Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> writes:
Then that's what we should say, of course.
It's really a bit much for
_Wikipedia_ to leap from that to saying that the other side is
"incorrect" or that what they are saying is "obviously false".
The thing with which Ed Poor disagreed is universally held to be true.
You can follow atmospheric mixing within any number of passive tracers, and
break down CFCs with UV in the lab. You get chlorine.
I have never heard anybody (except Ed Poor) dispute this.
To suggest that CFCs they behave differently in the atmosphere is ... crazy.
Journals can afford to be partisan and sloppy in a way
that we can't.
I'd disagree. Journals can (and do) afford space to any number of well
researched papers that are out of line with academic consensus, but whose
resarch methodology reach basic standards.
Besides Ed's continued refutation of unpalatable facts (such as the behaviour
of CFCs in the atmosphere) is the only partisan opinion I've seen expressed.
--
Gareth Owen
I'm very enamoured of the idea of meta-content markup ...
there are a lot of cool possibilities. But we should be reluctant to tamper
much with a system that totally works in an amazing way. -- Jimmy Wales