Wednesday, March 10, 2010

[name's] wife [name], a grandmother, on [name]'s efforts to delay climate action - briefly.

2012-01-09 update: post deleted due to its ad hominem focus.  My apologies.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
chip carman said...

I'm not supporting any position on the topic of this discussion. But I do have a position that it is not appropriate to bring in family members based on an authors opinion or position...

Paparazzi does this, most legit publications would not do this. Frankly -- it's a cheap shot. It works, but at what cost?

Should we perhaps explore your background and get quotes from your relations, perhaps friends, or perhaps enemies? No. That would not be ok in my opinion.

Usually commentary and tactics with NCFocus are fine, but I think you went to far here...

Anna Haynes said...

I'm chewing on this, Chip. And this may be a rationalization, but it seems to me that the fact that there's an additional interest group - the grandchildren - elevates the "do you support your spouse/their grandfather's efforts" question to legitimacy.

Climate in 2010 is like Germany in 1939; we will be called to account for our actions by those who are children today, and their future interest is something that we owe consideration - yet at this point, most people *don't* consider it.

That needs to change.

And I think we all know folks whose "don't rock the boat", politeness-whatever-the-cost-to-the-kids sensibilities serve to enable their spouse's destructive efforts.

Now, if you *don't* believe that climate in 2010 is like Germany in 1939, this reasoning probably comes across as off-the-wall extremist. But it might be worth taking a couple minutes to look under the MSM rug, as it were, to see if the historical comparison is apt.

For that, I'd recommend a two-minute perusal of climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe's presentation (~25pp PDF, almost all images) to Republicans for Environmental Protection.

(and if you do that, could you please come back here and tell me what you thought of it, what could be cut and what should be added, what was unconvincing or counterproductive, etc? I'd be very interested to hear how it comes across to the intelligent layman, & what changes could improve it.)

Anna Haynes said...

...and it's completely appropriate to ask her, if her household benefits from her husband's efforts - which seems likely, since he's been unwilling to say whether he's been compensated directly or indirectly, financially or otherwise, for his anti-climate-action writings.

Ellen Steele's LinkedIn profile lists her as Editor at their business InsightWorks, in the "Public Relations and Communications" industry.

Bo Reardon said...

I would agree with Chip on this one. It actually creeps me out that you would stoop to this level. BTW, antagonizing the Russ Steele types is not wise either. Never get in a fight with a man that buys his ink by the barrel.

Anna Haynes said...

Bo, thanks for stopping by (and if you're local, say hello sometime!)

Since you agreed with Chip, I hope you got a chance to read the two comments I wrote responding to his concerns, above - in particular, I hope you saw that Ellen Steele is a partner with Russ in their communications business. (Plus her name and existence are no secret, as he's blogged about her, including that they've taken trips to do research for pseudoskeptic Anthony Watt's Surface Stations project.)

And once you've perused the Hayhoe presentation(pdf) that I asked Chip to devote two minutes to - and which I'm now asking you to do likewise - you may reconsider whether she owes it to their grandkids to say where she stands.

Please, if you could take two minutes to look it over? and then report back what you thought of it, and problem(s?) you saw with it; I'm very interested to hear what you think.

Anna Haynes said...

Chip Carman and Bo Reardon, a netiquette pointer:

Perhaps you're used to the Wild West culture of newspaper comment forums, but in blog comments, doing drive-bys like this is really poor form.
(...the exception being cases where previous repeated attempts at online dialogue with the blog host have proven fruitless.)

95959google said...

You didn't chew enough obviously...
IMHO your "rationalization" is rabid.
Then decide to chastise me and another commentor for doing "drive-bys"... Wow.

Not worth the time to even drive-by anymore...

Anna Haynes said...

"95959google" ("profile not available", on Blogger) is presumably Chip Carman. Chip, when you make intemperate remarks ("...rabid...") please do sign them with your real name.
(There are certainly cases where intemperance is called for - e.g. just yesterday I termed an argument by Russ Steele "insane", and I stand by that judgment), but the reader gets to assess whether it's justified, and the reader should also know, for sure, who's making the claim, in order to assess/calibrate your credibility for the future.)

Or at least, that's my view - IMO we should be writing with the reader's - and the future's - interests in mind.

Frontiers of Faith and Science said...

Anna, you cowardly pathetic troll you will delete this I bet.
You are the proto-typical fascist, seeking out the children and grandchildren of those you obsessively hate.
You are so far into your psychopathic obsession you actually think you are still functional. Next stop delusion-ville.

Anna Haynes said...

Normally I don't allow comments like the above through moderation, but every once in a while one comes through that is just so _interesting_ that it's worth sharing.

Note for attention-deficit readers (which includes all of us, at one time or another) - don't miss the "However - (July 25 update)" section of the post, in which I note that in retrospect, this post wasn't fair to Ellen, given her husband's intensely strong willed nature. Note to self: Acting out of frustration has consequences; generally not good ones.

Anna Haynes said...

I wonder if Frontiers and his friends could benefit from watching Rachel Maddow's report from the Right Wing alternate reality.
It is probably delusional to think so, but one can dream...