[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Burton Hamner's Big Lie Was Big Media Duped by The SkepticalEnvironmentalist

Excuse me for not being clear, Mr Entine.  I think the whole case is an
excellent example for discussion and teaching.  Your response in this
subject line is offensive, I do not appreciate having my name associated
with "Big Lie" and I expect an apology.

Burton Hamner

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Entine" <runjonrun@earthlink.net>
To: "Burton Hamner" <bhamner@cleanerproduction.com>; "ONE-L"
<ONE-L@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU>; "p2tech" <p2tech@great-lakes.net>; "Infoterra"
<infoterra@cedar.at>; "AP CP List" <apcpnet@tei.or.th>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:42 AM
Subject: Burton Hamner's Big Lie Was Big Media Duped by The

> Burton:
> "Excellent"??
> You can't be serious!
> Have you actually READ the book, Woodward's tendentious article, and the
> various polemical "analyses" by selected "reviewers".
> Woodward's article provides no analysis at all...it amounts to an ad
> (poorly constructed) by the way attack on Lomborg. It's gutter journalism
> its worst. To site this as an example of "great journalism" is a little
> frightening. No respectable magazine or newspaper would print much of the
> garbage found on Tom Paine about this issue ... It's mostly ideological
> rubbish.
> As a progressive on environmental issues, I find this offensive. And I'm
> amazed that any serious academician would fall for this. Sadly, it's
> illustrative of why the some aspects of the environmental movement have
> so much credibility. What happened to critical thinking--of the "left" and
> the loony extremist right?
> As for the reviewers comments...READ them and match them up against the
> book. In almost every case, they are taking very narrow elements of the
> and contesting some aspects of the data, but not mustering any real
> of the overall conclusions.
> As you know, this is highly contested terrain. There will be
> But selectively contesting some of the statistical analysis does not
> automatically invalidate major theses in the book. In this case, not ONE
> the "reviewers" lay much of a glove on Lomborg's overall analysis.
> Again...if you disagree..cite some actual examples, rather than the
> collection of mostly ad hominem attacks by well known ideologues who have
> lot to lose by a more critical look at highly contentious issues.
> For example, people like Lester Brown. David Nemtzow, and Devra Davis,
> others, are not very credible independent thinks on the issues in which
> polemicize about. PLEASE..read what they write. It's selective journalism,
> which makes Lomborg's book all the more impressive. Many of those who
> are activists who have a long history of distorting (or as is usually the
> case, not understanding) complex environmental and social issues. For the
> most part, they are tin horn demagogues.
> Does Lomborg reach some questionable conclusions...perhaps, but he is very
> transparent about his research -- which means he acknowledges that
> these issues is a process. The same cannot be said for the analysis of
> of those cited in the Tom Paine articles.
> Exercise critical thinking about this, don't just embrace the ideological
> rhetoric of the left and the right.
> In the few cases in which the critics are credible, such as EO Wilson on
> species extinction, not of the comments undermine Lomborg's analysis. Read
> it in context.
> Even Woodward acknowledges, grudgingly, that dealing with statistics in
> hotly polemical issues is very contentious--note his reference to
> Greenpeace's long history of media manipulation and issuing distorted (and
> very unprogressive) environmental "studies" to justify breaking the law.
> [By the way, if any one is interested, my 11,000 word case study of the
> Brent Spar/Greenpeace/Shell fiasco, which deconstructs the media
> manipulation by both sides in this affair, is now available as a chapter
> the Routledge published book: Case Histories in Business Ethics, which is
> being published this month in both hardback and paperback. You can find
> details at Amazon.com...the UK site is:
> 202-1071582-5686251 ]
> Jon Entine
> On 12/13/01 9:14 AM, "Burton Hamner" <bhamner@cleanerproduction.com>
> > This story is excellent for revealing how easy it is to lie with
> > and how the media are so easily manipulated by its lack of expertise in
> > covering environmental issues.  Should be a classic in enviro education
> > in media management.
> >
> > Burton
> >
> >> Colin Woodard's article, "THE TABLOID ENVIRONMENTALIST, How a
> >> Pseudo-Scientist Duped the Big Media -- Big Time" is now available at
> >> http://www.tompaine.com. An op-ad about this was published in today's
> >> New York Times.
> >>
> >> It features how The New York Times, Time Magazine, The Economist, etc.
> >> were suckered into printing uncritical and glowing reviews of Bjorn
> >> Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentalist.
> >>
> >> Grist Magazine also published a series ("Something is Rotten in the
> >> State of Denmark") refuting Lomborg's assertions,
> >> http://www.gristmagazine.com. Two of the nine articles were written
> >> by WRI experts, Dr. Allen Hammond and Emily Matthews.
> >>
> >> If you want to know more about the controversy, see our media guide at
> >> http://www.wri.org/press/mk_lomborg.html.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *****************************************************
> >> Adlai J. Amor
> >> Media Director
> >>  World Resources Institute
> >> 10 G Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002, USA
> >> Tel: (+202) 729 7736 * Fax: (+202) 729 7616
> >> Email: aamor@wri.org
> >> Website: http://www.wri.org
> >> *****************************************************
> >>
> >
> --
> Jon Entine
> RuffRun
> 6178 Grey Rock Rd.
> Agoura Hills, CA 91301
> (818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804
> http://www.jonentine.com