Just to jump into this debate, here are the relevant two paragraphs,
from [[Ozone hole]]:
----
One prominent opponent of CFC reduction strategy has been the
atmospheric scientist Fred Singer, who has noted the scientific
uncertainties such as the lack of direct observations of surface UV
increases (as mentioned above). However, Singer goes far beyond this to
claim, for example, that "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer
become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere,
and there release chlorine" is controversial [4], when there is clear
evidence for it (though Singer is wrong to use the word "percolate").
Singer, who is also a leading skeptic of strategies on global warming,
has consistently insisted that the remaining level of scientific
uncertainty about these issues is too high to justify taking the control
measures recommended by most other atmospheric scientists, given their
possible economic impact.
As noted above, Singer's objections go beyond reasonable skepticism.
Moreover, he is a retired scientist who has produced no new research
since the mid-1970s. His only recent publication in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature is a single technical comment published in 1994 in
Science magazine.[5] In 1995 testimony before the US Congress, Singer
himself stated that his last original, peer-reviewed research was in
1971. His contributions to the recent debates over ozone deption and
global warming have consisted entirely of commentaries and letters,
mostly self-published or published in newspapers and other popular media
rather than in scientific journals. Environmentalists critical of
Singer's role also allege a conflict of interest, pointing out that he
has financial ties to oil companies (Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun
Oil).
----
I don't think these read like NPOV. I'm completely unfamiliar to the
debate, but they read to me like they were written by someone who is
trying to discredit Singer. Whether Singer is credible or not is
another matter, but the tone of the writing shouldn't make it sound like
it's written by someone who dislikes Singer. It also shouldn't be
phrased as *Wikipedia* making the claim that Singer's objections are
"beyond reasonable skepticism"--we are not in a position to judge what
skepticism is reasonable and what isn't. If it is a widely accepted
viewpoint that Singer's skepticism is unreasonable, we should say
"However, most scientists find Singer's objections to go beyond
reasonable skepticism...", preferably with a source. The rest of the
2nd paragraph in particular needs to be rephrased--it reads entirely as
someone trying to build a case against Singer, which Wikipedia is not
the proper place for.
-Mark