Just to jump into this debate, here are the relevant two paragraphs, from [[Ozone hole]]:
---- One prominent opponent of CFC reduction strategy has been the atmospheric scientist Fred Singer, who has noted the scientific uncertainties such as the lack of direct observations of surface UV increases (as mentioned above). However, Singer goes far beyond this to claim, for example, that "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine" is controversial [4], when there is clear evidence for it (though Singer is wrong to use the word "percolate"). Singer, who is also a leading skeptic of strategies on global warming, has consistently insisted that the remaining level of scientific uncertainty about these issues is too high to justify taking the control measures recommended by most other atmospheric scientists, given their possible economic impact.
As noted above, Singer's objections go beyond reasonable skepticism. Moreover, he is a retired scientist who has produced no new research since the mid-1970s. His only recent publication in the peer-reviewed scientific literature is a single technical comment published in 1994 in Science magazine.[5] In 1995 testimony before the US Congress, Singer himself stated that his last original, peer-reviewed research was in 1971. His contributions to the recent debates over ozone deption and global warming have consisted entirely of commentaries and letters, mostly self-published or published in newspapers and other popular media rather than in scientific journals. Environmentalists critical of Singer's role also allege a conflict of interest, pointing out that he has financial ties to oil companies (Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun Oil). ----
I don't think these read like NPOV. I'm completely unfamiliar to the debate, but they read to me like they were written by someone who is trying to discredit Singer. Whether Singer is credible or not is another matter, but the tone of the writing shouldn't make it sound like it's written by someone who dislikes Singer. It also shouldn't be phrased as *Wikipedia* making the claim that Singer's objections are "beyond reasonable skepticism"--we are not in a position to judge what skepticism is reasonable and what isn't. If it is a widely accepted viewpoint that Singer's skepticism is unreasonable, we should say "However, most scientists find Singer's objections to go beyond reasonable skepticism...", preferably with a source. The rest of the 2nd paragraph in particular needs to be rephrased--it reads entirely as someone trying to build a case against Singer, which Wikipedia is not the proper place for.
-Mark