy future

Is humanity’s continuing—and expanding—use of fossil fuels a moral choice or an immoral choice? To answer this question, we need to be clear on our standard of value—our metric of good and bad—in energy and environmental issues.

At the Center for Industrial Progress, our standard of value is: maximizing human flourishing. We reject the common standard of minimizing human impact.

To discover what will maximize human flourishing we must think full context—we must carefully look at the benefits, risks, and side effects of all our alternatives. We reject the common method of thinking out-of-context.

Thus, when we consider fossil fuels, we do not write them off as bad because they cause some man-made CO2 and some man-made warming, we look carefully at the full context of their potential impacts on human flourishing now and in the future.

Fossil fuels & human flourishing: the benefits

The unmet need for cheap, plentiful, reliable energy:
● There are 7 billion people in the world who need cheap, plentiful, reliable energy to flourish. Some three billion have virtually no energy by our standards, which means we need vastly more energy.
● It is extremely difficult to produce cheap, plentiful, reliable energy. In the entire history of humanity, only three industries have achieved this on any scale: the hydrocarbon (fossil fuel) industry, the nuclear industry, and the hydroelectric power industry.

The unique ability of the fossil fuel industry to meet our energy needs:
● The fossil fuel industry produces over 80% of the world’s power because it is the only industry that has figured out how to produce cheap, plentiful, reliable energy for electricity, transportation, and heating on a scale of billions.
● Since the energy industry is the industry that powers every other industry, the fossil fuel industry increases productivity and prosperity in every area of life, from agriculture (diesel-powered farm equipment) to hospitals (24/7 electricity).
● The only industries that can meaningfully supplement fossil fuel energy are the nuclear and hydroelectric industries, which are widely opposed by environmentalists. Even without this opposition fossil fuels would still be irreplaceable for decades to come. Hydro is limited by lack of suitable locations. Nuclear has the long-term potential to expand greatly, but is many decades away from scaling to the level of billions.
● For these reasons, any restriction on fossil fuel use would do devastating damage. This must be factored into all policy debates over restricting fossil fuels to reduce CO2 or other byproducts.

Fossil fuels & human flourishing: environmental concerns

The number one environmental concern: climate impacts
● To assess the climate-related impacts of fossil fuel use, we have to carefully assess the consequences to human flourishing of 1) the warming impact of CO2, 2) the fertilizing effect of CO2, 3) the protecting effect of affordable energy for all climate danger.
● The warming impact of CO2 is mild and quite possibly positive--in no way does it justify restricting fossil fuel use whatsoever.
○ It is an proven but little-known fact that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is a diminishing, logarithmic effect; each molecule of CO2 warms less than the last.
○ The belief that increases in CO2 will cause runaway warming are based on speculative climate dynamics represented in models that have utterly failed to predict climate.
○ Global average temperatures and CO2 levels are near all-time lows from a geological perspective; today’s CO2 levels are an estimated 1/20th their all time high (a highly fertile period).
○ Warming is almost universally desired among civilizations, with cold-related deaths dramatically greater than heat-related deaths. In general life thrives under warmer conditions.
● The widely-ignored fertilizing effect of CO2 is significant and positive, yet ignored; a proper energy and environmental discussion must take it into account.
○ Increasing CO2 levels is a proven driver of plant growth, which is why greenhouses contain 3 times as much CO2 as our atmosphere.
○ Satellite data show dramatic increases in plant growth in uninhabited locations as CO2 levels have increased over the past several decades.
○ Increased CO2 has also contributed significantly to crop yields and helped millions avoid malnutrition or starvation.
● The widely-ignored protecting effect of fossil fuels is spectacularly positive; it has helped us take the inherently dangerous climate and make it far safer than it has ever been.
○ While the climate debate treats the global climate system as naturally stable and safe, it is in fact naturally volatile and vicious. Climate safety requires climate protection through development and technology--both of which are fueled by affordable energy.
○ The international disaster database, which tracks climate-related deaths--including deaths from flood, droughts, extreme heat, extreme cold, storms, and wildfires--shows a 98% decrease in the rate of climate-related deaths since significant CO2 emissions began 80 years ago.
○ Fossil fuel use doesn’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous, it takes a dangerous climate and makes it safe.

For a full analysis of the environmental impacts of fossil fuels, including air, water, and resource impacts, see the book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

Re the situation I think I explain it clearly in this piece:

Basically they are unjustly attacking people who challenge climate catastrophism by starting with an unpopular target--Exxon and people Exxon might be funding. The fact that they to name my org in the subpoena, even though we are for-profit and accept no funding, shows this is just about attacking ideas they disagree with.

Link to summary of the moral case: http://industrialprogress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/MCFF-handout.pdf

I think the modifier "clean" is wrong as a binary classification (clean vs. dirty) but it's true that nuclear has the least harmful emissions end to end of any form of energy.

The fundamental appeal is the energy density that you get from generating energy via nuclear forces (1 million times the chemical forces in hydrocarbons). And in the 70s the evidence I know is that they were able to do it quite economically.

The question is: without all the green, anti-tech controls that made nuclear far more expensive, what would nuclear look like today in terms of cost-effectiveness? My inclination is that it would be extremely competitive if not the best. The way to find out is to liberate it.

It meets opposition for the same reason fossil fuels do. People have a huge bias against man-made things, whether man-made CO2 or man-made radiation. So instead of thinking precisely/scientifically about its nature and magnitude they construct these crazy hell narratives and say we should throw the whole tech out.

Well, novels, movies, etc. My favorite novel (not movie!) is Atlas Shrugged.

But I enjoy the core of my work, which is trying to achieve fundamental clarity on important issues and then transfer that to others. So on a day to day basis the most fueling things is to do what I enjoy most. As a business owner it's a challenge sometimes, as there are many aspects of the business that can be draining.

This article explains my motivation:
http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/06/fossil-fuels-advocate-alex-epstein-denounces-ag-subpoena-fk-off-fascist/

The AG behaved like thug and that is the answer she deserved for stepping outside the boundaries of a civilized society.
I hoped it would draw attention to the important issue of free speech. And it did.

It's actually strengthened a lot of relationships. People who know me know where I started, know that I came to this honestly, and have been persuaded by my perspective over time. If you look at my personal FB page http://www.facebook.com/al.x.epstein I think you'll see this.

I mentioned in another response How to Talk to Anyone About Energy. http://energychampion.net. I explain my whole approach there.

In terms of responding to the stuff about being paid and whatnot I used to focus on the fact that we're not funded (true) but the more important thing is that we are proud to defend a moral industry. People who assume that it's evil to be connected with the fossil fuel industry need to first be able to prove that the industry is evil. But I claim to prove it's good. So they need to grapple with that, not just appeal to their prejudice.

See this YouTube video where I do this in Congress, it's midway through. Boxer and others, who usually destroy people on industry affiliation, had nothing to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5KoYJ64vjA

My debate prep has changed a lot over the years. The one aspect that hasn't changed is that I get smart people to mock-debate with me. Eric Dennis most of all. In the early years I would get wrecked in the early mock debates and learn a lot.

But when I wrote the book I learned that it's all about framework. You need to be clear on the right framework for thinking about the issue and then get buy-in on it from the beginning. This is how I conduct conversations, debates, whatever.

A couple examples that I've cited other places:
1) This two-page summary that begins with the framework http://industrialprogress.com/fossilfuels/
2) How to Talk to Anyone About Energy: http://energychampion.net

I have a debate from last December that is finally coming out where you'll see some of the stuff. There was a 350.org person who followed the McKibben approach and you can see how it fails once the issue is framed properly.

Hillary's is awful. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/08/05/the-obama-clinton-one-two-blackout/

Trump gave a speech that outlined some of the right policies but he didn't give a coherent explanation of them. So at this point he doesn't have a policy.

Also I should say that as important as energy is it's not the only issue. Both candidates have a terrifyingly authoritarian bent to them. Trump's has been well-publicized but the Democratic Party recently made part of its proposed platform that the government should go after companies (and think-tanks) whose positions they disagree with!

So I'm planning on voting for neither.

Lower-level candidates there are some better ones but I can't recall at the moment.

Although there is a major free speech attack on advocates of fossil fuels (climate thinkers) most of the opinion so far is due to the indoctrination of the educational system. Which then has transferred into the media. Once you can make someone a pariah it's easier to attack their rights.

I don't know your particular struggles so it's hard to give generic advice. I was diagnosed with ADHD as a kid (no idea whether accurate) and put on Ritalin for years.

My own experiences that might be relevant:
1) Once I found what I was really interested in I could focus a lot better.
2) I found it incredibly valuable to create environmental conditions in my life that inevitably made me more productive. See this lecture by me and also the Power Hour on productivity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWXP15hSA0A

I'm confused by the wording of this question.

"Scientist" vs. "non-scientist" is a mostly useless distinction when discussing a particular science, such as climate science. Except that if you're a professional scientist it might mean that you have some kind of familiarity with the scientific method. But that's often not the case.

I think the key categories are: subject-matter expert, informed citizen, and ignorant. I consider myself on the very upper end of informed citizen.

One thing an informed citizen can do is ask for proof of a claim. When I've done that the catastrophist position crumbles. Just as many previously popular "scientific" positions crumbled (e.g., eugenics).

First, I think people tremendously underestimate the potential to persuade others if you do it the right way. I'm in San Francisco right now and I get people interested in a different way of thinking about environmental issues all the time.

Two resources:
1) The summary of The Moral Case that I mentioned earlier: http://industrialprogress.com/fossilfuels/
2) A course I made called How to Talk to Anyone About Energy: http://energychampion.net

Re: the rest of your question I'd just say it varies from place to place but it's good to put most of your focus on the influencers on a debate--then your influence trickles down.

We are working on a transition to becoming Center for Human Progress and will focus on a dozen or so industries (eventually) as well as other areas of progress. In this connection if you sign up for our mailing list at http://industrialprogress.com you'll be up to date.

I think the key is for people to think of energy as they do any other technology/product. Then you can just say I believe in a free market where all technologies compete. I have no prejudice as to whether it comes directly from the sun or stored from the sun (hydrocarbons) or from plentiful metals under the ground (nuclear).

Once you have that framework the reliables are revealed as unreliable.

Absolute devastation, particularly of the poor--particularly if they keep their anti-nuclear, anti-hydro stance. At that point even I would leave--and I REALLY love California.

But I can't imagine that policy will actually happen. It's important to remember that any restriction on productivity creates suffering, usually most for the least productive.

None. We don't get funding.

If you want to include speeches consulting, I don't discuss any private dealings with clients. I can tell you I have volunteered twice to speak for free at public events for Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-funded organization, because I believed in the cause.

Again, I'm very proud of the work I've done to empower the fossil fuel industry. I hope to do the same for other oppressed industries.

NOTE! My hour is up; I have a TV interview right now. If you ask more questions I will answer them later this week. Thank you!

Since energy needs to be reliable, unreliables (aka "renewables") aren't cheap at all--the same as having a staff of workers that come 1/3 of the time and you don't know when.

Nuclear isn't not "cheap yet" it's been forcibly made far more expensive by the green movement. See my answer to an earlier question about nuclear.

In this connection you indicate part of the solution. It's valuable for industries and others to communicate energy as a process and show very clearly what happens in every stage. Including why, say, mining for hydrocarbons is way more efficient on the front-end than getting the materials for solar, wind, even nuclear.

I'm not sure what you mean by the downside. I cite specific examples like Germany all the time. The thing in with these insane proposals like 80% reductions in CO2 emissions you can't know with precision the devastation. But it's murderous.

"how afaik"? Unfortunately the key word in your question is misspelled. But to answer what I understand of your question: the basic mechanism is a government that protects individual life that then defines health/safety standards based on the full-context of what's possible and affordable at a given time. This is explained a lot in Chapter 7 of The Moral Case and in this interview I did with Aaron Harber, which also discusses why I don't think of these issues in terms of "externalities."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2_PlEBNms4

If there was a camera I would ask them if they wanted to record a discussion.

If there was not a camera I would have nothing to say. Al Gore has been a tremendous source for evil in the world. Nye is 1/100th as bad but still really dishonest (he still uses the hockey stick as evidence!).

I am incapable of being phony. Same deal when I saw Barbara Boxer in first class on a flight home to LA (I'm 97% sure it was her). She acted disgracefully and I had no desire to talk to her. Of course I could make her uncomfortable but there's no pleasure in that.

Anything by Dan Kennedy is a good start. I also like Claude Hopkins.

It's definitely there!

Also here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/07/19/gasland-iis-luddite-slander-of-fracking-is-the-latest-technophobe-attack-on-progress/

No. See my podcast Power Hour on iTunes for several episodes on this.

I have differences with every other organization but I admire many of them, including Heartland. I think my biggest difference is that I have a very specific philosophical method of thinking about things, which translates into a very specific explanatory method. Others are getting onboard but there are still a lot of differences.