Gordon

My previous short response was not intended to offend or mislead. If it 
did so, then I apologise. Unfortunately, time is still short because of 
a combination of private concerns and my having to go through a wave of 
bureaucratic procedures with the local government (I estimate to have 
spent roughly 50 hours in government offices - 4 different ministries, 
to boot - over the last couple of weeks or so, not counting typically 45 
minutes each way for each visit). And all because of the damned EU! :-(

If I find time (my wife just called me to dinner!), I'll try to give you 
ans answer tomorrow.

Brian



Davy, Gordon wrote:
> 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
>