Excellent piece. I would love to see an honest political debate between two educated, well-informed, honorable people, but that does not seem possible today. The academics are now mostly leftist zealots with a distorted and intellectually dishonest world view while few on the right seem able to articulate foundational conservative values and principles. The Democrats have embraced left-wing radicalism and the Republicans have chosen as their standard bearer a charismatic man of questionable character and temperament. Few people in either political party have the intellectual substance to constructively debate the important issues of our time. I support conservative politicians because I see them as doing the least amount of damage to the country, but I wish we had more politicians in both parties who were knowledgeable, articulate independent thinkers. That type of person is currently in woefully short supply in the political realm.
As usual, great piece. Thank you. I find that people who truly believe in “intellectual hospitality and genuine debate” are highly curious people. To many people that lack curiosity are unwilling to engage in genuine debate. Curious people are more open to changing their opinions as they learn more.
Roger, my brother, a lawyer in Madison WI, specializing in environmental law, pointed me in your direction a little over a year ago. He and I are political opposites. We both love and respect each other. Anyway, your "ahem", along with the strategically placed parentheses: "Lippmann argues that genuine debate offers a check on what some today call “misinformation” and, perhaps ironically, the lack of genuine debate motivates calls for censorship by the most strident amongst us (emphases added):, revealed two things to me. You.... are an honorable person... and, I thank my brother, Frank Jablonski, who is a pretty amazing lawyer and person, for connecting us. Happy Thanksgiving and keep on..... rockin in the free world!!
May I suggest we all use Thanksgiving to stop and count the many blessings life has showered upon us? One of the most precious is the freedom to voice candid opinions on a forum like this one.
"the point of public debate is not to “win” -- I wish more people would take this to heart. I try to avoid saying things like "you're wrong" because people naturally take it personally. I prefer "your point is incorrect" or something similar.
That is quite a list you wrote down..."Echo chambers, epistemic bubbles, block lists, partisan media, censorious content moderation, cancel culture". I would add one more item...the weaponization of the American justice system. A truly, truly terrifying book is The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. It is a trilogy with, as I remember, each book over 600 pages. The first volume was on the Soviet legal system, which was built to target its enemies. There was no escape. It was so depressing that I could not go on to the rest of the trilogy. Our freedoms, as you know firsthand, can be taken away by a corrupted legal system or corrupted public institutions. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the crystal clear point that no state can deny equal protection of the laws to anyone within its jurisdiction: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person. of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". We HAVE TO BE DILIGENT to prevent lawfare from public institutions upon private citizens.
I dont like Thanksgiving because the weather is usually awful, I eat too much, and I don't give Xmas gifts, which means I don't go shopping on Friday. I like the football games, but we are getting too many. My proposal is to move Thanksgiving to late February to celebrate doing our tax returns ahead of the deadline.
I always benefit from your thoughtful, balanced analysis. So I wonder if you might address a recent post by Quico Toro about the influence of aerosols and Saharan dust on Atlantic Ocean temperatures and hurricanes:
In the spirit of Intellectual Hospitality and open debate I would like make a challenge. In the past thirty years published papers have shown several trends. World surface temperatures have been overestimated from many causes and are falling each year. Many papers show increasing negative feedback and positive feedback have been debunked. Climate sensitivity estimates appear to be falling every year. In short the estimated future temperature rise is modest and decreasing. The increase is also primarily in the colder areas of the earth at night. Commanding this are many papers showing lower portion of CO2 from burning fossil fuels reach the atmosphere. A huge number of papers and data sources have shown the benefits to the earth's
flora and fauna from higher CO2.
So, here is the challenge. Roger, make this blog the first to openly state that the world will be better off with higher CO2 so there is no need to reduce fossil fuels use. Invite paper that refute that assertion and papers that support the benefits and deficits of that assertion. The world is not monolithic so this should generate many, many papers about local impact of increasing CO2.
Fernando, may I share my perspective. When I joined the oil industry in 1975, we had a ten year supply of oil remaining. I suspect there is still a lot left, although it is certainly getting more difficult and expensive. We need to build more nukes for power! We need the oil to make plastics and motor fuel.
Based on petroleum reserves running out eventually, I would like to know what research and development is out there pertaining to an alternative to the feed stock (petroleum, natural gas and coal) for the production of petro chemicals.
Ross, it seems population is bound to decline. We can also be more thrifty with synthetics, and we can use biomass. But in the end everything hinges on the availability of cheap energy, and I'm not sure we'll feel comfortable helping Nigeria, Myanmar, or a communist run failed state in Cuba to build nuclear plants.
Roger, I have been following you, quietly, for a while. Well done, brave, thoughtful, and an important contribution to the wellbeing of our societies. My background is earth sciences and spectral physics, which has made it particularly difficult to watch the unfolding tragedy. Stay the course, please, we also are working the problem over here in Europe.
Given your background I would be interested in your thoughts on William Happer's "Old Guard" presentation which deals with the issue of saturation within the spectral band influenced by CO2. It should be easy to locate on Google, or if not, Bing.
Same here. I have mentioned this before. So far as I can tell, Happer's argument is strong but I lack sufficient physics to properly evaluate his claims. I have not seen anyone challenge him.
Thank you for this gloss on "freedom of expression. I'll offer an Edmund Burke perspective as well: Begin from gratitude for what works in society, rather than from outrage at what does not work. Happy Thanksgiving!
Excellent piece. I would love to see an honest political debate between two educated, well-informed, honorable people, but that does not seem possible today. The academics are now mostly leftist zealots with a distorted and intellectually dishonest world view while few on the right seem able to articulate foundational conservative values and principles. The Democrats have embraced left-wing radicalism and the Republicans have chosen as their standard bearer a charismatic man of questionable character and temperament. Few people in either political party have the intellectual substance to constructively debate the important issues of our time. I support conservative politicians because I see them as doing the least amount of damage to the country, but I wish we had more politicians in both parties who were knowledgeable, articulate independent thinkers. That type of person is currently in woefully short supply in the political realm.
As usual, great piece. Thank you. I find that people who truly believe in “intellectual hospitality and genuine debate” are highly curious people. To many people that lack curiosity are unwilling to engage in genuine debate. Curious people are more open to changing their opinions as they learn more.
Amen.
Roger, my brother, a lawyer in Madison WI, specializing in environmental law, pointed me in your direction a little over a year ago. He and I are political opposites. We both love and respect each other. Anyway, your "ahem", along with the strategically placed parentheses: "Lippmann argues that genuine debate offers a check on what some today call “misinformation” and, perhaps ironically, the lack of genuine debate motivates calls for censorship by the most strident amongst us (emphases added):, revealed two things to me. You.... are an honorable person... and, I thank my brother, Frank Jablonski, who is a pretty amazing lawyer and person, for connecting us. Happy Thanksgiving and keep on..... rockin in the free world!!
May I suggest we all use Thanksgiving to stop and count the many blessings life has showered upon us? One of the most precious is the freedom to voice candid opinions on a forum like this one.
"the point of public debate is not to “win” -- I wish more people would take this to heart. I try to avoid saying things like "you're wrong" because people naturally take it personally. I prefer "your point is incorrect" or something similar.
No, you can absolutely say, "you're wrong" .... we can handle it. The "woke", politically correct, are dying on the vine... time to become an adult.
That is quite a list you wrote down..."Echo chambers, epistemic bubbles, block lists, partisan media, censorious content moderation, cancel culture". I would add one more item...the weaponization of the American justice system. A truly, truly terrifying book is The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. It is a trilogy with, as I remember, each book over 600 pages. The first volume was on the Soviet legal system, which was built to target its enemies. There was no escape. It was so depressing that I could not go on to the rest of the trilogy. Our freedoms, as you know firsthand, can be taken away by a corrupted legal system or corrupted public institutions. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the crystal clear point that no state can deny equal protection of the laws to anyone within its jurisdiction: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person. of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". We HAVE TO BE DILIGENT to prevent lawfare from public institutions upon private citizens.
Spot on!!
You have done good by your father. Best wishes to you and yours for an Thanksgiving Holiday.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/john-kerry-we-need-to-declare-a-climate-emergency-and-get-people-to-behave
I dont like Thanksgiving because the weather is usually awful, I eat too much, and I don't give Xmas gifts, which means I don't go shopping on Friday. I like the football games, but we are getting too many. My proposal is to move Thanksgiving to late February to celebrate doing our tax returns ahead of the deadline.
I always benefit from your thoughtful, balanced analysis. So I wonder if you might address a recent post by Quico Toro about the influence of aerosols and Saharan dust on Atlantic Ocean temperatures and hurricanes:
https://www.persuasion.community/p/youre-thinking-about-hurricanes-all
In the spirit of Intellectual Hospitality and open debate I would like make a challenge. In the past thirty years published papers have shown several trends. World surface temperatures have been overestimated from many causes and are falling each year. Many papers show increasing negative feedback and positive feedback have been debunked. Climate sensitivity estimates appear to be falling every year. In short the estimated future temperature rise is modest and decreasing. The increase is also primarily in the colder areas of the earth at night. Commanding this are many papers showing lower portion of CO2 from burning fossil fuels reach the atmosphere. A huge number of papers and data sources have shown the benefits to the earth's
flora and fauna from higher CO2.
So, here is the challenge. Roger, make this blog the first to openly state that the world will be better off with higher CO2 so there is no need to reduce fossil fuels use. Invite paper that refute that assertion and papers that support the benefits and deficits of that assertion. The world is not monolithic so this should generate many, many papers about local impact of increasing CO2.
Don't forget we ARE running out of cheap fossil fuels. Oil has a definite trend we have to consider, but gas should follow within two decades.
Fernando, may I share my perspective. When I joined the oil industry in 1975, we had a ten year supply of oil remaining. I suspect there is still a lot left, although it is certainly getting more difficult and expensive. We need to build more nukes for power! We need the oil to make plastics and motor fuel.
Based on petroleum reserves running out eventually, I would like to know what research and development is out there pertaining to an alternative to the feed stock (petroleum, natural gas and coal) for the production of petro chemicals.
Ross, it seems population is bound to decline. We can also be more thrifty with synthetics, and we can use biomass. But in the end everything hinges on the availability of cheap energy, and I'm not sure we'll feel comfortable helping Nigeria, Myanmar, or a communist run failed state in Cuba to build nuclear plants.
Definitely agree, we have to build more nukes......
Really lovely thanksgiving sentiment!
Thank you, Roger, for your insights and providing a platform for hospitable open debate. As Mike Hulme has said, "in disagreement there is learning."
Roger, I have been following you, quietly, for a while. Well done, brave, thoughtful, and an important contribution to the wellbeing of our societies. My background is earth sciences and spectral physics, which has made it particularly difficult to watch the unfolding tragedy. Stay the course, please, we also are working the problem over here in Europe.
Given your background I would be interested in your thoughts on William Happer's "Old Guard" presentation which deals with the issue of saturation within the spectral band influenced by CO2. It should be easy to locate on Google, or if not, Bing.
Same here. I have mentioned this before. So far as I can tell, Happer's argument is strong but I lack sufficient physics to properly evaluate his claims. I have not seen anyone challenge him.
Thank you for this gloss on "freedom of expression. I'll offer an Edmund Burke perspective as well: Begin from gratitude for what works in society, rather than from outrage at what does not work. Happy Thanksgiving!