Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> writes:
Perhaps that is what Ed is doing, but it doesn't
sound like it to me.
The particular statement that he's discussing is an example where, as
originally written, _Wikipedia_ was itself making a claim that is
significiantly too strong for us.
Its not. Really. That's what CFCs do. Honestly. Everyone knows this.
It is a fact. You can look it up in any reputable encyclopedia.
That's one possible sign yes, but of course that
is NOT what is going
on here. There are peer-reviewed articles.
Denying that turbulent mixing occurs in the atmosphere?
That CFCs reach the stratosphere? Its not a theory. Its not a model
prediction. You can detect them there, with balloon-borne gas chromatographs.
I'm all for scepticism, but in this area Ed too often cannot distinguish
between NPOV and Ed'sPOV
--
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