Deleted tweet detection is currently running at reduced
capacity due to changes to the Twitter API. Some tweets that have been
deleted by the tweet author may not be labeled as deleted in the PolitiTweet
interface.
Showing page 29 of 295.
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
"In the great debates about our energy future, Alex Epstein cuts to the heart of the issues persuasively and powerfully. Epstein frames everything-appropriately-around "human flourishing" and decimates the "anti-humanistic" outcomes of the anti-fossil-fuel lobby." - @MarkPMills https://t.co/fYs5tX5uXW — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
“As Fossil Future shows, once you look at the benefits and side-effects of FFs from a human flourishing perspective, everything changes. Fossil fuels go from a world-destroying addiction to a world-saving value that actually makes us safer from climate.” https://t.co/e7utaZeyYM — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
RT @AlexEpstein: Myth: 97% of climate scientists agree that we face a climate crisis that requires the rapid elimination of fossil fuels.… — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
#FossilFuture https://t.co/04An5V3G43 — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
"Despite all the talk about a “green revolution,” recent reports from the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization have had a discouraging food‐deficit theme." —@nytimes, 1973 #Catastrophizing https://t.co/DImIgVaDrj — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
RT @DavidAsmanfox: “Remember, there are no limits to growth and human progress when men and women are free to follow their dreams. The Amer… — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Get #FossilFuture: https://t.co/KvYDUsAy35 Watch the full interview with @PeterMcCormack on @WhatBitcoinDid: https://t.co/Gg4dO3uBSh — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
“the average health around the world, access to clean water, lack of starvation, these have all radically improved, and they're all fossil fueled.” With @PeterMcCormack https://t.co/ca5ZBEWFk7 — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
“I did a complete 180° on my beliefs about energy and development thanks to Epstein's work. He makes a thorough, clear, compelling case that human flourishing requires more cost-effective energy, not less.” Get Fossil Future: https://t.co/KvYDUsA0dx https://t.co/eAgSAfxmV0 — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
“The CDC's latest asthma surveillance shows that the most important factors in asthma prevalence are income and ethnicity—with ethnicity likely being another income indicator.” https://t.co/jGcGGL52Ev — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Get #FossilFuture: https://t.co/KvYDUsAy35 Watch the full interview with @WesleyHuntTX on Saving American Energy: https://t.co/hT1xY5EC5D — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
“the tragedy about that is, it's always easier to stop something new than to stop something old. So the biggest victims of the anti-fossil-fuel movement, but more broadly the anti-energy movement, are third world countries, but also nuclear.” With @WesleyHuntTX https://t.co/9JRNajj1YD — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
“The main lie of ‘Just a small area of solar panels can power the world’ is that it ignores the insane cost of the necessary batteries. But it also drastically underestimates how much space solar panels require.” https://t.co/ejZiKDtfg3 — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Get #FossilFuture: https://t.co/KvYDUsAy35 Watch the full interview with @EnergyAbsurdity on The Energy Question: https://t.co/c0aDFdGX86 — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
“People are… 1/100th as likely to die from drought today. That's a huge benefit. So if you're considering the climate side-effects, including negatives of fossil fuels on drought, you have to consider the benefits” With @EnergyAbsurdity https://t.co/iJKP8tPJXH — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
If you're new to my work, follow me @AlexEpstein for extreme clarity on energy, environmental, and climate issues from a humanist perspective. Also, subscribe to my newsletter, featuring lots of concise, powerful, well-referenced energy talking points. https://t.co/NS8O3mzWft — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
If someone tries to intimidate you into opposing fossil fuels by saying “97% of climate scientists agree,” trying asking them: 1. What exactly do they agree about—do they agree there’s a “climate crisis”? 2. Do you agree we should also factor in the benefits of fossil fuels? — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Summary: Using “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human-caused” to argue against fossil fuels is illogical and unscientific. It: 1. Falsely equates *some* climate impact with *catastrophic* climate impact 2. Ignores the huge benefits of fossil fuels — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
An example of the peril of “listen to the scientists”: climate scientist Michael Mann’s book on fossil fuels and climate doesn’t once mention the essential benefit of FF use to the availability of food—even though 8B people depend on diesel machinery and natgas fertilizer to eat! — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
But the “97% consensus” abusers try to avoid the discussion about fossil fuel benefits by pretending that the only relevant issue is whether fossil fuels have climate-side-effects—and so we should just “listen to” the anti-fossil fuel views of their preferred scientists. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Fossil fuels actually overall make us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. Climate disaster deaths have decreased 98% over the last century. https://t.co/ab1wp5Qopf — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Policymaking must factor in that fossil fuels have expanded human life expectancy by decades, made us healthier, our environments cleaner, and all of us safer from climate. “Climate” policies that would diminish or destroy these benefits would themselves be catastrophic. https://t.co/aFYfHwLyLa — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Policymaking must factor in that fossil fuels provide over 80% of global energy in a world that is desperately short of energy. 3 billion humans use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator, and billions more use amounts of energy that are unacceptable to Americans. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
“Listen to the scientists” on fossil fuel policy sounds compelling, because clearly we need info from climate scientists. But these scientists themselves are not qualified to make FF policy, because that depends on multiple fields, e.g., energy, economics, and adaptation. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
The “97%” consensus as defined by the various papers seeking to find agreement among scientists is weak. It doesn't show consensus about the magnitude and danger of impacts. But even if it did, this would only be part of the relevant information to make an energy policy decision. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
97% fallacy 2: It ignores the huge benefits, including climate benefits, of fossil fuels By being coupled with the refrain “listen to the scientists,” the “97%” claim is designed to make you only look at the climate side-effects of FFs when making policy—ignoring FFs’ benefits. — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Lynas, like many other authors of “consensus” studies (including Naomi Oreskes and John Cook) is clearly motivated by the desire to use insignificant consensus about some climate impact to drive their desired catastrophe narrative and anti-fossil-fuel political outcome. https://t.co/Rh27A4Bh6S — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Revealingly, @mark_lynas, lead author of the paper The Guardian falsely labeled as a 99% endorsement of climate emergency, promoted this abuse instead of correcting it, falsely concluding that “undermining the case for action on climate change is not based on science.” — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
The 2021 paper found that an overwhelming number of papers sampled agreed with human impact on global warming, but most would not even quantify the human share of warming. This “consensus” definition is extremely vague and has no “emergency” or policy implications at all. https://t.co/S6HHcqJUms — PolitiTweet.org
Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein
Going beyond “97%,” “99%” abuser The Guardian took a paper claiming 99% agreement on humans impacting climate to some extent to mean “99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans.” The “emergency” was just added because The Guardian felt like it. https://t.co/hTG3lLM48P — PolitiTweet.org
