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

Unfortunate response



Jon,

I am stunned and disgusted. I cannot begin to understand what prompted such 
a vituperative (public) attack. What constructive value could possibly come 
of this type of response? And particularly from a self-proclaimed 
"progressive on environmental issues?" Were that the case, and if you were 
a more sensible fellow, you would realize that disagreement among 
professional colleagues in this field is not only normal and acceptable, 
but is in fact necessary. It provides invaluable opportunity for discourse, 
learning and (ultimately) growth.  We are quite accustomed to disagreeing 
with each other. But we treat one another with respect and dignity. Your 
vitriol and invective has no place in this forum.

I wonder why you didn't simply acknowledge your disagreement, state your 
position, and then start the ball rolling on what would doubtless have 
become a lively discussion. I consider Burton Hamner one of the most 
well-respected individuals in this field. He has done so much to advance 
our collective understanding and to point us in directions we never dreamed 
of going. Sure, he might take issue with you on a point or two, and he'll 
defend his position gallantly, but he will honor your opinions and 
recognize our common goal - to protect the environment.

Your ranting diatribe does not add value. And then to have the audacity to 
plug your chapter. Unbelievable. 11,000 more of your words? No thanks.

Yes. Run Jon run. Run far, far away.

Todd MacFadden



At 01:34 PM 12/13/01 -0800, you wrote:
>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>
>Cc: <IABS-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
>Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:42 AM
>Subject: Burton Hamner's Big Lie Was Big Media Duped by The
>SkepticalEnvironmentalist
>
>
> > 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
>hominem
> > (poorly constructed) by the way attack on Lomborg. It's gutter journalism
>at
> > 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
>lost
> > 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
>book
> > and contesting some aspects of the data, but not mustering any real
>analysis
> > of the overall conclusions.
> >
> > As you know, this is highly contested terrain. There will be
>disagreements.
> > But selectively contesting some of the statistical analysis does not
> > automatically invalidate major theses in the book. In this case, not ONE
>of
> > 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
>a
> > lot to lose by a more critical look at highly contentious issues.
> >
> > For example, people like Lester Brown. David Nemtzow, and Devra Davis,
>among
> > others, are not very credible independent thinks on the issues in which
>they
> > polemicize about. PLEASE..read what they write. It's selective journalism,
> > which makes Lomborg's book all the more impressive. Many of those who
>write
> > 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
>analyzing
> > these issues is a process. The same cannot be said for the analysis of
>some
> > 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
>in
> > 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:
> >
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415231442/ref%3Ded%5Fra%5Fof%5Fdp/
> > 202-1071582-5686251 ]
> >
> > Jon Entine
> >
> > On 12/13/01 9:14 AM, "Burton Hamner" <bhamner@cleanerproduction.com>
>wrote:
> >
> > > This story is excellent for revealing how easy it is to lie with
>statistics
> > > and how the media are so easily manipulated by its lack of expertise in
> > > covering environmental issues.  Should be a classic in enviro education
>and
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >