Brian,

You said recently that my posting is a "diatribe ... peppered with
errors of fact and reasoning" that you don't have time to respond to
(this is not the first time you have blamed lack of time for not
rebutting what I've said). You said that it is "dangerous argumentation"
that may mislead those with "insufficient knowledge to sort out the
wheat from the chaff." And you said of the Stern report that "the fact
that it was commissioned by the government ... is neither here nor
there." As I have before, I want to challenge what you say, but in
addition this time, I believe I must challenge how you say it. 

I can't help wondering if my alleged "errors of fact and reasoning" may
more accurately be characterized as conflicts with your opinions, and
your alleged lack of time as a lack of effective rebuttal. Knowing your
sentiments, I can understand that you might be irritated by my
characterization as dangerous the attempts to suppress dissent by
environmental activists (who claim to speak for, as has been pointed out
repeatedly, the huge majority of climate specialists). Maybe, although
you've never said so, you resent my referring to them as demagogues, and
you are looking for a way to even the score.

I don't mind your characterization of my comments as a diatribe, or as
you have in the past, rant. (I prefer the term polemic.) I think that
people who use such pejorative terms say more about themselves (angry,
fearful, and willing to use ridicule to bolster a weak position) than
about their opponents' positions. Such language would be marked down in
a college exam (no extra credit for big vocabulary), and would be thrown
out of any court of law as leading the witness. I really don't think
that emotional expression helps to convert forum subscribers, many of
whom are highly intelligent, to your point of view, so it doesn't bother
me.

But when you say that my posting, read by only some of the 130
subscribers, is dangerous, you've gone too far. I can't just ignore it.
You are quite intelligent, too, so I'm mystified. Did you really miss
the point that the purpose of the original posting was to draw attention
to the attempts by those you agree with to limit the freedom of those I
agree with because they regard the ideas as dangerous?

How does it advance the cause of reasoned discourse, for which this
forum is intended, to label without explanation what I have to say as
dangerous? What course of action do you recommend to protect people from
the danger? Discourage or prevent me from continuing to post, or
discourage those who see themselves as under-informed from reading my
postings?

Please explain. Can you describe the danger that you envision, were I,
as you fear, to influence some of those forum subscribers who lack your
knowledge and sophistication? Maybe if those I agree with were in the
majority they would attempt to suppress activist claims of impending
doom. There is a lamentable temptation for people of all persuasions to
use whatever power they have to limit their opponents' opportunity to be
heard. But regardless of what they might desire, those I agree with are
of course in no position to do any such thing. How could a few
unknowledgeable people whom I have misled interfere significantly with
the activist agenda, unless they might in turn induce other simple folk
to question authority, to suspect that the emperor is naked, or to
change the metaphor, to look for the man behind the curtain? That's not
suppression or deception (or to use Todd's word, totalitarianism),
that's exposure. 

I suppose I should take your comments as a backhanded compliment that
you say my posting isn't all "chaff," but has some "wheat" and a "good
background," and that you believe it to be so persuasive - albeit
misleading - to others. But I think that you owe me, and all those
insufficiently knowledgeable subscribers, an apology - even if you did
in making your slur inadvertently demonstrate my point. 

As you, I have posted often. I have a number of times had to ask
forgiveness for comments that I came to realize were inappropriate. For
you I think that this is such an occasion.

Now for some other things you said. For as many times as you have
summarily dismissed as self-serving those studies that have been funded
by organizations that make you suspicious, it's remarkable that without
explanation you are unconcerned about who commissioned the Stern report
and the influences they may have exerted. 

I have said before that those who challenge the paradigm are less likely
to engage in propaganda because they know they will be challenged. But
if reports are at risk of being slanted by those who pay for them, why
should the risk of slanting in a report you approve of be any less? You
demand that reports be impartial, but I wonder - is it possible that the
demagogues have appealed to your pride and indoctrinated you enough for
you to have lost your own impartiality?

You have an engaging writing style, and often you present relevant
information and employ rigor in your thinking and expression, but
sometimes you seem to get carried away by your emotions. We both want to
influence others, or we wouldn't bother to post, but do you harbor a
sense of noblesse oblige that makes you feel that without your warnings
subscribers will arrive at wrong conclusions and you'll be to blame? If
you don't have time to read and critique something, why do you feel the
need to say anything about it at all?

Whatever your reason, please don't keep summarily dismissing reports you
don't like just because you don't like who paid for them, and using your
lack of time as an excuse for disparaging but not discussing content.
Many forum subscribers see claims they disagree with without posting to
say so and explain why. Most subscribers are employed full time and have
many responsibilities, but I don't recall anyone besides you stating
disagreement and then claiming lack of time as a reason for not
explaining why.  

I wouldn't characterize your practice when you do these things as
dangerous. I do see it as lazy and irresponsible behavior - a cheap shot
you hope will make it look as if you know more about something than you
do. Whether that's your intent or not, it just makes you look
opinionated, and diminishes rather than enhances the impression you
make. 

Brian, please understand that I am not angry at you. Although some
might, I do not interpret your comments as saying that I deliberately
mislead gullible subscribers (i.e., that I post propaganda). Nor do I
intend to retaliate - by trying to make you angry or by demeaning your
character. You know that I have said many complimentary things about you
in my postings over the years, and I haven't changed my opinion. 

I do regard your statement as a lapse of civility, and I believe you
should be called publicly to account for how you express yourself in a
public forum such as this. I hope you can find the time to do so.

Gordon Davy
Baltimore