Changes

::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]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 21:16, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::By "theory" I meant not a specific proposed mechanism, but the science behind the mechanism. In other words, I didn't mean that "ozone depletion catalyzed by atmospheric halides is causing an increase of skin cancer," I meant "halides, when exposed to high-energy radiation catalyze ozone". The former is controversial, but the latter is not and can be derived from other theories (such as quantum mechanics) as well as shown in the lab. Similarly, I meant not "CO₂ emmissions are causing global warming," but, "CO₂ absorbs energy in the wavelength of that emitted by the earth, while passing energy in the wavelength of that emitted by the sun."

:::I'm not sure I'd say that the mechanisms (that is, the first clauses of my two sentences above) aren't "mainstream science;" they very clearly are. They are also highly debated, highly controversial, and highly political. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:40, 1 October 2007 (EDT)