[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor (Re: to Ed)

Mon Nov 24 22:00:48 UTC 2003

Ed writes:

> That's precisely the question we've been trying to answer, and the
> two points of view are:
> 
> The Democratic Party of the US, along with the Clinton EPA and the
> UN's climate panel (IPCC) say that "nearly every expert" accepts
> the GW theory (which William also supports).
>
> Others, like Bush (a politician); Lindzen and Balunias
> (scientists), Singer and Seitz (retired scientists) that that "less
> than half of all experts" accept the GW theory.

You've drifted off-topic, Ed. We're not talking about the GW theory 
in general. We're talking about the claim that "CFCs with lifetimes 
of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate 
into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine."

In fact, I hadn't realised we were dealing with CFCs. Is this even 
relevant to global warming? I still don't even know what article 
we're talking about. Anyway, my point here is we're talking about a 
single claim, not entire theories. Even if theories are disputed, 
single claims relevant to them need not be.

-- 
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)