On 24 Jan 2003 at 9:05, Erik Reuter wrote: > > 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.
Uhh, as I said you don't twist my words on other subjects so no AFAIK it's NOT your standard response. It's a blind spot - at least as far as your responses to me are conerned. > 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. I simply don't have the time, sorry. Or the inclination to go over ground which would covered far better by an environmental scientist. Which I am not, even if I do have access to a large archive of data. Bear in mind I left biology and have no intention of returning to it. Andy Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
