Please cite to the original publication
Apparently, we have not been clear enough. Smith and Randle read into our article the very message we were at such pains to disclaim. They suppose us intent on convincing the court of appeals to second-guess the EPA on the merits of the scrubbing controversy. It is only on this premise that they can think that their attack on five factual assertions could be "central" 2 to our argument for judicial reversal of the EPA decision.
Date of Authorship for this Version