As I am trying to wrap up a new eBook (I swear, I've rewritten the same three paragraphs twenty times now), a question occurred to me. Should I contact the people who I discuss in the eBook to provide them an opportunity to raise any concerns/dispute any claims prior to publication?

I'm not sure. The people being included in the book have all been chosen, at least in part, due to their repeated demonstration of an unwillingness or inability to have disagreements in a reasonable manner. Would there be any foreseeable benefit to giving them the opportunity to respond preemptively?

I'm skeptical there would be, but that raises a second question. Would there be any downside to doing it? I'm not sure I can think of any.


  1. Oh, as an update I should mention I have more or less finished the writing portion of making this eBook. I'm currently in the editing/formatting phase, so some small amounts of writing will still happen, but the eBook is mostly written. The big thing right now is to insert links, quotes and images, format things and stuff like that. My current plan is to contact several people mentioned in the book to give them a chance to raise any issues they have with what I've written about them on May 1st (tomorrow). I'll give them two weeks to respond, and then I'll publish the eBook on Amazon.

    However, I live in southern Illinois. As you may have seen in weather reports, we've had a ton of rain and storms over the last week. For a person who uses satellite internet, that's a problem. It's possible there may be a slight delay. If so, it won't be more than 2-3 days.

  2. 1. It's a courtesy.
    2. It could help you catch legitimate errors.
    3. It might start more arguments.
    4. It could just waste your time.
    5. There might be no responses at all.
    6. Something that comes up could divert you from the project altogether.

    Your decision about the costs and benefits.

  3. Gary, that sounds pretty accurate. I don't know how the cost and benefits would balance out, but I'm going to give it a try. I don't think I"m going to contact everyone I mention, but the ones who get some amount of focus probably deserve a heads up. We'll see what happens.

    But the e-mails will have to wait until tomorrow. I've managed to have two hours of viable internet connectivity today, and my power has gone out four times. It's a little irritating.

    Actually, that gives me an idea. Maybe I should post a bit of the eBook as a preview.

  4. The e-mails have been sent out. Now to wait and see what responses I get and start inserting the images/hyperlinks. It's good to know things are (more or less) on track with my intended deadlines.

  5. I agree with Gary on the factors, but since he did not give a value judgement I would say there is a bunch of potential upsides to point #1. OTOH, if your composition's treatment of them was not courteous then little was gained, especially if they would have never become aware of your publishing.

    Brandon, I came here to share with you a soul mate in newly hired NYT columnist Bret Stephens, a never Trumper who dared break orthodoxy on climate.

  6. Ron Graf, I got a response from one person I contacted which (other than header/footer) just said:

    Feel free to demonstrate your ignorance once again.

    Another e-mail bounced because either the person's account has shut down or I have a faulty e-mail address. It doesn't look like much will come of this effort, but I'm still glad I'm making it.

    Brandon, I came here to share with you a soul mate in newly hired NYT columnist Bret Stephens, a never Trumper who dared break orthodoxy on climate.

    I've heard a few things about Bret Stephens recently, but I haven't spent any time looking into the controversy. The one point I did spend any time on was the amount of warming he said had happened, a value he got wrong. Can you give an overview of what went down?

  7. Bret Stephen, a conservative columnist who has made cutting attacks on the Trump, enticed the New York Times apparently to steal him from the Wall Street Journal, I'm sure with the Times giddy with thought of being able speak with a "diversity" in anti-Trump opinions.

    But, Stephen's very first article is about climate change and how foolish the left is acting if they want to persuade anyone. His article gave the lukewarmer arguments that some of the warming could be natural and the climate models could be wrong just as the election models . This set off NYT loyal liberals into full blown action, researching everything Stephens has ever commented or tweeted that could be turned into an outrage to confirm their consensus that he needs to be fired, then tarred and feathered.

    Stay tuned to see what the Times does.

    Here is an article by Liz Spayd, one of Stephen's new colleagues. She is suggesting he remember he has a different audience now and should adjust his message accordingly, though she welcomes breaking the liberal echo chamber. She basically is indifferent, waiting to see what happens while the bags of Stephen's hate mail roll in.

    His error in citing the AR4 was not the temperature 0.85C, but attributing it to only the NH rather than for the whole globe. A small error considering that most do not realize there is a significant difference in the hemispheric temps.

  8. I'm refraining from commenting on any topic for today as I am genuinely offended at something I discovered today. There's a new consensus paper (pre-print available here) which says:

    Powell’s main criticism of C13 is that 66.4% of the abstracts examined were rated as “no
    position” and excluded from the consensus calculation. To count as an endorsement, C13
    required that the abstract text refer to modern global warming or climate change and state, either
    implicitly or explicitly, that humans are the main cause. It is true that many authors of those “no
    position” abstracts may hold views that endorse AGW, but if the texts of their abstracts did not
    provide evidence for this, no guess was made about their opinions. The “no position” abstracts
    were therefore not used to calculate the consensus percentage.

    I need to see if I can obtain a copy of the final, published version to see if this paragraph transferred through (or just have someone read it and tell me). If so...

    Well, people who've followed any of my commentary on the (in)famous Cook et al. "consensus" paper should know what the problem is.

  9. Joshua, I don't know what you experienced, but I haven't submitted a new post since this one. I haven't even accessed the admin panel in a couple days. I'm still annoyed at how authors of that paper know what they wrote in that paragraph isn't true, and I prefer not to write new content while annoyed.

    Is it possible you somehow mistook an old post for a new one? If you remember anything what you saw might have said, I can check to see if it is in any of my past posts.

  10. Brandon -

    I was looking at your blog briefly on my phone....and read your 2:02 comment...and then went on to other things....and got confused and thought that your comment was a post...and then when I cam back found no such post. Well, of course there was no such post..

  11. That would do it. For what it's worth, I will have a post about that same topic uploaded tomorrow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *