I can sympathize with the desire for a shorter rebuttal.
The reason I approached it in the (long) way I did is that the essence of what Tyler did was not argue against me, but rather severely misrepresent my view as well as the mainstream view my book focuses its opposition on. For me to claim that a highly respected economist is distorting things to this extent is to make a serious, and to many implausible, accusation. The only way I could think of to make good on it was to give abundant primary source references to Fossil Future doing the exact opposite of what Tyler says.
Re: wanting a point-by-point response, as I explained in my piece, Tyler's "points" were almost exclusively either 1) responses to his own distortions of what I wrote or 2) empty dismissals, confidently delivered due to having already strawmanned/written-off my argument. So there was not really anything to respond to. I did a kind of point-by-point in my piece, but it was to highlight the distortion/dismissal tactic.
It's sad that a guy as smart as Tyler not only 1) irresponsibly commented on a book he was not willing to read carefully, but also 2) refused to admit any wrongdoing whatsoever.
I suspect, at the risk of piling on, for the volume of material he consumes that he generally does a good job of summarizing (I suspect he reads quickly in a scanning manner), but that if he creates a narrative thread in his head he sticks with it, even against the content of the book. I find most of his commentary (not his economics work) to be lacking in rigour - meaning that his reviews of Addis Ababa have as much rigour as his book reviews.
I read Tyler Cowen's critique and then Alex Epstein's rebuttal.
Epstein was persuasive, and I think Cowen should either admit his errors in reviewing the book or put forth some other evidence from the book to counter Epstein.
It always seems to me that Tyler Cowen, even though he is a self-proclaimed contrarian, is afraid to stray too far from the acceptable mainstream view. I don't know if it's because he's afraid to lose credibility in the beltway, or what, but I can't think of a time when he's taken a very hard-line, controversial stance. Maybe I am mistaken.
Tyler seems to know who his audience is and they don't mind his straddles. I think you are correct; he takes the safe argument path while avoiding the blunt intellectually honest approach, which unfortunately comes with a cost.
I still think Tyler's comments are valid. Who you think is an expert is going to be biased. Secondly, please show/demonstrate "there is overwhelming evidence that - thanks to climate mastery - the net environmental effects of fossil fuels are highly positive." Climate mastery is based on 'I'm not one of the 100 million who will not be displaced due to climate change'. And there can be more saved with technology. Thirdly, using CO2 levels based on life hundreds of thousand years ago is not realistic.
This discussion is similar to the 'earth revolves around the sun'. Change your paradigm and read the book with these lens and there are gaps in Epstein's points. Using Kuhn's Copernican Revolution, when data manipulation is used to fix the current paradigm, it's broken. A new one is needed.
A couple of points to consider with the book and the arguments laid here is compared to what. Prior to the Industrial Revolution global population hovered around 1 billion or lower, depending when you measure the start of it (https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth). I assume the tremendous population growth of the last two and half centuries is in no small part due to fossil fuels creating more available energy for humans to utilize. Even if we take your estimate and raise it an order of magnitude, the world is still better off with 7 billion more people even if 1 billion of them have to relocate.
Also climate mastery has aloud us to be able to save more people in dangerous, both through preventative measures as well as relief aid then we could have ever done without fossil fuels.
I don't believe the author is saying that we should focus only on fossil fuels, only that we shouldn't abandon them without fully having either an alternative that can meet and exceed current fossil fuel demand or a careful weighing of all the pros and cons of our actions.
You mentioned gaps, and data manipulation I am curious if you could elaborate more on what you mean? Not being sarcastic; genuinely curious. Thanks
How did oil/fossil fuels advance the CRISPR or ChatGPT technologies?
On the topic of the relocation of 1 billion people, there would be massive chaos.
Several case studies the Israel/Palestine, Syria. The largest mass movements in history are about 15 million people. Using a power law, the difference between 1 billion and 15 million is truly mind blowing.
Lastly, when existing models and paradigms start to break down, more complexity, manipulations, and version were developed, but none of them addressed the fundamental reason why the model was not predictive. (p,74)
Which bring me to my last point. Epstein doesn't use models. There is a lot of criticism of them. All models are are wrong but some are useful. Many scientific and commerce ventures are built on questionable models.? GPS and theory of relativity is an example.
I would argue that science, technology and medicine breakthroughs are a direct result of the industrial revolution. Without the availability of cheap material, and the freeing up of labor those industries would not have progressed as quickly as they did. The Industrial Revolution was/is in turn heavily dependent on cheap, transportable energy which fossil fuel fits the best.
To your first question fossil fuels contributed to CRISPR and ChatGPT... The most direct way is by providing cheap energy for the use of computers. artificial lights, refrigeration technology, etc. Fossil fuels also allowed for industrial process that made materials such as plastics cheaper. Finally, reducing the labor needed in agriculture freed people up to pursue the development of those technologies. Also, I would like to point out that as of this moment the benefit of using fossil fuels eclipses any benefit from those technologies to date.
As for my displacement example, I believe I didn't present my argument clearly. What I was attempting to convey was that even if the scenario offered (100 million ) was off by an order of magnitude, the world would have a catastrophe, but better then 6+ billion people dying from lack of resources that currently rely heavily on fossil fuels (industrial agriculture for example). I do not disagree that 1 billion refugees would be a serious crisis only that 7 billion people starving would be a bigger issue.
My problem is that it is used through government coercion. I think that reducing ones carbon footprint is a admirable goal, but forcing others to, thus raising cost of goods and services to these people seems wrong.
Hi Andy. I'll met you half way on fossil fuels as the cornerstone of major technological advancements. Let's do a counterfactual. Using Car/Driver as our data source, electric vehicles were technologically ahead of ICE. Who killed the EV is a fascinating history. What if????
The International Organization for Migration suggest that the number of people who will be displaced due to climate change is around 25 million by 2050. There are higher estimates as well as lower estimates, as well as some that believe technology will mitigate displacement, but there is no consensus on this, and you just stated it as fact, so you are obviously biased yourself.
This line of argument is only valid for CNN and Fox/media narrative development. Why are we wasting time here? Sure, carbon concentrations have been vastly higher over millennia and life is still here. And, ice sheets come, ice sheets go. What civilization is argumening about is does carbon concentration matter in the near term (50 year) to ice sheets and does that matter to the current civilizations that bear what would then be categorized as negative externalities. Similarly, does the cost of these externalities exceed (meaningfully) subsidies designed to hasten the market for alternative energy? Everything else is noise.
Honestly the passage you cite about historical CO2 levels makes me much less interested in reading Epstein's book. Yes, Earth's CO2 levels did hit 6000 ppm once after the evolution of complex life, but we call that the End-Permian Extinction, a catastrophe even worse than the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. LIfe survived that event but if that were to happen any human breathing the outside air would die along with most mammalian life. Humans are clever and I'm sure many would find ways to protect themselves but I'm pretty sure that reaching that level of CO2 would wipe out most humans.
LIkewise, 1,500 ppm CO2 is survivable indefinitely but leads to a level of impairment comparable to drunkenness. And that's even before considering climate. That extract from Fossil Future makes me think the author just isn't being serious.
I think you misunderstand why data on historical CO2 is offered. The point is not that these CO2 levels are desirable or survivable. Rather, it's to question the extent of attribution and sensitivity of warming to human emissions.
That’s not a very good argument though. Showing that z is a function of y doesn’t show that z isn’t a function of x. Moreover much of the natural variation in temperature was itself due to variation in greenhouse gases, so affirms rather than contradicts posited effects of human emissions.
You've got the direction of implication wrong. The claim by climate catastrophists is that z is primarily a function of x. Showing that z is also at least a partial function y reduces the force of that argument.
If you present a univariate regression with a significant slope, and I point out that you've omitted a number of control variables with known significant associations with the response, that's generally considered a valid criticism. It's not considered me claiming that there is no relationships at all between z and x.
Your last sentence is presented without evidence. AFAIK, there are periods where a monotonic relationship does not hold. Again, that undermines a simplistic model.
I'm aware of no mainstream climate scientists who argue that human carbon emissions are the primary cause of variation in atmospheric temperature in the long run. Many think it's the primary cause of variation in the past 150 years (which is likely true IMO). Epstein pointing out that the earth was much warmer millions of years ago, when other factors - that tend to vary on a very long time scale - were much different from today doesn't refute the relevance of carbon emissions. We know it's not a univariate model. It's not some total mystery why temperatures vary in the long run. Imagine a model where z = a*x + b*y, and a >> b, but x varies very little in the short run while y varies a lot. Pointing out that a million years ago, when x was much higher, z was also much higher, has no bearing on whether changes in z over the last 100 years were driven b changes in y.
Take the axial precession for example, the cyclical change in the earth's tilt over time. It has caused far greater variation in climate than human greenhouse gases. 12,000 years ago the temperature at any given place was much different than today largely because we were at the opposite point in the axial precession. Should this reduce our confidence that greenhouse gas emissions affect temperature? Of course not, because the axial precession has been basically unchanged in the timespan in which human industry has been relevant. For a potential confounder to serve as an alternative explanation to a variable of interest, it has to co-vary with said variable of interest, and the factors that might explain why the earth was so much hotter millions of years ago have been pretty static in the timescale relevant to anthropogenic global warming.
The book is written for the general audience. So it's perfectly reasonable to use the long term graph to drive home the point that the issue of temperature is more complicated than simply CO2 levels. Knowing that there are long term processes that affect temperature, as well as the short term ones that everyone is familiar with, at least opens the possibility that CO2 might not be the only relevant factor on decadal or centennial scales.
And the question is not whether CO2 affects temperature. The question is how much. This is the whole motte (CO2 is a greenhouse gas) and bailey (emissions will cause a civilization scale catastrophe within decades to a century) problem with the catastrophic position. If you play motte and bailey, then you shouldn't be surprised when the other side uses this sort of coarse rhetorical device to undermine the bailey assertion.
I, and most well informed skeptics, would be perfectly happy to have a civilized debate about ECS. But the catastrophists mostly attempt to dismiss any such debate. Even though the balance of the literature points to an ECS rather lower than the typical catastrophic assertion.
Sources? Indoors we already have HIGH levels of CO2. Now (and must have been worse when we burnt wood or coal inside the room). And I spent easily a whole day inside - and most of our modern life inside. quote from a "CO2-bad-for-you-monitor-it"-website:
Ken. C., a science teacher writes, “In one classroom of 30 students after lunch reached CO2 levels of 4,825ppm with the door closed...We noticed a rise in asthma sufferers needing their inhalers later in the day when CO2 levels were the highest, typically after lunch. We also found a direct correlation to nausea, and headache complaints when levels were over 2,000ppm. Yawning started about 2,500ppm and progressed to some students just laying their heads down around 3,500ppm." - Not sure this is your "drunkeness" - and not sure it is more an effect of a lower level of oxygen. Anyway, with CO2 up to 400 from 300 after an coal-heavy industrialised 20th century without wind/solar/little nuclear - I do not see any scenario with levels of 1100 coming (which is recommended air indoors). Ever. Though the plants would love it, sure.
One reason for pointing out the geological variations in CO2 levels is to raise awareness that natural fluctuations have been much more extreme than human caused fluctuations. This recognition also has the value of supporting a main thesis of Alex's book which is that human flourishing on planet Earth has always relied on human engineering. A core premise of zero-emissions ideology is that humans will not be able to solve problems created by carbon emissions. This premise is demonstrably weak given the flourishing of humans, especially in the last century, is precisely a result of human ingenuity and engineering.
From Cowen's post: "we cannot simply keep on producing increasing amounts of carbon emissions for centuries on end. We thus need some trajectory where — at a pace we can debate — carbon emissions end up declining. I’ve stressed on MR many times that climate change is not in fact an existential risk, but it could be a civilization-destroying risk if we just keep on boosting carbon emissions without end. I don’t know a serious scientist who takes issue with that claim."
Note how absolutely no evidence for this assertion has been presented (just "I don't know a serious scientist who takes issue with that claim" -> just a pathetic appeal to authority). There is no evidence (absolutely none) for this assertion that is not a supercomputer simulation with error bars as big as the Indian Ocean.
Bryan Caplan, sorry for an off-topic comment but I want to get your attention and adding a comment to your most recent blog post seems like a way. I wrote a comment on the MR blog on South Korea's ultra-low fertility rate of 0.8 births per woman that is relevant to you:
"Koreans need to stop being so perfect! Koreans need to heed the advice of Bryan Caplan on parenting in his book, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. Bryan's advice is: have more kids by not trying so hard to parent! Bryan if you are reading this, can you get your book translated into Korean? Korea needs your message badly and it will be a best seller there!"
It is kind of insane that this is the hill y’all are going to die on.
We have ready availability to get to carbon neutral energy production (through renewables + nuclear), and you have a clear political path to get there, but instead of trying to get what you want (and what is good for humanity) you’re going to argue the science and make yourselves sound like crazy people.
This is a case study of how to get nothing you want by removing yourself from the conversation.
I'm not sure of this point. What you wrote is similar to what Epstein writes, with the caveat that we shouldn't preemptively shut down fossil fuel use.
I don't buy that there's a clear political path for the transition. The problem was politically captured by special interests 20 years ago.
I can sympathize with the desire for a shorter rebuttal.
The reason I approached it in the (long) way I did is that the essence of what Tyler did was not argue against me, but rather severely misrepresent my view as well as the mainstream view my book focuses its opposition on. For me to claim that a highly respected economist is distorting things to this extent is to make a serious, and to many implausible, accusation. The only way I could think of to make good on it was to give abundant primary source references to Fossil Future doing the exact opposite of what Tyler says.
Re: wanting a point-by-point response, as I explained in my piece, Tyler's "points" were almost exclusively either 1) responses to his own distortions of what I wrote or 2) empty dismissals, confidently delivered due to having already strawmanned/written-off my argument. So there was not really anything to respond to. I did a kind of point-by-point in my piece, but it was to highlight the distortion/dismissal tactic.
It's sad that a guy as smart as Tyler not only 1) irresponsibly commented on a book he was not willing to read carefully, but also 2) refused to admit any wrongdoing whatsoever.
+1
In fairness, smart and moral are different things.
Tyler is probably the least honest of the GMU sphere.
I suspect, at the risk of piling on, for the volume of material he consumes that he generally does a good job of summarizing (I suspect he reads quickly in a scanning manner), but that if he creates a narrative thread in his head he sticks with it, even against the content of the book. I find most of his commentary (not his economics work) to be lacking in rigour - meaning that his reviews of Addis Ababa have as much rigour as his book reviews.
I read Tyler Cowen's critique and then Alex Epstein's rebuttal.
Epstein was persuasive, and I think Cowen should either admit his errors in reviewing the book or put forth some other evidence from the book to counter Epstein.
It always seems to me that Tyler Cowen, even though he is a self-proclaimed contrarian, is afraid to stray too far from the acceptable mainstream view. I don't know if it's because he's afraid to lose credibility in the beltway, or what, but I can't think of a time when he's taken a very hard-line, controversial stance. Maybe I am mistaken.
Tyler seems to know who his audience is and they don't mind his straddles. I think you are correct; he takes the safe argument path while avoiding the blunt intellectually honest approach, which unfortunately comes with a cost.
My simple thoughts.
We already have climate mastery all over the globe in a extremely wide diversity of climates.
From an Earth history standpoint, we are near all time lows in global CO2 and temperature.
Life will continue on earth even if all the ice melt in Antarctica and Greenland. It will actually be closer to average.
I do not think slow changes in weather will destroy civilization.
If Tyler thinks it will. He needs to give some reasons as opposed to just stating and assuming it.
I still think Tyler's comments are valid. Who you think is an expert is going to be biased. Secondly, please show/demonstrate "there is overwhelming evidence that - thanks to climate mastery - the net environmental effects of fossil fuels are highly positive." Climate mastery is based on 'I'm not one of the 100 million who will not be displaced due to climate change'. And there can be more saved with technology. Thirdly, using CO2 levels based on life hundreds of thousand years ago is not realistic.
This discussion is similar to the 'earth revolves around the sun'. Change your paradigm and read the book with these lens and there are gaps in Epstein's points. Using Kuhn's Copernican Revolution, when data manipulation is used to fix the current paradigm, it's broken. A new one is needed.
http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/480106.pdf
A couple of points to consider with the book and the arguments laid here is compared to what. Prior to the Industrial Revolution global population hovered around 1 billion or lower, depending when you measure the start of it (https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth). I assume the tremendous population growth of the last two and half centuries is in no small part due to fossil fuels creating more available energy for humans to utilize. Even if we take your estimate and raise it an order of magnitude, the world is still better off with 7 billion more people even if 1 billion of them have to relocate.
Also climate mastery has aloud us to be able to save more people in dangerous, both through preventative measures as well as relief aid then we could have ever done without fossil fuels.
I don't believe the author is saying that we should focus only on fossil fuels, only that we shouldn't abandon them without fully having either an alternative that can meet and exceed current fossil fuel demand or a careful weighing of all the pros and cons of our actions.
You mentioned gaps, and data manipulation I am curious if you could elaborate more on what you mean? Not being sarcastic; genuinely curious. Thanks
I think science, technology, medicine played an even greater role in GDP growth then energy. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2018/06/impact-of-science-and-technology-on-global-economic-growth-mokyr
How did oil/fossil fuels advance the CRISPR or ChatGPT technologies?
On the topic of the relocation of 1 billion people, there would be massive chaos.
Several case studies the Israel/Palestine, Syria. The largest mass movements in history are about 15 million people. Using a power law, the difference between 1 billion and 15 million is truly mind blowing.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/04/22/economic-impact-of-forced-migration-pub-63421
Lastly, when existing models and paradigms start to break down, more complexity, manipulations, and version were developed, but none of them addressed the fundamental reason why the model was not predictive. (p,74)
Which bring me to my last point. Epstein doesn't use models. There is a lot of criticism of them. All models are are wrong but some are useful. Many scientific and commerce ventures are built on questionable models.? GPS and theory of relativity is an example.
https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/kk3n/simplicity/kuhn-cop.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_migration#:~:text=UNHCR%20estimates%2014%20million%20Hindus,million%20people%20leaving%20the%20country.
I would argue that science, technology and medicine breakthroughs are a direct result of the industrial revolution. Without the availability of cheap material, and the freeing up of labor those industries would not have progressed as quickly as they did. The Industrial Revolution was/is in turn heavily dependent on cheap, transportable energy which fossil fuel fits the best.
To your first question fossil fuels contributed to CRISPR and ChatGPT... The most direct way is by providing cheap energy for the use of computers. artificial lights, refrigeration technology, etc. Fossil fuels also allowed for industrial process that made materials such as plastics cheaper. Finally, reducing the labor needed in agriculture freed people up to pursue the development of those technologies. Also, I would like to point out that as of this moment the benefit of using fossil fuels eclipses any benefit from those technologies to date.
As for my displacement example, I believe I didn't present my argument clearly. What I was attempting to convey was that even if the scenario offered (100 million ) was off by an order of magnitude, the world would have a catastrophe, but better then 6+ billion people dying from lack of resources that currently rely heavily on fossil fuels (industrial agriculture for example). I do not disagree that 1 billion refugees would be a serious crisis only that 7 billion people starving would be a bigger issue.
My problem is that it is used through government coercion. I think that reducing ones carbon footprint is a admirable goal, but forcing others to, thus raising cost of goods and services to these people seems wrong.
Hi Andy. I'll met you half way on fossil fuels as the cornerstone of major technological advancements. Let's do a counterfactual. Using Car/Driver as our data source, electric vehicles were technologically ahead of ICE. Who killed the EV is a fascinating history. What if????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g15378765/worth-the-watt-a-brief-history-of-the-electric-car-1830-to-present/
"The largest mass movements in history are about 15 million people."
Recent decades have seen about 300 million Chinese move from rural to urban,
https://migrationletters.com/ml/article/view/664/609
Agree. Circumstances and governance are different then due to a weather/climate event.
The International Organization for Migration suggest that the number of people who will be displaced due to climate change is around 25 million by 2050. There are higher estimates as well as lower estimates, as well as some that believe technology will mitigate displacement, but there is no consensus on this, and you just stated it as fact, so you are obviously biased yourself.
Thanks for posting this, Bryan.
One thing I'd like to see is a discussion of how climate extremists are destroying the mental health of a wide swath of young people. I try to start this conversation in https://www.losingmyreligions.net/ and also today at my blog. https://www.mattball.org/2023/02/greta-thunbergs-misery-is-result-of.html
Kudus to you, Bryan Caplan.
This line of argument is only valid for CNN and Fox/media narrative development. Why are we wasting time here? Sure, carbon concentrations have been vastly higher over millennia and life is still here. And, ice sheets come, ice sheets go. What civilization is argumening about is does carbon concentration matter in the near term (50 year) to ice sheets and does that matter to the current civilizations that bear what would then be categorized as negative externalities. Similarly, does the cost of these externalities exceed (meaningfully) subsidies designed to hasten the market for alternative energy? Everything else is noise.
Honestly the passage you cite about historical CO2 levels makes me much less interested in reading Epstein's book. Yes, Earth's CO2 levels did hit 6000 ppm once after the evolution of complex life, but we call that the End-Permian Extinction, a catastrophe even worse than the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. LIfe survived that event but if that were to happen any human breathing the outside air would die along with most mammalian life. Humans are clever and I'm sure many would find ways to protect themselves but I'm pretty sure that reaching that level of CO2 would wipe out most humans.
LIkewise, 1,500 ppm CO2 is survivable indefinitely but leads to a level of impairment comparable to drunkenness. And that's even before considering climate. That extract from Fossil Future makes me think the author just isn't being serious.
I think you misunderstand why data on historical CO2 is offered. The point is not that these CO2 levels are desirable or survivable. Rather, it's to question the extent of attribution and sensitivity of warming to human emissions.
That’s not a very good argument though. Showing that z is a function of y doesn’t show that z isn’t a function of x. Moreover much of the natural variation in temperature was itself due to variation in greenhouse gases, so affirms rather than contradicts posited effects of human emissions.
You've got the direction of implication wrong. The claim by climate catastrophists is that z is primarily a function of x. Showing that z is also at least a partial function y reduces the force of that argument.
If you present a univariate regression with a significant slope, and I point out that you've omitted a number of control variables with known significant associations with the response, that's generally considered a valid criticism. It's not considered me claiming that there is no relationships at all between z and x.
Your last sentence is presented without evidence. AFAIK, there are periods where a monotonic relationship does not hold. Again, that undermines a simplistic model.
I'm aware of no mainstream climate scientists who argue that human carbon emissions are the primary cause of variation in atmospheric temperature in the long run. Many think it's the primary cause of variation in the past 150 years (which is likely true IMO). Epstein pointing out that the earth was much warmer millions of years ago, when other factors - that tend to vary on a very long time scale - were much different from today doesn't refute the relevance of carbon emissions. We know it's not a univariate model. It's not some total mystery why temperatures vary in the long run. Imagine a model where z = a*x + b*y, and a >> b, but x varies very little in the short run while y varies a lot. Pointing out that a million years ago, when x was much higher, z was also much higher, has no bearing on whether changes in z over the last 100 years were driven b changes in y.
Take the axial precession for example, the cyclical change in the earth's tilt over time. It has caused far greater variation in climate than human greenhouse gases. 12,000 years ago the temperature at any given place was much different than today largely because we were at the opposite point in the axial precession. Should this reduce our confidence that greenhouse gas emissions affect temperature? Of course not, because the axial precession has been basically unchanged in the timespan in which human industry has been relevant. For a potential confounder to serve as an alternative explanation to a variable of interest, it has to co-vary with said variable of interest, and the factors that might explain why the earth was so much hotter millions of years ago have been pretty static in the timescale relevant to anthropogenic global warming.
The book is written for the general audience. So it's perfectly reasonable to use the long term graph to drive home the point that the issue of temperature is more complicated than simply CO2 levels. Knowing that there are long term processes that affect temperature, as well as the short term ones that everyone is familiar with, at least opens the possibility that CO2 might not be the only relevant factor on decadal or centennial scales.
And the question is not whether CO2 affects temperature. The question is how much. This is the whole motte (CO2 is a greenhouse gas) and bailey (emissions will cause a civilization scale catastrophe within decades to a century) problem with the catastrophic position. If you play motte and bailey, then you shouldn't be surprised when the other side uses this sort of coarse rhetorical device to undermine the bailey assertion.
I, and most well informed skeptics, would be perfectly happy to have a civilized debate about ECS. But the catastrophists mostly attempt to dismiss any such debate. Even though the balance of the literature points to an ECS rather lower than the typical catastrophic assertion.
Sources? Indoors we already have HIGH levels of CO2. Now (and must have been worse when we burnt wood or coal inside the room). And I spent easily a whole day inside - and most of our modern life inside. quote from a "CO2-bad-for-you-monitor-it"-website:
https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/high-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-indoors
Ken. C., a science teacher writes, “In one classroom of 30 students after lunch reached CO2 levels of 4,825ppm with the door closed...We noticed a rise in asthma sufferers needing their inhalers later in the day when CO2 levels were the highest, typically after lunch. We also found a direct correlation to nausea, and headache complaints when levels were over 2,000ppm. Yawning started about 2,500ppm and progressed to some students just laying their heads down around 3,500ppm." - Not sure this is your "drunkeness" - and not sure it is more an effect of a lower level of oxygen. Anyway, with CO2 up to 400 from 300 after an coal-heavy industrialised 20th century without wind/solar/little nuclear - I do not see any scenario with levels of 1100 coming (which is recommended air indoors). Ever. Though the plants would love it, sure.
One reason for pointing out the geological variations in CO2 levels is to raise awareness that natural fluctuations have been much more extreme than human caused fluctuations. This recognition also has the value of supporting a main thesis of Alex's book which is that human flourishing on planet Earth has always relied on human engineering. A core premise of zero-emissions ideology is that humans will not be able to solve problems created by carbon emissions. This premise is demonstrably weak given the flourishing of humans, especially in the last century, is precisely a result of human ingenuity and engineering.
From Cowen's post: "we cannot simply keep on producing increasing amounts of carbon emissions for centuries on end. We thus need some trajectory where — at a pace we can debate — carbon emissions end up declining. I’ve stressed on MR many times that climate change is not in fact an existential risk, but it could be a civilization-destroying risk if we just keep on boosting carbon emissions without end. I don’t know a serious scientist who takes issue with that claim."
Note how absolutely no evidence for this assertion has been presented (just "I don't know a serious scientist who takes issue with that claim" -> just a pathetic appeal to authority). There is no evidence (absolutely none) for this assertion that is not a supercomputer simulation with error bars as big as the Indian Ocean.
Compare: "we cannot simply keep on producing more people for centuries on end. We thus need some trajectory where — at a pace we can debate — population size ends up declining." And yet this is the world population over the last couple of millenia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population#/media/File:Population_curve.svg
Bryan Caplan, sorry for an off-topic comment but I want to get your attention and adding a comment to your most recent blog post seems like a way. I wrote a comment on the MR blog on South Korea's ultra-low fertility rate of 0.8 births per woman that is relevant to you:
"Koreans need to stop being so perfect! Koreans need to heed the advice of Bryan Caplan on parenting in his book, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. Bryan's advice is: have more kids by not trying so hard to parent! Bryan if you are reading this, can you get your book translated into Korean? Korea needs your message badly and it will be a best seller there!"
It is kind of insane that this is the hill y’all are going to die on.
We have ready availability to get to carbon neutral energy production (through renewables + nuclear), and you have a clear political path to get there, but instead of trying to get what you want (and what is good for humanity) you’re going to argue the science and make yourselves sound like crazy people.
This is a case study of how to get nothing you want by removing yourself from the conversation.
I'm not sure of this point. What you wrote is similar to what Epstein writes, with the caveat that we shouldn't preemptively shut down fossil fuel use.
I don't buy that there's a clear political path for the transition. The problem was politically captured by special interests 20 years ago.
40.
The clear path is as many nukes as possible, and that has been politically dead for 40 years.