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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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
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.
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.