[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor

[Poor, Edmund W]

Alan,

We should not bother disputing dead issues like the Flat Earth
hypothesis. Everybody already knows that mainstream science has held
that the earth is ball-shaped for centuries. Say rather that Joe Bloggs
believes the "discredited [[flat earth]] hypothesis", or simply that
Bloggs believes in a [[flat earth]]. I assume your Joe Bloggs is an
athlete or actor, or someone equally clueless about science.

But in the debate over the environment, there is no consensus. Some
scientists think one thing, while others think another. The viewpoint of
the UN's climate panel, which was a plank in the Democratic Party's
campaign, is that THERE IS A CONSENSUS FAVORING GLOBAL WARMING THEORY. 

However, this is merely a politically motivated claim. The asserted
"consensus" does not exist. Many prominent scientists disagree;
therefore, there is no consensus.

So we should divide scientists, scientific agencies, and political
entities into:
(a) those that assert GW theory is true, and
(b) those that assert that GW theory lacks sufficient proof

I'm labelling William Connolley as one of the pro-GW camp, along with
the UN's climate panel and the Clinton administration's EPA. Lindzen,
Balunias and others get labelled anti-GW because of their skepticism.

What could be simpler?

Ed Poor