As noted on the prior thread, in a recent blog post, scientist Lubos Motl concluded that there "literally pandemics" of people writing stuff on global warming, and that is "simply ... no other help for the people who are writing most of the stuff" but "euthanasia" and "urgently put[ting] these people into quarantine, hoping that it is not too late". He then deleted and declined to answer the comment that I made on his blog that asked him to clarify the difference between himself and the N*zis.
However, I note that in response to a comment from a commenter named "Sign me up!", Lubos was willing to spell out his proposal as follows; my comments are indented:
[ Euthanasia? Urgent quarantine? What`s with the elimationist fantasies here, Lubos? ]
Is this a reasonable way to engage with anybody, much less so many leaders, industrialists, scientists, reporters etc.?
Sorry, wrong questions. Obviously EVERYBODY who writes or worries about possible climate change is EVIL. How can we help innoculate our fragile democracies from their filth? Do we get to kill enviro-Nazi hypercommies, and their supporters everywhere? Can you give us better instructions on how we identify them?
LM: If your question is meant seriously, then let me say that I have defined the group that should be given the treatment much more accurately than you seem to suggest. Read my text again and listen carefully.
[TT: Lubos`s post refers to "the people who are writing most of the stuff" that he has linked to in the post; they are mainly reporters.]
Otherwise, now quite seriously, I don't propose any vaccination or anything that goes beyond the very basic standards of freedom of democracy. I only demand the basic principles that are written in our constitutions etc. to be respected.
The right to exhale or otherwise emit carbon dioxide - basic processes inevitably associated both with life and modern civilization - and the right to think that climate alarmists are irrational cranks are surely basic human rights and indeed, if someone wants these rights to be eliminated, i.e. to prevent people from essential processes for their civilized life or from their freedom of opinion, I want him to be treated analogously to the because he is analogous to the . Indeed, I view such people as a threat to our basic freedoms, prosperity, and, indeed, life itself.
[TT: These are gross strawmen. Obviously, NO ONE is arguing that people don`t have the right to breathe; OF COURSE if there were such people we would all have legitimate right to self defense. Nor is anyone arguing that skeptics have no right to express their opinions. But where, anywhere, have nations created explicit rights to "legal persons" to emit unlimited levels of carbons or any thing else? Lubos may feel that there are "natural" or God-given rights to take actions that negatively affect others, but it`s hardly the basis of our jurisprudence (even as it underlies our political economies), and there plenty of laws, regulations and court cases that restrict economic freedom in cases where it imposes costs on others. Yes, presently a good portion of our generating capacity and virtually all transportation is provided based on fossil fuels, but it is not "an essential process for civilized life" that this continue indefinitely. In fact, we have been gradually decarbonizing for year based simply on existing market incentives, and it is conceivable that someday or energuy infrastructure will be based mainly on nuclear and hydrogen.
Are people who care about the damages and risks posed by our current energy infrastructure all ? Anybody who`s bothered to keep his ears opens knows that the major religions keep making promulgations of a nature that Lubos considers sufficient to euthanize or lock up the clergy.]
Now, imagine that the plans of some of these extreme anti-greenhouse people became more realistic and there would be a risk that they return us to the Middle Ages, both from the viewpoint of GDP as well as the viewpoint of freedom of ideas.
[TT: Besides paying close attention to what Lubos thinks about the "freedom of ideas", it`s quite easy to find (1) NON-"extreme anti-greenhouse people" who have concerns about the risks posed by our current exploitation of our shared but unmanaged commons and (2) Nobel prize-winning economists and other prominent economists who think that pricing carbon/GHGs/etc. is affordable without sacrificing growth and makes sense now on a cost-benefit/risk analysis.]
Yes, I think that tough steps agaisnt them would become necessary, whether or not these steps would be organized by sane governments or locally. How many of these green people would have to be eliminated for the civilization to be saved? I don't know. In the case of Nazism, it was pretty much necessary to kill millions of Germans - defeat them in a war - to stop their majority's favorite ideology that was also flagrantly incompatible with the civilized world's standards. The rest simply surrendered. This qualitative template would surely hold in any qualitatively similar confrontation - the only difference could be a quantitative one.
If steps against Nazi Germany had been made earlier, the casualites could have been smaller. I really don't know whether this carbon control madness will fade away soon or, if it will not, how far it will get. The further it will escalate, the tougher steps will be needed to solve it. But unless it fades away soon, I am afraid that the permanent arrest or execution of one Al Gore would probably not be the sufficient solution to solve the crisis because already today, the situation is demonstrably much more serious than having one lunatic dreaming about his global control over the world's carbon from his Tennessee home.