Art appraiser puts principle ahead of profit
Bostonian rebuffs denier darling Richard Lindzen
A Boston art dealer sacrificed an easy buck recently in a principled protest against the writings of the climate change denier-darling Dr. Richard Lindzen, according to an outraged story by the junk scientist and cigarette salesman, Steve Milloy.
Prof. Lindzen (inset) is a senior scientist at MIT, a man who has had an impressive scientific career, but who for the past decade has made himself famous and much-loved in the climate change denial community by quibbling about narrow aspects of climate change science.
Apparently, the professor suffered a recent house fire, resulting in damage to a valuable old rug. When Lindzen tried to get the damage appraised (Milloy reports), a respected Boston art appraiser rejected the opportunity with this comment:
I am sorry to inform you that after some consideration, I’ve decided not to perform the appraisal service that you’ve requested. Your writing on the subject of global warming is offensive to me personally, and I feel that I would have difficulty being an impartial appraiser of value given my view on the subject.
You have to admire someone who honors his principles ahead of the opportunity to make easy money. And it's hardly a surprise that Steve Milloy doesn't understand the dealer's objection or his honorable response.
I only wish he had named the upright entrepreneur: we don't know that many Boston art collectors, but if we find any, we'd love to send him the business.
The deniers like Lindzen have taken money and dissembled about the science.
If people like him cannot get the services they want, or have to pay a premium, that will be tough. But a little local difficulty for deniers is NOT as tough as the many people who will DIE because of watered-down and delayed action that resulted from their deceits.
The deniers still come off better.
Frankly I think what he did was just deny service to Lindzen, and though the reason may be pathetic for some, it's all on principles. I guess it just goes to show that people still value their principles ahead of earning easy cash. The reason maybe weak, but the thought of standing up to your principle is strong.
And yes, there was discrimination. Any prejudice on sex, race, and belief is still discrimination.
S
Richard
If a doctor refused to treat Lindzen, I trust you would say that was unethical. Ditto if a lawyer refused to take his case. In both instances, the ethics of the profession hold that your personal feelings are immaterial and must be supressed. The client/applicant deserves the best you can deliver. That's why doctors treat mass murderers and why lawyers dedend them.
Obviously art appraisers are not professionals in the same category as doctors or lawyers. But neither are journalists. Would you condone a reporter who refused to write about a new research paper from Lindzen because his "writing on the subject of global warming is offensive to me personally." That's not putting principles ahead of money; that's abdicating the responsibility which comes with your job.
Peter Calamai
Adjunct professor
Carleton University School of Journalism
(and retired science reporter)