Just before the notorious Stanford Law School protests earlier this year, I had a much more positive experience speaking to Stanford Law students about Fossil Future.
These are students at Stanford? One would expect that a Stanford student could draw a reasonable distinction between sea level rise, global average temperature, and mass extinction. These students just hop from one to the other to the other without blinking, not even trying to explain how sea level rise will cause a mass extinction event. They don't appear to have any background evidence to show how one causes the other. Do they really think that animals can't move when the sea level rises?
Infrastructure can't move when sea level rises. Businesses, houses, communities, networks, none of these can move when sea level rises. These are called refugee crises for a reason.
Not at all. Large swaths of Seattle and New Orleans have always been below sea level. They built sea walls and levees to protect their infrastructure. The structures in Seattle's old town were simply adapted to handle sinking ground. Not a crisis.
You're confusing (purposefully conflating) sea level rise (a global phenomenon) with hurricanes (a local phenomenon). This not a valid argument. Drinking water is piped in. This is not advanced science.
Multiple variables can and do interact simultaneously. High sea levels push levees closer to overflow, prompting new construction that may or may not happen depending on political and economic conditions. Hurricane frequency and severity is a global phenomenon that is escalating due to climate change, putting additional acute pressures on water management systems. These two forces interact with each other and make low-lying areas ever more vulnerable.
Hurricane frequency is declining. You can't even get your facts right. This has been happening for some time and is well known. And yes, even I get my drinking water from a pipe! It's amazing!!! They even pump that water in from a far away section of the state! So high tech!!!
Great discussion. I read every word. I'm a fan and thought that "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" was an excellent book. Unfortunately, I thought "Fossil Future" was a total bore - it took me months to read it. The constant repetition of your points and arguments made it a challenge (to be kind). The problem was not with your ideas, but the long-winded way you presented it, in addition to the constant repetition. I cannot and will not recommend "Fossil Future" to anyone, but I am a supporter of your efforts. "Fossil Future" would have been an important book with a lot of editing. You could have made the same points in 200 pages and kept the reader engaged.
Hi John, well I can obviously count on you for candid feedback! However, I am glad that most readers disagree with you on Fossil Future. The book has already outsold Moral Case and made a far bigger difference in the culture than Moral Case did. For, I believe, the reasons that caused me to engineer it the way I did, including certain forms of repetition. In any case, I appreciate you sharing whatever pieces of my work you think are valuable.
Yes, and I was one of those who bought your book and was very much looking forward to reading it. So, buying the book and getting something valuable from it are two different things. In any event, I am a fellow traveler, although much older than you. I read Atlas Shrugged in 1973, a year after graduating from an engineering college. I have read just about everything Ayn Rand has written including all her novels and non-fiction, as well as the Ayn Rand Letter and Objectivist Forum. This led me to reading many books on free market economics as well as environmentalism and the distortions they promulgate, starting back in the late 70's to the present, as well as books on similar issues, and books by Objectivists. I think, in general, you are doing valuable work. My concern with your current book is that it is so repetitive that it will turn readers off. Your readers' time is also valuable, and the repetitiveness greatly lessens the potential impact of the book. Just my opinion. I will acknowledge that since I am well versed on the subject as well as the philosophy of Ayn Rand, maybe the repetition was more problematic to me than to others. But I did not have that reaction to "Moral Case...". In any event, I am rooting for you to have as much of an impact as possible and I would have no problem recommending "Moral Case..".
I don't think (Alex) you shared this post on Twitter, but my 2c is: a very interesting exchange. Not sure you WANT it shared on Twitter or not since you didn't tweet it yourself.
Brilliant job Alex! We can only hope they will actually open their minds to what you said. Thank you!!!
I don't know how many students were present but the motivated ones out to challenge your work through questions, were handled very well.
I doubt many minds were changed but perhaps some minds began to wonder if there are other sides to the arguments. Good work sir.
These are students at Stanford? One would expect that a Stanford student could draw a reasonable distinction between sea level rise, global average temperature, and mass extinction. These students just hop from one to the other to the other without blinking, not even trying to explain how sea level rise will cause a mass extinction event. They don't appear to have any background evidence to show how one causes the other. Do they really think that animals can't move when the sea level rises?
Infrastructure can't move when sea level rises. Businesses, houses, communities, networks, none of these can move when sea level rises. These are called refugee crises for a reason.
Not at all. Large swaths of Seattle and New Orleans have always been below sea level. They built sea walls and levees to protect their infrastructure. The structures in Seattle's old town were simply adapted to handle sinking ground. Not a crisis.
Did you forget all of hurricane Katrina or...?
Saltwater intrusion into drinking water is another serious problem.
You're confusing (purposefully conflating) sea level rise (a global phenomenon) with hurricanes (a local phenomenon). This not a valid argument. Drinking water is piped in. This is not advanced science.
Multiple variables can and do interact simultaneously. High sea levels push levees closer to overflow, prompting new construction that may or may not happen depending on political and economic conditions. Hurricane frequency and severity is a global phenomenon that is escalating due to climate change, putting additional acute pressures on water management systems. These two forces interact with each other and make low-lying areas ever more vulnerable.
To your second point: No.
https://www.miamidade.gov/global/water/conservation/saltwater-intrusion.page
Hurricane frequency is declining. You can't even get your facts right. This has been happening for some time and is well known. And yes, even I get my drinking water from a pipe! It's amazing!!! They even pump that water in from a far away section of the state! So high tech!!!
Alex,
Great discussion. I read every word. I'm a fan and thought that "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" was an excellent book. Unfortunately, I thought "Fossil Future" was a total bore - it took me months to read it. The constant repetition of your points and arguments made it a challenge (to be kind). The problem was not with your ideas, but the long-winded way you presented it, in addition to the constant repetition. I cannot and will not recommend "Fossil Future" to anyone, but I am a supporter of your efforts. "Fossil Future" would have been an important book with a lot of editing. You could have made the same points in 200 pages and kept the reader engaged.
Hi John, well I can obviously count on you for candid feedback! However, I am glad that most readers disagree with you on Fossil Future. The book has already outsold Moral Case and made a far bigger difference in the culture than Moral Case did. For, I believe, the reasons that caused me to engineer it the way I did, including certain forms of repetition. In any case, I appreciate you sharing whatever pieces of my work you think are valuable.
Yes, and I was one of those who bought your book and was very much looking forward to reading it. So, buying the book and getting something valuable from it are two different things. In any event, I am a fellow traveler, although much older than you. I read Atlas Shrugged in 1973, a year after graduating from an engineering college. I have read just about everything Ayn Rand has written including all her novels and non-fiction, as well as the Ayn Rand Letter and Objectivist Forum. This led me to reading many books on free market economics as well as environmentalism and the distortions they promulgate, starting back in the late 70's to the present, as well as books on similar issues, and books by Objectivists. I think, in general, you are doing valuable work. My concern with your current book is that it is so repetitive that it will turn readers off. Your readers' time is also valuable, and the repetitiveness greatly lessens the potential impact of the book. Just my opinion. I will acknowledge that since I am well versed on the subject as well as the philosophy of Ayn Rand, maybe the repetition was more problematic to me than to others. But I did not have that reaction to "Moral Case...". In any event, I am rooting for you to have as much of an impact as possible and I would have no problem recommending "Moral Case..".
I don't think (Alex) you shared this post on Twitter, but my 2c is: a very interesting exchange. Not sure you WANT it shared on Twitter or not since you didn't tweet it yourself.
Hi Gordon, feel free to share it on Twitter! I am eager for it to be shared there, I just haven't gotten around to doing it myself yet.