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

Re: Unfortunate response



Jon,

You make a good point. I think I got a bit too revved up in my response and 
my tone was definitely more pointed than I would have preferred. Plus, I 
see now that I undermine the very point of my message which is that we need 
to disagree constructively and communicate sensibly.

Apologies to you and others.
Todd MacFadden



At 04:33 PM 12/13/01 -0800, you wrote:

>Todd:
>
>You are certainly welcome to your diatribe. But I have no apologies for
>responding to other's diatribes, sophomoric attacks on the "media", and
>almost giggly snide polemical comments by Mr. Hamner. Please extend your
>warm embrace of "respect" and "dignity" to people and ideas that you
>disagree with, not only those who conform to your ideology or are "your
>friends."
>
>As for "ranting" comments, please read your own note.
>
>And why should I not tell people about a chapter that deals with the very
>issue that Mr. Hamner so glibly commented upon? It's reasoned, far more so
>than the low brow comments that he, and now you, are making. It's not as if
>I make any money off of the book --and frankly wouldn't be an issue if I
>did.
>
>Shame on you.
>
>On 12/13/01 4:24 PM, "Todd MacFadden" <Todd_MacFadden@uml.edu> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>--
>Jon Entine
>RuffRun
>6178 Grey Rock Rd.
>Agoura Hills, CA 91301
>(818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804
>http://www.jonentine.com