>>11177649Your failure to understand why
>>11177138pointed out his qualifications is of no benefit. It was not done in an attempt to look down towards Michael Shellenberger, the point is obviously to show why Michael Shellenberger is underqualified - in himself, to create a piece (the article) on this topic.
If you went into the hospital (assuming you have an injury that needs to be treated) and your attending doctor has only a BA - you would find that unsettling. He is not qualified to treat you. The same is seen here, Michael Shellenberger is not qualified to make such a statement on climate change.
