Art appraiser puts principle ahead of profit

on

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.

Related Posts

on
While Canada Action claims to be funded by ordinary Canadians, donations only made up 0.5% of its revenue in 2024.
on
Some MPs say the arrangement — which gives Turkish Petroleum 95 percent of revenues on estimated 20 billion barrels of oil — is "illegitimate".
on
Hundreds of representatives from the world’s most powerful industry bodies representing sectors that harm, or exploit, the natural world were present on the ground at the October nature summit in ...
on
TotalEnergies has won plaudits for voluntary steps to tackle the planet-heating gas. So why does it fund moves to delay, dilute or dismantle regulation?