While we were chatting the following reasonable language has been put into
the article which Ed has not reverted:
SEPP (or Fred Singer) has also commented on the question of [[Ozone
depletion]], incorrectly asserting that the statement "CFCs with lifetimes
of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into
the stratosphere, and there release chlorine." is controversial
[
From: "Tim the Enchanter"
<t-money(a)thehouse.ws>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:15:00 -0600
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re:
toJimbo)
I would say the answer to that is no. You could go to a library and look up
GW and you would find numerous books on either side of the argument. You
could do the same thing with a search on Google or a similar site and the
results would be the same however, considering the nature of the internet,
you might not consider that ample proof one way or the other. I think Ed's
suggestion of making Dr. Connelly a source would be the best way to handle
it.
[[User:T-Money]]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allan Crossman" <a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 3:39 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re:
toJimbo)
Here the question is - does nearly every expert
in whatever field
"global warming" falls under (environmental science, or whatever)
accept William Connolley's claim? I don't know yet.
--
Allan Crossman -
http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l