• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Opposition to fossil fuels is in fact opposition to human well being and the social/economic progress of mankind. The green/clean power agenda is profoundly anti-human.


The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Review and Summary of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” By Andy May The best-selling book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels was first published November 27, 2014 by Penguin. The author, Alex Epstein, took a BA in Philosophy from Duke University in 2002. He is the President of the Center for Industrial Progress, a…

Continue reading →

". . . Epstein presents a very well written discussion of the climate change debate. He destroys the 97% consensus myth, explains that the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect decreases logarithmically with concentration and shows that the climate computer models used to compute man’s influence on climate have never successfully predicted anything. He also shows that global warming has not increased extreme weather of any kind and that the dangers from extreme weather are less today than at any time in man’s history largely due to fossil fuels. He discusses Craig Idso’s pioneering research proving that increasing carbon dioxide acts as a powerful fertilizer for many plants. . . .

The book challenges this idea that fossil fuels have a negative effect on society. It is a fascinating, fact filled and well-reasoned discussion of the impact fossil fuels have had on our world since they were introduced on a mass scale over 120 years ago. There are 7 billion people on the Earth today and we are better fed, live better and longer than nearly every one of the 900 million people who lived in 1800. It is worth remembering that the average life expectancy, at birth, in 1800, in the UK was about 39 years. Epstein argues that with fossil fuels:
“We don’t take a safe environment and make it dangerous; we take a dangerous environment and make it far safer.”
So what about those that argue against fossil fuels? Fossil fuels are largely responsible for the quality of life we enjoy today, the food we eat, the rapidly falling rate of poverty, our longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality and many other humanitarian benefits. How could someone argue to take away fossil fuels if they valued human life? It seems they value “pristine nature” over human life. . . .

In McKibben’s book The End of Nature, he argues that we need a ‘humbler world” and “Human happiness [should] be of secondary importance.” A Los Angeles Times review in 1989 of McKibbon’s book calls man a cancer and plague upon the Earth. The author, David Graber, continues:
“McKibben is a biocentrist, and so am I. We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value–to me–than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet.”
Whew! We might need to report him to the Department of Homeland Security. This is the precise opposite of Epstein’s priority of humanity first. Thus, to effectively debate the use of fossil fuels it is important that the debaters state their priorities. Does humanity come first? Or does minimizing human impact on the environment come first? It turns out that this choice makes a huge difference.
The book argues that even if fossil fuels created no waste, including no CO2, if they were even cheaper, if they would last forever, the “Green” movement would still oppose them. The Green movement is not just for a pristine environment untouched by man, they are against human progress. . . .
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,886
Reaction score
37,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You really are going to value the opinion of someone who says this?

The book argues that even if fossil fuels created no waste, including no CO2, if they were even cheaper, if they would last forever, the “Green” movement would still oppose them.

Jack Hays, if every gallon of gas directly killed a baby, you'd still support them. This is a worthwhile discussion we should take very seriously.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You really are going to value the opinion of someone who says this?.

He has it right.

The Green movement is not just for a pristine environment untouched by man, they are against human progress. In the 1980’s it was thought that controlled fusion of hydrogen into helium was just around the corner. This was pollution free energy. What did the environmental leaders have to say about that?
Jeremy Rifkin: “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.” Inexhaustible power only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet’s resources, to destroy its fragile balance.
Paul Ehrlich: Developing fusion for human beings would be “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”
Amory Lovins: “It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
This “idiot child” would like an inexhaustible, clean source of power. It does often seem that radical environmentalists think everyone else is an “idiot child.” Prince Phillip, the former head of the World Wildlife Fund wanted to be reincarnated as a deadly virus in order to cure overpopulation.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,886
Reaction score
37,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He has it right.

The Green movement is not just for a pristine environment untouched by man, they are against human progress. In the 1980’s it was thought that controlled fusion of hydrogen into helium was just around the corner. This was pollution free energy. What did the environmental leaders have to say about that?
Jeremy Rifkin: “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.” Inexhaustible power only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet’s resources, to destroy its fragile balance.
Paul Ehrlich: Developing fusion for human beings would be “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”
Amory Lovins: “It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
This “idiot child” would like an inexhaustible, clean source of power. It does often seem that radical environmentalists think everyone else is an “idiot child.” Prince Phillip, the former head of the World Wildlife Fund wanted to be reincarnated as a deadly virus in order to cure overpopulation.

You religious nuts all amuse me.

Watch a US Senator Cite the Bible to Prove That Humans Aren't Causing Global Warming | Mother Jones

Yes, there are dumb****s who think fusion power would just be nuclear power times eleven, and suuper dangerous as a result. (they envision every nuclear plant as just being a nuclear bomb) There are also people who think we shouldn't use solar power because it will drain the sun faster. You want to focus on these people or the adults talking?
 
Last edited:

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You religious nuts all amuse me.

Watch a US Senator Cite the Bible to Prove That Humans Aren't Causing Global Warming | Mother Jones

Yes, there are dumb****s who think fusion power would just be nuclear power times eleven, and suuper dangerous as a result. (they envision every nuclear plant as just being a nuclear bomb) There are also people who think we shouldn't use solar power because it will drain the sun faster. You want to focus on these people or the adults talking?

I'm agnostic. Certainly men recognized as green leaders are fair game to cite as examples of green thinking.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,886
Reaction score
37,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm agnostic. Certainly men recognized as green leaders are fair game to cite as examples of green thinking.

Certainly an elected senator counts as an example of "skeptic" thinking.

Doesn't matter that you're agnostic. You're a skeptic. He's a skeptic, and a leader. He's clearly an example.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Certainly an elected senator counts as an example of "skeptic" thinking.

Doesn't matter that you're agnostic. You're a skeptic. He's a skeptic, and a leader. He's clearly an example.

I don't think human activity has much to do with climate, so I'm not sure what point you're making.

Anyway, the green leadership is on record.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,886
Reaction score
37,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't think human activity has much to do with climate, so I'm not sure what point you're making.

Anyway, the green leadership is on record.

So is the skeptic leadership. That is the point I just made. Skeptic leadership thinks God prevents global warming. Your leadership.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,886
Reaction score
37,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simply false.

Your "green leadership" was some university biologist, and an author. The third link was an Amazon page of some book not even written by Amory Lovins.

But an elected US Senator doesn't count?
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Your "green leadership" was some university biologist, and an author. The third link was an Amazon page of some book not even written by Amory Lovins.

But an elected US Senator doesn't count?

Lovins was quoted in the book. And no, a US Senator is just a US Senator.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,772
Reaction score
11,837
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
He has it right.

The Green movement is not just for a pristine environment untouched by man, they are against human progress. In the 1980’s it was thought that controlled fusion of hydrogen into helium was just around the corner. This was pollution free energy. What did the environmental leaders have to say about that?
Jeremy Rifkin: “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.” Inexhaustible power only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet’s resources, to destroy its fragile balance.
Paul Ehrlich: Developing fusion for human beings would be “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”
Amory Lovins: “It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
This “idiot child” would like an inexhaustible, clean source of power. It does often seem that radical environmentalists think everyone else is an “idiot child.” Prince Phillip, the former head of the World Wildlife Fund wanted to be reincarnated as a deadly virus in order to cure overpopulation.

And it is not the fuel we use or don't use that protects the planet. It is prosperity.

Without exception, those countries who have provided the most liberty and the most free market conditions who have prospered to the point that true poverty is mostly non existent and quality of life is pretty good for almost all. And they all accomplished that prosperity by using fossil fuels. And is it a coincidence that those countries who have achieved that prosperity also have the cleanest air, water, soil, and utilize the most green energy? No it isn't. People who have their basic needs of adequate food, water, and shelter met are the people most likely to care about the aesthetics of their surroundings and the quality of their environment.

It is a cruel irony, however, that the very people who achieved prosperity and therefore concern for the environment are the same people who would now deny third world countries the same opportunity to exploit their natural resources (or ours) to raise their own standard of living. But they do not exert the most punative requirements on the third world or emerging economies. No, it is only on those of us who have already achieved prosperity that suffer the most severe requirements and penalties for non compliance--or at least that is what the 'one world government' people are pushing.

And when you think about this as it is, it does draw into question the motives of those who would take away our liberties and autonomy via scare tactics of global warming. Perhaps once they have control over us, they figure it would be quite easy to subject the rest of the world to their will also?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,886
Reaction score
37,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Lovins was quoted in the book. And no, a US Senator is just a US Senator.

Some guy quoted in a book over thirty years ago is "leadership" but a sitting US senator, who wrote a book on global warming himself isn't!? :lamo The man is chairman of the Environment and Public Works committee. But no. Not leadership. :lamo

Another strong performance today in mental gymnastics, let's see if the judges give him the gold!
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Some guy quoted in a book over thirty years ago is "leadership" but a sitting US senator, who wrote a book on global warming himself isn't!? :lamo The man is chairman of the Environment and Public Works committee. But no. Not leadership. :lamo

Another strong performance today in mental gymnastics, let's see if the judges give him the gold!

The point I think you're missing is that this discussion is about fossil fuels, not global warming. I assume he's in favor of fossil fuels.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,886
Reaction score
37,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The point I think you're missing is that this discussion is about fossil fuels, not global warming. I assume he's in favor of fossil fuels.

The point you missing is that your example of "leadership" is dodgy. I'm merely applying your standards to other situations. You're a skeptic, and skeptic leadership says God will wave a wand and stop global warming, or whatever.

If this methodology seems suspect to you, maybe you should look in a mirror.

Some guy allegedly quoted in a book 30 years ago thinks free energy is bad? Ok. So what? I'm still voting for free energy. Do you have it?
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You really are going to value the opinion of someone who says this?



Jack Hays, if every gallon of gas directly killed a baby, you'd still support them. This is a worthwhile discussion we should take very seriously.

Actually, there is a tradeoff in babies ie lives to both technologies. You do realize that, I presume.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The point you missing is that your example of "leadership" is dodgy. I'm merely applying your standards to other situations. You're a skeptic, and skeptic leadership says God will wave a wand and stop global warming, or whatever.

If this methodology seems suspect to you, maybe you should look in a mirror.

Some guy allegedly quoted in a book 30 years ago thinks free energy is bad? Ok. So what? I'm still voting for free energy. Do you have it?

AGW skepticism and advocacy are not in play in this thread. Ehrlich, McKibben and Raskin are all recognized green energy leaders.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,886
Reaction score
37,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
AGW skepticism and advocacy are not in play in this thread. Ehrlich, McKibben and Raskin are all recognized green energy leaders.

We'll skip over your attempt to pretend fossil fuels, AGW, and "green energy" have no relation.

Recognized by who?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,886
Reaction score
37,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,168
Reaction score
21,581
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Yeah. Ask the 100,000's people that die from fossil fuel pollution in China each year. Or all those that have died in coal mining disasters, or wars fought, in part, for control of oil. Or those who suffer under dictatorial regimes propped up by oil money.

Sure, fossil fuels have got us where we are today, but to argue we shouldn't seek for better sources of energy is just anti-progress.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah. Ask the 100,000's people that die from fossil fuel pollution in China each year. Or all those that have died in coal mining disasters, or wars fought, in part, for control of oil. Or those who suffer under dictatorial regimes propped up by oil money.

Sure, fossil fuels have got us where we are today, but to argue we shouldn't seek for better sources of energy is just anti-progress.

There has been no harm that outweighs the good.
 
Top Bottom