[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor

Mon Nov 24 21:42:58 UTC 2003

> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:26:43 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor
> 
> 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

Being honest is far simpler than the course of equivication and double-talk
you have chosen Ed. Please cease to engange as an editor and on this mailing
list as an advocate for a position and organization supported by the Moon
cult.

Fred