Gareth thought:
--> > He's not dressing up his faith in scientific clothes: he's reporting --> > genuine dissent WITHIN the scientific community. Scientists like --> > MIT's Richard Lindzen (an IPCC leader!) and Harvared's Sallie Baliunas --> > DISAGREE with other scientists. --> --> On certain issues. --> Certainly not on CFC atmospheric chemistry, as you seek to make out.
Yes, on GW theory -- as I stated.
No, not on the ozone depletion issue -- I never said they did.
Lindzen and Baliunas have repeatedly expressed their disagreement with environmentalists over the GW theory. I cannot recall Baliunas expressing ANY opinion on ozone depletion. Lindzen might have, but don't recall mentioning that in recent letters here -- let alone in a Wikipedia article.
--> > All I'm saying is that the controversy should be REPORTED in Wikipedia --> > articles. --> --> No. You called for William Connolley's edits to be reverted. And you called for the idea that CFCs deplete the ozone layer to be considered controversial.
That is incorrect. I did NOT call for WC's edits to be reverted. It's just the opposite: I promised not to enter into an edit war with him, and I'm leaving his edits AS THEY STAND. Fred Bauder called attention to the fact that I DID NOT revert WC's latest edit.
Please read more carefully.
Ed Poor