<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Buttle&#039;s World]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://buttle.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[clgood]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://buttle.wordpress.com/author/buttle/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Who has the better crystal&nbsp;ball?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Economists or Ecologists? John Tierny <a href="http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/economists-v-ecologists/">examines the record</a>.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t find the result at all surprising. Being an Economist is something that can be fairly well defined, and one can picture a curriculum to learn how to do it. But, as my dad would say, &#8220;what the hell is an &#8216;Ecologist&#8217;? Any housewife can slap the title on herself and get air time on TV as if she were an expert.&#8221;</p>
<p>Tierny is a bit more fair, calling them &#8220;biologists who study the environment.&#8221; That&#8217;s at least a definition of something. But &#8220;ecologist&#8221; has always meant Birkenstocks and chanting to me.</p>
]]></html></oembed>