By Andy May
Update: You will be able to watch a recording of the debate around August 24 on Youtube, the link that worked briefly has been taken down.
The debate I announced here between Steve Koonin and Andy Dessler took place Monday August 15th, it was very educational and illuminating. I will try and write more about it in a few days.
In short Andy Dessler said that economic models suggest that climate change is a negative for human civilization and not positive at all. But he avoided putting any numbers to this assertion.
Dessler believes that wind and solar produce electricity cheaper than fossil fuels, and that they can provide most of our power. Koonin counters that the only reason wind and solar are cheaper is that the cost of fossil fuel backup and the required changes to the U.S. grid are not included in the solar and wind costs. Koonin shows an estimate of $2.4 trillion to upgrade our electric grid to work with mostly wind and solar.
Koonin stated that the costs of climate change are minimal, and in 100 years will not be noticeable because the world economy will grow so much in that time. Climate change, even in the worse scenarios, only reduces economic growth very slightly, by 4% or less, and everyone will still be better off. He notes that in the past global warming and climate change have benefited mankind since people are much better off today, and much more resilient to climate change, than 100 years ago. He also points out that the poor of today should not be made to suffer because the elites (that is the U.S. and the western world) believe, without evidence and only based on models, that fossil fuels are polluting or dangerous. He adds that solar and wind are not pollution free.
Koonin quotes U.S. economist Anthony Downes, who once said:
“The elite’s environmental deterioration is often the common man’s improved standard of living.”
From “Up and down with ecology- the ‘issue attention cycle,'” by Anthony Downs (link)
At the end of this very interesting Oxford-style debate in the New York Sheen Center, these were the results:
Obviously Koonin won, the swing was 25% in his favor. Let us hope that these results are not changed online like they were in the last big climate change debate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Since I happen to be in NYC this week within walking distance of the venue, I decided to attend in person. (Thanks for the heads up, Andy!) I took extensive notes that I hope to write up in the next day or two.
It should be pointed out that this debate forum (more events than just this) is sponsored by the (“small-l” libertarian) Reason Foundation, so the audience is probably not representative of the city, or even the country as a whole. That probably worked to Koonin’s advantage.
What I found most interesting was seeing a distilled summary of the “mainstream” viewpoint. I will want to delve into the sources of these, and examine possible counter-arguments.
Here’s the YT link. Not sure if it will work for anyone that did not register.
Well, the beginning is playing for me now. Jumped ahead to 11 mins and its still good.
I just jumped to the end and it was still good.
Andy, maybe you’d like to add this to the head posting.
drh,
Thanks! I added the link.
Thanks for the link drh,
Watched it all the way through. The right result was achieved. Pity the presentation technology vis slide uploading was so hit and miss.
16:39 UK time: ‘Video unavailable. Video removed by the uploader.’
Alarmist rinsed by sceptic, so we can’t have that!
The climate cabal cannot have this public. Not surprising.
Edit: from Andy in the head post — Update: You will be able to watch a recording of the debate around August 24 on Youtube, the link that worked briefly has been taken down
I’m glad I downloaded it when it was available.
“Climate science compels us…”
…by the Power of Greyskull?
Koonin 1
Dessler 0
AGW -25
Who knew? /sarc
OT and a suggestion for WUWT:
“Logical Fallacy” has come up frequently in the comments.
Perhaps in the Title Bar or under “Reference Pages” a glossary of Logical Fallacies could be added?
Why?
To help the other “Mr. Layman” like me to recognize them and avoid using them ourselves?
“scientists say” is an example of the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy
Here’s a link to a simple summary
16 Common Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them (hubspot.com)
It is also wise to assume half of what you hear and read is BS. Of course it takes very high intelligence to know which half is BS. A short cut is to IMMEDIATELY ASSUME EVERY LEFTIST IS MISLEADING, BIASED, LYING OR OMITTING DATA.
That works for me !
A fun sort of graphic showing the general classification and relationship of one fallacy to another is found here.
Thank you Richard and Kevin.
I almost added to my suggestion examples of what is what is not a logical fallacy to the WUWT glossary.
Richard provided one; “scientist say” for Appeal to Authority.
Of course even if the name of the scientist is supplied, that doesn’t mean it is not still Appeal to Authority if what he said has been misrepresented. I think that happened in the summary of AR4?
(And I doubt if Dr. Josef Mengele would be quoted as an expert on “Diversity and Inclusion” even though, while less extreme, the goal is the same.)
I am retired from the power industry which included trainning in making good choices. This has benefited me in making personal choices such as buying a car.
I have no training in dabating.
The US power indsutry has never has a problem producig the finite amount of electricty our customers needed except when the debaters do not listen.
Fine you want renewable and low carbon, I have a list of the best choices for the enviroment which are also the most econmical in that category.
I have seen their list. If it has no chance of solving the percieved problem, it is on there list.
I conclude the debaters just want to debate. If you solved the problem, debaters would be out of work. If we just build more wind and solar, we will show you.
Who will be the first countries to achieve net zero with nuclear and EV? France and South Korea.
No oil, no coal, no gas: no choice.
I was one of the 90+ who virtually attended the debate. It went as I expected with Dessler appealing to emotion and being loose with the facts, and with Koonin presenting a data-based argument. Still, both stated that wind and solar were cheaper than natural gas for electrical power generation, with Koonin later caveating that renewables were not being properly burdened for reliability. Both were out of their element on grid reality and costs. One in the live audience (it looked like the Manhattan Contrarian Francis Menton) asked Dessler to justify his basis for claiming wind and solar to be the lowest cost, but Dessler deflected in his response. Koonin did not clearly address cradle-to-grave costs of wind and solar, but he did point out their impact on sourcing critical materials from unfriendly foreign powers and their large footprints. Neither commented on the benefits of the mild warming nor of the greening of the earth from CO2 fertilization.
Greatest Fireside Chat VIctory in HIstory for Koonin. He literally gets Dressler to effectively defend slave labor to support his position. He downplays the treatment of the Uyghurs by saying if you have an Apple Phone in your pocket you have a supply chain issue. His message? Slavery is OK as long as it is done for his bogus cause.
Not to be mean…but Dressler reminds me of Despicable Me.
Nah, Despicable Me is amusing. Dessler is about as amusing as a rabid raccoon – and just as dangerous.
Dressler’s comments are pure nonsense. He claims that fossil fuels are expensive. The markets have no problem making fossil fuels commercially viable, green energy requires subsidies. Markets don’t independently select the high-cost and unreliable options.
How insane if Dressler’s idea of using Nuclear as the backup to Wind and Solar. That is the craziest idea I’ve ever heard of. Koonin destroys the deaths arguements.
Dressler is totally clueless. The US has an Aircraft Carrier Battle Group to ensure Global Trade, only part of which is oil. Last I looked, there are no battery-powered tankers or cargo ships. If wind and solar were the answer, Russia wouldn’t be invading The Ukraine and China wouldn’t be enslaving the Uyhgers which are located where China has critical energy infrastructure.
Dessler says we have coal power in the US only because of Politics. This is delusional. Alternative fuels only exist because of subsidies. The markets would never choose alternatives.
That video only has 377 views. That video should be posted on every FB and Twitter Page possible. Dessler destroys support for his cause.
Dessler has trouble understanding why people might have a problem with wasting money. His attitude is that we should spend trillions and if it doesn’t do anything, then no big deal.
Search “Andrew Dessler vs. Steven Koonin” on YouTube and you won’t find it. Funny how that works.
I’m signing-up for the Vat Goo little billy gates will be marketing – just in case there’s a Little Ice Age or maybe Global Warming…Get myself used to the prison goo…
This is really good!
Video removed!
The only surprise is it was uploaded in the first place.
Still, I’m sure the Guardian and BBC will be along shortly with their own extensive coverage…