On 24 Jan 2003 at 7:41, Erik Reuter wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 12:24:41PM -0000, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > No. I TOLD you he was no scientist. That he was a activist for a > > cause. > > > > I TOLD you that there were LEGITIMATE CONCERNS with the way he used > > data. > > > > I TOLD you that his work was NOT sufficiently peer-reviewed. > > How about a little less TELLING and a lot more DEMONSTRATING or > PROVING? You'll have to forgive us for preferring, on one hand -- a > 350 page book full of numbers and point by point rational arguments > with supporting evidence and references -- over your blustering and > TELLING.
Excuse me? He's just been slammed because he hasn't used proper scientific methodology. That means the book - as I said at the time - doesn't use all the avaliable data and his interpretations of some of the data is shaky. I'm not an enviromental scientist. I don't pretend to be. Despite his claims to the contrary, he did. > > I must be a moron for daring to hold enviromental beliefs. > > That doesn't follow, but I think it would be fair to say that you must > be unscientific for failing to scientifically debate your beliefs. When have I done that? Try looking at the archive of the dis... ...never mind. I don't think it's worth discussing it with you because you'll just twist anything I say on the issue to prove that I didn't say anything. Looking at the archive of the discussion you did exactly the same thing then. Andy Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
