On 25 Jan 2003 at 12:12, Dan Minette wrote: > > On 25 Jan 2003 at 6:56, Erik Reuter wrote: > > > > > _Skeptical Environmentalist_ by Bjoern Lomborg presents an > > > interesting viewpoint about environmentalist claims, makes some > > > apparently reasonable counter claims and gives references to > > > relevant studies. Lomborg has been unfairly attacked by a number > > > of people for, as far as I can tell, daring to give the > > > environmental literature a critical reading and offering an > > > alternative viewpoint. It seems to me that there could be two > > > reasonable responses by Lomborg's critics: (1) write detailed > > > critiques of Lomborg's points with references to scientific > > > literature, possibly in book form, or (2) for a scientist, pick > > > one or more of Lomborg's points, perform the necessary experiments > > > and modeling to prove the point wrong, and publish the study in a > > > peer-reviewed scientific journal. But I am not aware of any of the > > > critics employing either of these approaches. > > > > Oh I don't know...maybe the article which spared this all off? > > You mean the Scientific American article. Well, in the one area that > I have expertise in, I'd give better marks to Lomborg than his > critics. If one looks at how energy is an ever decreasing part of the > economy, and if one has _any_ familiarity with the process of > exploring for and producing oil, Lomborg's argument makes more sense. > The worst he could be is wrong. To call that an attack on science is > simply a polemic.
It well might be the publishers fault, but the book was SOLD as hard science. I see that as a problem. Andy Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
