7 ms·

Alex Epstein? The one that is a self-professed Fossil Fuels advocate and is starting a lobbying group with Thiel's backing? https://twitter.com/alexepstein/stat

Alex Epstein? The one that is a self-professed Fossil Fuels advocate and is starting a lobbying group with Thiel's backing? https://twitter.com/alexepstein/status/1516091577227255810 https://twitter.com/alexepstein/status/1516091577227255810 Anyway, I went to his source material he and it said "The last couple of years have revealed that recovery is underway across much of the GBR, a promising sign illustrating that the GBR still has the capacity and necessary ecological functions to recover from disturbances. The Central and Southern GBR had periods of recovery within the last decade which have been curtailed by disturbances, arresting recovery, and causing further coral declines. Sustained recovery of the GBR back to historical high coral cover requires the next few years to be disturbance free to allow corals to continue to grow and increase their populations. While there have been hard coral cover increases across all three regions over recent years, the Northern and Southern GBR are still below the highest recorded coral cover in the 1980s, and preliminary analyses have documented shifts in the dominant corals on some reefs. 2021 has been a low disturbance year, while the period from 2014 to 2020 was an intense period of widespread disturbances. There were numerous severe tropical cyclones and three mass coral bleaching events in five years. The fourth wave of crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks began around 2010 between Lizard Island and Cairns, and by 2020 had progressed south to reefs offshore from Townsville."

systemvoltage 4y ago
I read his book, Fossil Future, and found it quite convincing. Also agree with Peter Thiel’s political stance which is horribly smeared and mischaracterized by media as Fascist. So if your rebuttal starts out with smearing of the character instead of refuting the points, it just further’s the credibility of Alex Epstein. Climate alarmicism leaves no option to engage in criticism. There is no room left. It just shows how deranged it has gotten. There are a lot of lunatics that deny climate change, but Alex takes a data-based approach and advocates that we improve human flourishing, and solve the problem of CC. Highly recommend his Google Talk to anyone that wants to see how sloppy some of the Climate alarmicism has gotten: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6b7K1hjZk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6b7K1hjZk4
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  No, I am contextualizing what Epstein is saying. It is from an industry advocate/lobbyist, not a scientist. Epstein has a bias, and is being up front about it, and I am repeating his own words. He may be right, and he may be wrong, but his goal is to persuade not to find the truth. I hope they overlap more often than not for all our sakes. I note that you didn't address the scientific portion of my response - that while everyone is happy for the GBR recovery, that there was an element of luck in it vs they other years 2014-2020 and isn't a trend. Look at your repeating the phrases "deranged", "lunatics". How can I be expected to have a good faith conversation with you when you are saying that I'm mentally ill and illogical. I didn't do the same to you, and I'm disappointed.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    > his goal is to persuade not to find the truth. I found it to be exactly the opposite. The current CC movement leaves no room for dissent. Just like the first year of COVID where we left no room to listen to credible scientists, CC movement is singularly focused often ignoring inconvenient truths. > Look at your repeating the phrases "deranged", "lunatics" I mean, I wasn't calling you mentally ill, but there are people that with close approximation resemble precisely someone that has no logical basis and has taken on a religious pro or anti CC agenda. Watch Fox news sometimes and you'll get what I mean. Alex is quite the opposite, but your first instinct was to smear his character by aligning it with Peter Thiel. Bad faith arguments start with ad-hominem attacks on the person's motives instead of the content of the argument. You kind of did the same thing with me by criticizing my language instead of engaging in arguments, just one step shy of a false moral superiority card (you're insulting mentally ill people). Most NYT reporters that invest in propelling Climate catastrophe agenda are not scientists either.

systemvoltage 4y ago

I read his book, Fossil Future, and found it quite convincing. Also agree with Peter Thiel’s political stance which is horribly smeared and mischaracterized by media as Fascist. So if your rebuttal starts out with smearing of the character instead of refuting the points, it just further’s the credibility of Alex Epstein. Climate alarmicism leaves no option to engage in criticism. There is no room left. It just shows how deranged it has gotten. There are a lot of lunatics that deny climate change, but Alex takes a data-based approach and advocates that we improve human flourishing, and solve the problem of CC. Highly recommend his Google Talk to anyone that wants to see how sloppy some of the Climate alarmicism has gotten: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6b7K1hjZk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6b7K1hjZk4

throwaway5752 4y ago
No, I am contextualizing what Epstein is saying. It is from an industry advocate/lobbyist, not a scientist. Epstein has a bias, and is being up front about it, and I am repeating his own words. He may be right, and he may be wrong, but his goal is to persuade not to find the truth. I hope they overlap more often than not for all our sakes. I note that you didn't address the scientific portion of my response - that while everyone is happy for the GBR recovery, that there was an element of luck in it vs they other years 2014-2020 and isn't a trend. Look at your repeating the phrases "deranged", "lunatics". How can I be expected to have a good faith conversation with you when you are saying that I'm mentally ill and illogical. I didn't do the same to you, and I'm disappointed.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  > his goal is to persuade not to find the truth. I found it to be exactly the opposite. The current CC movement leaves no room for dissent. Just like the first year of COVID where we left no room to listen to credible scientists, CC movement is singularly focused often ignoring inconvenient truths. > Look at your repeating the phrases "deranged", "lunatics" I mean, I wasn't calling you mentally ill, but there are people that with close approximation resemble precisely someone that has no logical basis and has taken on a religious pro or anti CC agenda. Watch Fox news sometimes and you'll get what I mean. Alex is quite the opposite, but your first instinct was to smear his character by aligning it with Peter Thiel. Bad faith arguments start with ad-hominem attacks on the person's motives instead of the content of the argument. You kind of did the same thing with me by criticizing my language instead of engaging in arguments, just one step shy of a false moral superiority card (you're insulting mentally ill people). Most NYT reporters that invest in propelling Climate catastrophe agenda are not scientists either.