"Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com writes:
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.
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.
Both sides of the debate about Global Warming are represented quite well in wikipedia. After a definition, the [[Global warming]] article continues : "Depending on what data one chooses to emphasize, different conclusions are possible ... The difference between the interpretations of the historical record affects how the most recent warming trend is viewed: the quantitative records show the recent warming trend, and the current warmth, as unusual; from the qualitative record, many "skeptics" believe that the recent trend is not unusual"
And thats before we get to [[Global warming controversy]]... "A number of scientists with backgrounds in climate research -- notably Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and Sherwood Idso -- dispute the global warming theory (see [[global warming skepticism]]). Also, a number of conservative think tanks oppose the theory, some implying that fraud has been involved in advocacy for it (see Science and Environmental Policy Project)."
It is REPORTED.
You started this thread with specific complaints. Don't now retreat behind generalities.