Isn't it accepted fact right now that removing asbestos creates more cases of cancer then leaving it where it is? What happened at the time was a very un-rational and unproductive response - the removal of all asbestos everywhere, with no regard to costs and side-effects.
Given that he's also arguing with a Nobel Prize winner in physics that atmospheric drag doesn't affect falling objects, I doubt his opposition was that nuanced.
Leaving asbestos where it is can be better, but it'd depend on how well contained it is. If it's in a building that's showing its age, removal might be the only option.
He was also right about Kilimanjaro - changes in snow cover there likely did relate to longer-term trends and to local agricultural deforestation reducing the amount of moisture in the air and likely did not significantly relate to local or world temperature changes.
I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt on "nuance" given the number of filters we're seeing things through here. (It's bad enough relying on wikipedia for climate-related info at all, but when it's on a relatively obscure topic based on source material in another language, that's a whole new level of indirection.)
I doubt it's ok to paint him with a wide brush. He seems like a very intelligent person, extremely respected in his field and who's not afraid of a good controversy. Exactly what was the context of the falling objects dispute I don't know, but it's a fair chance there's some context to it. From a cursory look it seems to be more about how to teach the phenomenon then about the physics involved.
