On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 02:20:58PM -0000, Andrew Crystall wrote: > 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.
Translation: 1) Either you (a) don't consider the issue important enough to research it and debate it in a scientific manner, or (b) you don't think your claims could stand up to such scrutiny 2) You either don't have access to scientific research on which to base your claims, or you do have access but are unwilling to use that access, possibly because of 1(a)? 3) You say you are not an environmental scientist and imply here and in earlier emails that anyone who is not an environmental scientist lacks credibility in this area, but you refuse to cite point-by-point refutations of Lomborg's conclusions done by an environmental scientist And yet we should listen when you bluster and TELL us that Lomborg's book of carefully presented data, rational point-by-point arguments, and many references, is all wrong? As you say, excuse me? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
