Lex Friedman (inadvertently?) interviewed EV hater

[Olle]

I listened to this Climate Change Debate on Lex Friedman Spotify available on ( Youtube too), which was supposed to be a nuanced look at climate change as opposed to the usual yelling from the eco chambers. Was really looking forward to it.

The panelists interviewees Bjørn Lomborg is author of "False Alarm". Andrew Revkin is a climate journalist (21 years at NY Times). Lomborg turns out to be an EV hater of great proportions.

He went through the debunked EV myths out there. He really twisted reality and cherry picked.

This is not a literal quote but the gist of what he said sounded something like:
We need to frack more, EVs are worse than gas because the battery manufacturing cost more CO2 than gas, we wrongfully subsidize people to buy Teslas, we use cobalt, 89% of Tesla owners also have a real car for when they need to go somewhere, because EVs are toys that can't be driven in reality and so on.
Revkin chimed in and said hybrids are better than EVs and Prius is the best. Friedman didn't challenge or confront this.

I won't debunk this because it has been debunked so many times. Lomborg has got to be paid by oil and gas, can't see any other reason for this ludicracy.

Normally I wouldn't be bothered about this FUD, but I consider Friedman a serious source of information. He is usually good about picking interviewees and source critique. Disappointing.

People like this need to be called out.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

If you were really familiar with Lex Fridman (i not ie), you'd know that he very strongly believes in open debate and questioning, not simply dismissing other peoples opinions, which is why he's ready and willing to have such debates.

 

[Olle]

If you were really familiar with Lex Fridman (i not ie), you'd know that he very strongly believes in open debate and questioning, not simply dismissing other peoples opinions, which is why he's ready and willing to have such debates.

It was one FUDster and two others who swallowed the FUD. Not what I would call a debate.

Have you listened to the episode?

 

[animorph]

Geez, electrics are just better cars. Climate benefits were way down on my list. No reason to hate electric cars even if all the climate FUD was 100% true.

 

[Olle]

Geez, electrics are just better cars. Climate benefits were way down on my list. No reason to hate electric cars even if all the climate FUD was 100% true.

Totally agree that EVs are better cars. That's why some of those who stand to loose are hiring "merchants of doubt" like Lomborg to slow the transition.

 

[Operator64]

So someone does an interview of an individual with an opinion against EV’s and the interviewer is wrong? Why doesn’t the man being interviewed have a right to his own opinion Just because it’s different than your viewpoints?

 

[David_Cary]

Opinion against EVs is one thing. Repeating false information isn't the same thing.
This happens a lot nowadays - perhaps it always has. But knowledge has grown and the ability for the average person to keep up with it has not grown - or if it has, it certainly has not grown enough. So people can present things as opinion or even twisted fact when they are just untrue. Then a debate ensues but often about things that aren't a matter of opinion.
Climate change is certainly the biggest venue of this.
Oil is huge driver of the economy and has been for a long time. Oil money = power. Power corrupts. Information is power. It is really easy to draw the lines.

Certainly, the population of oil-producing regions is so invested in the economy of oil, it is really hard to be objective. So people in the US in general and Texas in particular are going to be biased on the pro-oil side of nearly any "debate". This supremacy is like religion and being truly objective is nearly impossible.

EV's have their challenges but the vast majority of institutions - both government and NGO - have concluded that they still represent a better alternative. That "debate" was finished 10 years ago. And some of the "oil-positive" reports back then were laughable using horrible estimate longevity of batteries and assuming coal was used to generate electricity etc.

Still better to bike or live in a walkable city. And yep, more CO2 in production of battery/EV than comparable ICE vehicle. Doesn't make EVs somehow worse than ICE....

 

[h2ofun]

I listened to this Climate Change Debate on Lex Friedman Spotify available on ( Youtube too), which was supposed to be a nuanced look at climate change as opposed to the usual yelling from the eco chambers. Was really looking forward to it.

The panelists interviewees Bjørn Lomborg is author of "False Alarm". Andrew Revkin is a climate journalist (21 years at NY Times). Lomborg turns out to be an EV hater of great proportions.

He went through the debunked EV myths out there. He really twisted reality and cherry picked.

This is not a literal quote but the gist of what he said sounded something like:
We need to frack more, EVs are worse than gas because the battery manufacturing cost more CO2 than gas, we wrongfully subsidize people to buy Teslas, we use cobalt, 89% of Tesla owners also have a real car for when they need to go somewhere, because EVs are toys that can't be driven in reality and so on.
Revkin chimed in and said hybrids are better than EVs and Prius is the best. Friedman didn't challenge or confront this.

I won't debunk this because it has been debunked so many times. Lomborg has got to be paid by oil and gas, can't see any other reason for this ludicracy.

Normally I wouldn't be bothered about this FUD, but I consider Friedman a serious source of information. He is usually good about picking interviewees and source critique. Disappointing.

People like this need to be called out.

I agree with Andrew

 

[Operator64]

Certainly, the population of oil-producing regions is so invested in the economy of oil, it is really hard to be objective. So people in the US in general and Texas in particular are going to be biased on the pro-oil side of nearly any "debate". This supremacy is like religion and being truly objective is nearly impossible.

So is this an opinion or false information? I believe Tesla is Headquartered in Texas Elon Musk is from Texas, you certainly have not provided FACTS to support this statement, so I’m guessing you are supporting the idea that everyone has the right to their “opinion” wether you agree with it or not.

 

[mtbwalt]

I’m personally fine with people making false statements.

Then when through debate and logic it is shown a statement is false, the one who claimed it loses credibility and trust.

People have been lying or saying false things since the advent of language. If anything, lying has become much more sophisticated and critical thinking skills are all the more important.

Ps where can I get my subsidy for my 2022 MS?

 

[Olle]

Opinion against EVs is one thing. Repeating false information isn't the same thing.

Head on the nail.

Oil money = power. Power corrupts. Information is power. It is really easy to draw the lines.

Indeed. Surprisingly few people are able to connect the dots though.

 

[Olle]

Why doesn’t the man being interviewed have a right to his own opinion Just because it’s different than your viewpoints?

Everybody has a right to their opinion. Lying and having an opinion are two unrelated things. Getting away with lying and getting paid for lying is problematic imo.
Never forget that our abundant lifestyle has only existed for a brief moment in history and is only based on knowledge and truth. If lying keeps getting rewarded, we will gradually slide back toward the Stone Age.

 

[Operator64]

Everybody has a right to their opinion. Lying and having an opinion are two unrelated things. Getting away with lying and getting paid for lying is problematic imo.
Never forget that our abundant lifestyle has only existed for a brief moment in history and is only based on knowledge and truth. If lying keeps getting rewarded, we will gradually slide back toward the Stone Age.

So now people are getting paid for lying, is that a fact with proof? An opinion? Or a lie? It’s easy to find fault in someone else’s words but difficult to prove the fault.

 

[mtbwalt]

People of all stripes should support free speech. That doesn’t mean all speech should be believed, or true.

 

[Operator64]

People of all stripes should support free speech. That doesn’t mean all speech should be believed, or true.

Exactly right

 

[David_Cary]

The challenge with free speech is two fold.
1 - There have to be limits. And there are limits but they are somewhat unequally applied. The two most obvious ones are the way we are allowed to slander public figures in a way that we can't do to private figures and you can't flagrantly lie when trying to sell something (with the obvious exception of politicians).
2 - The ability to have speech heard is unequal. People and figures with more power have more control over what is heard.

As the US becomes more unequal (fact), the speech projection becomes more unequal. Since knowledge is power and the rich have better ability to spread knowledge, it can reinforce their power. Hence, oil men have an outsized ability to project information and therefore an increasing influence on the population's knowledge. They obviously use this power to reinforce their power.

As far as number 1 - there will be different opinions on what those limits are and how strict they will be enforced. Is inciting violence and projecting that through social media an acceptable thing? Of course social media is not run by the government and "free speech" as a term is based on the 1st amendment which says nothing about private parties limiting speech. Even this forum is moderated - imagine that.

This is my quick explanation why supporting free speech is not a binary thing. To suggest it is demonstrates a lack of sophistication of thought - a catch phrase way of thinking. You would be hard pressed to find a lot of people that think the government should prevent truthful or opinionated speech that doesn't incite violence or cause immediate harm to people. That is easy but there are a lot of nuances after that. Being paid to lie about climate change can certainly be seen as bumping against a limit. But that would be very debatable. Heck, even Musk hasn't allowed Alex Jones back on Twitter. So much for absolutism.

Elon Musk is of course from South Africa, not Texas. His move to Texas was presumably to avoid the big state government of CA - taxation and regulation. Obviously he is heavily invested in electrification of transport so is more likely to be anti-oil. But mostly, he is power hungry and CA was getting in the way of that. Nothing about him being in Texas is pro-oil. And just because someone is from Texas doesn't mean they are heavily influenced by the economic power of oil. It is a generalization. Sort of like saying Americans (and even more Texans) are overweight. Certainly doesn't make everyone overweight but where you live influences your weight and your opinions.

 

[mtbwalt]

There is no challenge with free speech. You either have it or you do not.

When free speech crosses a line there are remedies. You mentioned Alex Jones. He paid a price for defaming the Sandy Hook families. It is precisely because of his large audience that he is on the hook. If he was some crackpot on Twitter with 3 followers he would never have been sued. If someone’s speech causes injury then there are remedies.

People of any level of power should be allowed to say what they will. That is how we get to see who they are. If their speech causes true injury then they are liable.

But stifling debate, even on semi-religious topics like climate change, germinates authoritarianism and tyranny, and stifles progress. If an idea cannot stand criticism or challenge, it is a bad idea to begin with.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It was one FUDster and two others who swallowed the FUD. Not what I would call a debate.

Have you listened to the episode?

I haven't listened. It's not my kind of podcast. I love his interviews with experts, rather than communicators.

 

[nwdiver]

But stifling debate, even on semi-religious topics like climate change, germinates authoritarianism and tyranny, and stifles progress. If an idea cannot stand criticism or challenge, it is a bad idea to begin with.

.... why do you think the adage 'a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes' exists?

Ask Steve Jobs what happens when you allow nonsense to spread because it's something that makes people 'feel good'. Oh wait... you can't... he was killed by nonsense.

Several years ago PBS aired a free energy piece that somehow escaped their editors. After some people that had at least graduated high school wrote in they rightfully pulled it and apologized for the lapse. Airing it wasn't free speech. It was giving a platform to stupidity. There's a difference. Most people lack the critical thinking skills to not get duped. It's sad but that's just the reality.

 

[mtbwalt]

God forbid Steve Jobs have the autonomy to decide what to do with his own body.

If the shattering evidence of the need for abolition of free speech is that PBS aired a stupid documentary years ago about free energy that turned out inaccurate… well, I’ll pass on the authoritarianism. Freedom includes the freedom to be credulous.

Meanwhile those same authorities who would love to police our speech have promulgated policies that have placed our country in $31,300,000,000,000 of debt with no end in sight. I’m sure that’ll end well. Talk about comforting lies instead of unpleasant truths!