I`m disappointed that my attempts at discourse with Lubos Motl have blown up. Lubos, a Czech physicist/climate science blogger who responded to my post on Bret Stephens` exegesis in the WSJ of the psychology of the cult-like "belief" by the rest of the world in the "nonfalsifiable hypothesis" of human-influenced climate change, disengaged, while of course dissing me..
Some of the fruits of my attempt were noted in my previous post, where Lubos felt it appropriate to repay my efforts by calling me a "freedom-hating" "hypercommunist" "Nazi" who "should be put in jail or executed before it`s too late".
I`vehad several conversations with Lubos before, and so I actually tried to continue our email discussion by objecting that his language was hardly constructive and that we share common areas of concern:
With your clear and rational vision, it doesn't matter that I also worry about the wisdom of letting governments get their hands on more revenues and resources to bureaucratically mismanage. Nope, because I have the view that unowned resources (such as ocean fisheries: http://www.reason.com/news/show/34998.html; http://www.reason.com/news/show/36839.html;http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/07/08/kept-afloat-on-a-tide-of-money/) are often ruinously exploited and am aware that severe pollution is often a problem where victims have no access to courts to protect their rights, or where there is no regulation or industry is too powerful (or owned by the state), then I must be a hypercommunist and Nazi and should be promptly jailed or executed for the good of mankind.
But this proved to be the last straw for Lubos, for the reason that - because my response included a link to liberal George Monbiot (who happens to have an excellent article decrying how state subsidies to fishermen are helping to strip out ocean fisheries ) - my mind must be polluted . I`ll spare readers the language that Lubos used, but he insisted that not only he was he not interested in reading "Moonbot" whom he despises (despite the fact that they agree on this partiicular issue), but disdained the fact that I could bother to read (all right, I can`t resist - "eat sh*t" was Lubos` phrasing) those with whom he disagrees, and that was the end of our "discussion".
While everyone is entitled to determine with whom and on what terms they will converse, I find the contrast between those who profess to love freeom and reason and their own distemper while they call everyone else an irrational man-hater is both startling and dismaying.
After Lubos hung up on me, I paid a brief visit to his blog (having been alerted by a commenter), and what did I see? His July 9 post he notes that he feels compelled to call for the "euthanasia" or urgent "quarantine" of reporters and others who have recently written on climate change!
I am normally against euthanasia but it simply seems to me that there is no other help for the people who are writing most of the stuff above. It's literally pandemics. The society should urgently put these people into quarantine, hoping that it is not too late
In response, I left the following comment on his blog: http://www.webcitation.org/5ZE4C94rU
Lubos, all of your talk of euthanasia and quarantine are enough to warm the cockles of a good Nazi's heart! You are far ahead of Jim Hansen, who only spoke of "trials" for what he sees as deception by fossil fuel execs.
But let me play along with your light-hearted fun and games, even as it makes it difficult to criticize Hansen: how, exactly, should we identify all of the "freedom-hating" "hypercommunist" "Nazis" who should be "jailed or executed" as you have noted elsewhere?
This Tom, after all, is not a Jerry. But since I disagree with YOU (and your hatred), I suppose that means I must also [hate] MANKIND, and deserve death, with you as prosecutor, judge and jury?
But, not surprisingly, this champion of reason would have no discourse about it, so he removed my comment. www.webcitation.org/5ZEK18b9X
Why is it that those who call most loudly for reason have so little ability or willingness to use it themselves? And why do those who purport to love freedom and reason feel compelled to call for the elimination of those who disagree with them?
Is self-awareness so painful and self-control and discourse so difficult?