One of our colleagues just forwarded to me the lengthy post you wrote in response to my presentation yesterday at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis.
In it, you make a lot of claims about what I said, or meant to imply, during yesterday’s panel. I could rebut them here, but here’s the thing: Your personal opinion of me, and of my work (as well as the work of my colleagues), is of no interest nor consequence to me. That you would take the time to publicly opine that my research and my professional opinion are neither practical nor scholarly says more about you than it says about me. I can only presume that writing your post made you feel better about how things went down yesterday.
However, there is one important thing I would like to write in response to your post. It is, thanks for your shout-out to the research presented by Jing Shi. On this we agree: I too thought it was really splendid work. The other authors of that paper — Vivianne Visschers (not Fishcher’s, by the way; but who cares about details, right?) and Michael Siegrist — are excellent scholars also, and they deserve a lot of credit for that research too.
(I don’t know if you noticed that I was also an author on the Shi et al. paper you liked so much. But, since my work and ideas are neither practical nor scholarly, I guess I should be relieved that I didn’t drag them down too much. Phew, right?)
Oh, and since you didn’t mention it in your post, there was another presentation in that panel by Christina Demski that warrants some richly-deserved promotion. Like my colleagues at ETH Zurich, Dr. Demski of Cardiff University, is also quite an excellent scholar in her own right; she presented some really cool research, also worthy of praise, on how personal experience and psychological distance moderate perceptions of climate change risk.
To close, thanks for taking the time to write me such a lengthy and detailed — and, not to mention, mean-spirited, self-serving, and open — letter. I sincerely hope you feel better now.