Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: + + +
to HelpJazz
::I removed the statement: "Flushed by their success in passing this scientifically unsound treaty, environmentalists then turned their attention to [[global warming]]." There is a lot of material in that sentence, and it should be fleshed out instead of thrown at the end.
::I removed the statement: "Flushed by their success in passing this scientifically unsound treaty, environmentalists then turned their attention to [[global warming]]." There is a lot of material in that sentence, and it should be fleshed out instead of thrown at the end.
::Also, the science of the theory is actually pretty sound; it's the politics that are arguably unsound. By the way Ed, you might be the leading expert on environmentalist junk science, but I'm not so bad myself at environmentalist real science ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:42, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::Also, the science of the theory is actually pretty sound; it's the politics that are arguably unsound. By the way Ed, you might be the leading expert on environmentalist junk science, but I'm not so bad myself at environmentalist real science ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:42, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Science of ''which'' theory? Neither ozone depletion (causing fatal human skin cancer) nor the greenhouse theory (emissions causing harmful atmospheric warming) is mainstream science. That's why they are both still controversial. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:16, 1 October 2007 (EDT)