On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 01:25:49PM -0000, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > Excuse me? Where has it been established scientifically that he hasn't > > used proper scientific methodology? And where has it been established > > scientifically that his points, carefully elaborated and in print for > > all to see, with references, are invalid? > > Excuse me? Try maybe like...reading the link which started this > thread.
I did, in fact, I read about the Danish Committee's claims a week ago in a couple places. So far, it is hearsay. I have read nothing from Lomborg's opponents but hearsay and smear tactics. Lomborg writes a 350 page book with numbers, point by point rational arguments, and many references. He is attacked with hearsay. If Lomborg's methodology and conclusions are so bad, it should be a simple matter to take it point by point, in a rational manner, and refute it. Please cite where I can read such a refutation. Until then, your comments are just more hearsay. > > Prove it. If I were to stoop to your level, I might claim that your > > evaluation doesn't use all available data and your interpretation of > > the article and book is shaky. > > Excuse me? Try maybe like...reading the link which started this > thread. Do you really consider that proof? If so, I can prove to you that you can become a millionaire in 30 days if you first send me a thousand quid. > Please read the multitude of online articles... Please cite even ONE case where Lomborg claims he is an "environmental scientist". > You are, quite frankly, trolling. That is my standard response to passive-aggressive comments like yours. But let's try something else that could be more productive, if you are up to it. The copy I read of _Skeptical Environmentalist_ was borrowed from the library some time ago, so I propose that I get another copy of the book this weekend, either from the library or the book store, and I will re-read it and make a note of what I consider to be Lomborg's main points. I will summarize the main points here (including Lomborg's references, if applicable). Then we can debate the main points, one at a time. Naturally, I will take Lomborg's side, and you will take the other side. It should be a rational, scientific debate, with references whenever possible. I imagine it will take a few months, since I will probably need a week for each reply, and I imagine you would need the same. We would both be free to receive assistance in the research from others (on or off list), since it would be a big job for one person. Maybe someone would volunteer to referee the debate? What do you say, Andy, can you handle a scientific debate on the issue? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
