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

Re: Unfortunate response



I wish to second this.  I know of no profession whose ethical standards
allow for this type of attack, including politics.  It is inappropriate to
make this kind of attack on a serious professional.  I believe that the
listserv should consider purging the offender unless an abject apology is
immediately forthcoming.

Ralph E. Cooper, Ph.D.
Mediator, Attorney & Counselor at Law
9901 IH-10 West, Suite 800
San Antonio, TX 78230
210.558-0555
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Gill" <Nicholas.Gill@umb.edu>
To: <p2tech@great-lakes.net>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 10:05 AM
Subject: RE: Unfortunate response


> Friends,
>
> I too found Mr. Jon Entine's atack on Burt Hamner to be below the belt. Is
> it ethical to use the term "Big Lie," which implies Hitlerite tactics, to
a
> reputable and serious journalist? Does anyone who has read even one or two
> of Burt's contributions to the list serv, which are often in the form of
> detailed serious questions and requests for other expert opinion, consider
> him anything like a fascist bomb thrower? Au contraire! I find Mr.
Entine's
> attack unethical and inappropriate.  That unethical attack seems odd
coming
> from someone whose website promotes his purportedly serious and even
> scholarly approach to ethics. One can conclude that the attack was
> essentially political.
>
> The  debate about Lomborg's provocative book has been limited mostly to
the
> substance of the argument and the holes in it, as far as I am concerned. I
> have reviewed the World Resources Institute's letter to environmental
> journalists from Jonathan Lash, summarizing nine categories of problems
with
> the book, for example. These points are serious and substantive. Although
> Mr. Entine may disagree, I find the point, to take just one, that the Dane
> has very limited actual experience studying or working on environmental
> problems, to be rather telling. Suddenly he is some kind of expert in a
very
> complex set of issues? Give me a WRI report anytime.
>
> Isn't it in fact likely that both the Dane and Entine are rather
dilettantes
> in the environmental field who are seeking to make their reputations or at
> least to garner attention by simply being obnoxious and provocative? This
> type of politcal attack may be appropriate for
> talk radio or for Cross Fire, but I wish it were left out of this
list-serv.
>
>
> Nick Gill
> Boston
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd MacFadden [mailto:Todd_MacFadden@uml.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 9:33 PM
> To: Jon Entine; p2tech@great-lakes.net
> Subject: 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
>
>