Wednesday
Sep082010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill On politeness
Sep 8, 2010 Climate: HSI A reader advises me of some correspondence he has had with Prof Nick Hewitt, the author of the "review" of the Hockey Stick Illusion in Chemistry World. Prof Hewitt notes in passing that he has received abusive emails as a result of his article.
If anyone has been doing this, please stop. It doesn't help. There is a fine line to be trodden between being rude about what someone says and being abusive. Don't cross it.
Reader Comments (45)
I didn't write, but as I recall, the Prof wasn't very polite about your book! You may find that what he regards as 'abusive' is no worse, and he just has a thin skin...
I didn't write to him either, but in a former life I managed the product reviews and book reviews for an international publication, and I wouldn't have permitted Hewitt's screed to appear in my pages. It was very lazy and unprofessional work. Putting the description "review" in quotes is very appropriate.
James P,
If our goal is healthy dialogue, one where we each party acknowledges at least the possibility that it is mistaken on some points, then polite address forms an essential part of the strategy. Please permit me to quote Solomon, from Proverbs 15:1 and 2:
A gentle answer turns away wrath
But a harsh word stirs up anger
The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable
But the mouth of the fool spouts folly
If we are interested in receiving the best information, politeness is a method of holding the door open and encouraging diffident sources to enter.
What a sensitive soul.
Quote, Nick Hewitt, "Unable to dispute the science, and reality, of climate change, climate deniers (or sceptics as they are disingenuously described in this book) have made sustained attempts to discredit climate scientists and the way they work."
Just as well we 'sceptics' don't take offence of being likened to holocaust deniers.
If someone believes what you say to them to be abusive, you have failed to engage with them. This may mean you have not expressed your position clearly, or you have not tried. If they don't want to listen to your position, you are better off spending your time talking to someone who can be persuaded.
Hear, hear, Bish.
to some people, saying you disagree with them and trying to explain why, is in their minds abusive..
seen in 'climate science' and complaints to call-centres at banks!
totally agre with being polite. but some evidence, to back up abusive vs criticism would be required here...
Agreed Bish, one of my main reasons for reading your blog and the book is because you ably illustrate that it is possible state facts and express comments in a civilised manner. Much that I disagree with Prof Nick Hewitt's review, he has every right to his view and every right to expect that any subsequent critical comments on his review be made in a civilised manner.
However all of us, including Prof Hewitt, may have to accept that sometimes we are just plain wrong. Then we have to have the grace and humility to hold up our hands, say my bad and move on.
There is enough to do to sort out this tangled mess without wasting time on slanging matches.
You ain't going to convince anybody of your point of view by abusing the person with which you are debating. Especially me.
I agree that there is no place for abusive comments. On the other hand, it would be nice to see what comments Prof. Hewitt saw as (a) abusive and (b) critical but not abusive. At least then we would have a better understanding of his operational meaning of the word "abusive".
Well I have sent no e-mails to Mr Hewitt
However there are many people who seriously trespass on the normal good nature of sceptics and lay themselves open to contempt. As others have said I would like to know just what abuse has been thrown at this trespasser.
If you don't want people to call you an idiot, don't do idiotic things. While I certainly don't condone any abuse of Nick Hewitt for a second, I most certainly considered his review of HSI to be an insult to the review readers' intelligence. It was a lousy misrepresentation of the content of the bish's book, made for wholly disingenuous reasons.
I have always been of the opinion that, whether by action or inaction, we are all responsible for the way others perceive us. Stupid is as stupid does. Even Forrest Gump got that.
I would rather a matador not be gored by a bull in the ring, but I feel neither compassion for him nor regret that it happens. I'm afraid that, similarly, regardless of the fact that I disapprove of the act of abusing Hewitt by email, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for him.
The claim of abusive or threatening e-mails seems to have become reflexive among people of a certain sort who don't want to debate facts. We see it all the time, and somehow the evidence is never given to us.
Honest controversialists often post samples of the ugly e-mails they receive, with addresses included, so people can judge for themselves.
The point is that you can criticise politely, and drift daringly into sarcasm as McIntyre does. That's not abusive.
In my view if you want to rant, do it on this blog, or another, where it vanishes into the ether. Saying Hewitt is an arse on here hurts no-one. Sending him a mail calling him an arse does hurt.
If you wish to persuade, then aggression will hinder not help.
The good Prof, who was perfectly polite in correspondence with me as I was with him, even though we disagreed on the merits of the book in question, did comment that some mails he received were 'outright abusive'. There's no call for that; even if his definition is slightly different to yours or mine or the Bishop's it can't be from a different planet.
The Budiansky post here re scientists being unable to separate subjective beliefs and objective evidence also contained a section on why the internet seems to cause such rage!
Perhaps I have gotten the gist wrong here.
As I understand the bulk of replies, Professor Hewitt started the abuse, deserves what he gets, and if he cannot stand the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen.
If that is the gist, I am more than a bit surprised and disheartened. I think we are capable of better than that.
Roddy Campbell,
You (and a few others) have introduced very helpful comments.
Perhaps Mr Hewitt should either leave the kitchen if he can't take the heat, or learn that there is "take" as well as "give". I too would like to see exactly what he finds so offensive. I suspect Bernie and others are quite correct -- he is crying like a baby and little more.
I didn't do it. :)
Why not ask him politely to send you copies of these "abusive" mails?
Roddy:
Since you have the connection, I agree with John Wright. Let's get the data so that we can establish clearer ground-rules.
I also recall Phil Jones saying that he'd received death threats. Computer misuse - including harassment and death threats - are against the law, and are naturally taken very seriously. How is the police investigation into these threats coming along?
You Grace,
While I agree that it is unnecessary for anyone to descend to the level of abuse in such a matter, I'm confused as to why it would concern readers of your blog, other than in an informational sense. The article was after all published in Chemistry World, not on your blog, and presumably any abuse complaints could be directed to the administrators of the relevant mail systems which originated it?
I would like to note in passing that I find it quite offensive that the good Bishop feels the need to remind his visitors of politeness based on…. well based on what exactly? Hearsay it seems, with a finger being pointed at a person posting on this site, and that doesn’t seem quite right to me.
Martyn
I don't know the facts here. I am told that abusive emails have been sent. I don't know if these really happened or, if they did, how abusive they were. I will take Prof Hewitt at his word. Neither of us know if there is any connection to my blog - as suggested, they could have been triggered by his article alone.
I am obviously not responsible for the actions of others, but I can help the situation by asking people not to do such things, so I have done so.
Bishop,
Given the history of "facts" about AGW that Mr Hewitt's colleagues engaged in, don't you think you should be a bit more certain of the the "facts" regarding his current claims? Let him produce these obnoxious "facts" if they exist. I think you find many of us as equally skeptic of his current claims as we do the claims regarding AGW.
[BH adds. There is no harm in asking (possibly non-existent) people who have not been polite to change their ways. I am not addressing people who have been polite all along.]
I suspect that it is a ploy by "the professor" to arouse sympathy from the believers and guilt from those who disagreed with his so-called review. If anything, he was probably taken aback that people would criticize his so-called review in a public blog like this one and therefore felt abused. Poor boy. Maybe next time he will actually read a book and render an honest review. Of course, there is another possibility: perhaps the editor chewed him out for writing a political piece instead of a proper book review.
Have you asked the good Mr. Hewitt to show you some examples of the bad e-mails he claims to have received?
Since we know he is creative about you and your book it is not a stretch to think he would concoct out of whole cloth claims of threats as well.
Didn't he call the HSI "mean-spirited"? That might give a clue as to what he calls "abusive".
OK Your Grace I think you have done your bit on this one, perhaps some of your readers are not totally with you, but that’s life. Onwards and upwards!
Yes, Bish you *know* the present regulars would not do a thing like that.
One dictionary's definitions of abusive:
1. Characterized by improper or wrongful use: abusive utilization of public funds.
2. Using or containing insulting or coarse language: finally reprimanded the abusive colleague.
3. Causing physical injury to another: abusive punishment.
4. Relating to or practicing sexual abuse.
It has to be number 2, i.e. containing insulting or coarse language.
Having read his so-called review of HSI, I would expect that any normal person responding to him would be liable to insult him for his lack of integrity or lack of intelligence or his downright dishonesty (or whatever it was that casued him to write such an awful "review").
But it wasn't me, honest.
I would be very surprised to see a queue forming at the Bishop's confessional. Not in this congregation.
I find this thread very uplifting ^.^
His Grace makes a statement warning members not to abuse Prof Hewitt. This statement could be interpreted as suggesting that one of us did the dirty deed.
Argument follows in which some agree with the Bish and some do not.
Not a bad word was spoked :)
Spoken (but I do like spoked now that I see it)
Phillip Bratby,
I wouldn't call it an awful review, I would call it wretched. I say that because the reading of HSI and the preparation of the review seemed to have left Professor Hewitt a thoroughly miserable and unhappy man, at least to this reader. I actually felt sorry for him. He seems to have made a go of reading it, but I don't think he enjoyed it as much as I did.
I was always taught that you had to earn the respect of others and that it did not come with the territory.
It is dificult to believe that Mr Hewitt read the HSI rather than glanced at the odd page. The so called review could be about any scientific book because there is nothing in it that could be used to identify the HSI. What does that tell you about the reviewer. It certainly tells me all that i need to know and how much respect is due.
I felt personally offended when I read that review, not because I had read and enjoyed every word, but because it was not a review of the book that I am now reading.
This is going to sound very naive, but, it was not a FAIR REVIEW and I think that Mr Hewitt knows it.
I thought that the Bish knew both his very regular posters and even occasional posters well enough to know that such an admonishment was not necessary.
And I also like 'spoked' and shall use it whenever I can. :)
Well spoked Dung
pesadia
I am glad you are enjoying HSI. It is always pleasant to exchange ideas with others when it is possible to start from a shared understanding.
I have an idea different from yours as to whether Professor Hewitt's review was a fair review. To me, for a review to be fair, it should be based on two criteria: a complete reading of the work and an honest evaluation of what was read. I cannot be sure that Professor Hewitt read every line of HSI, but he does demonstrate some knowledge that suggests he at least skimmed through parts: let's be generous and give him full credit for reading all of it. Then, the test becomes whether he gave an honest evaluation: I think Professor Hewitt merits full points on this test too. I don't think he liked the book.
I think that the review is disappointing, and I don't think he accurately characterized the book; and I think he overstepped and failed in the duties of a reviewer when he merely advised his readers not to bother reading the HSI. I suppose that you could very well argue that he did not render his readers fair service by his review.
I demand to scrutinize the data before I believe Mr Hewitt's claims.
Extra ordinary claims needs extra ordinary proof, as Sagan said.
Hang on Josh! What's the difference between an abusive email and one of your killing cartoons! Calm down! Just joking!
Bish is right on the line. The one thing that stands out on this forum along with WUWT etc is the lack of abusive comments. Something the opposite side on the Guardian comments etc fail with every time.
I along with the other want Mr Hewwit to put up or shut up though and whilst we are at it, let's get Delingpole, Booker etc to show us the emails they have had from the other side! I bet that would make for an interesting evenings reading!
Then again, the one thing we have ALWAYS had is the high ground when it comes to morals.
"he merely advised his readers not to bother reading the HSI"
One assumes he was speaking from experience...
I too thought Hewitt's review was unspeakable.
I hope somebody (preferably but not necessarily Bishop) will contact Hewitt and point out this thread to him, where he can see that neither Bishop nor his commenters are "abusive" as far as we can tell.
I get the feeling that there is a wild roving band of blackshirts who DO email people on BOTH sides with extremely unpleasant material, with the simple result of dividing already-polarized sides still further.
I get the feeling that this wild band has little or nothing to do with the real skeptics (just check ALL the skeptic blogs for the average tone and the outlier extremes) whereas it may, or may not, have to do with the warmists (some warmist blogs, and many warmist replies to MSM articles, are significantly nasty in tone). I would not put out of the question the possibility that really unpleasant emails originate from a party or individuals whose intention is "divide and rule". They certainly have nothing to do with the measured courtesy practiced by ALL who actually investigate and challenge the AGW science.
Lucy Skywalker,
Nice comment. Your assessment seems quite correct. If Professor Hewitt has been receiving abusive emails, which does not seem implausible, it is reprehensible and cannot be condoned. I think that message is quite clear in the original posting.
As to directing Professor Hewitt to this thread, that could be a very constructive step. Possibly he will discover that there are many people interested in engaging in the exchange of information and ideas without excessive rancor. No doubt he has information and ideas that we could benefit from.
I have been a member of the RSC for over thirty years and after reading Professor Hewitt's inept review I intend to resign.