Michael Tobis wrote: > We are going to have to discuss this unfortunate paper, aren't we? > > While we await James' pronouncement here is the short version of my opinion.
Well, for what it's worth, I have added my opinion to the heap: <http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/10/roe-and-baker.html>. And the majority (unanimous?) grapevine opinion that I have heard privately seems to be mostly expressing bemusement that anyone could have thought it worth publishing - not because it is "wrong" exactly, but rather that it doesn't say much that wasn't known 20 years ago. IMO it is rather misleading in the way that it fails to address the real debate, presumably because the authors (who have not previously contributed in this field) are unaware of it. That is of course based on my personal axe-grinding. James --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
