That's the good news. The bad news is that, on the second such page, the original article is available in PDF form for direct download. A perusal of same reveals that, for those who hate PDFs, Article 9 on the Result List is the original article in HTML format. Baumgardner is listed as an author either way.
Well thanks for the futher research. Their are several possible scenerios, in my opinion (but I freely admit, I don't know the scoop) (1) He was listed as a contributor, but had a very minor role in the entire article; (2) Was interested in the overall subject, contributed, but didn't agree with all the conclusions by the other authors of the article; (3) Contributed, but later saw he could not agree with some of the conclusions, and asked to have his name removed. (4) Changed his viewpoint as he continued his research, and later asked to have his name reviewed; or (5) Never contibuted in any siginificant way, but was included as a contributer because of his association with the other authors. ; (6) was a major contributor
In any case, to attack him and dismiss the man out of hand because of a sentence or two he may or may not have had anything to do with is a bit unfair. Since the article had 4 or 5 authors listed, we will probably never know who wrote the majority of " Time scales and heterogeneous Structure in Geodynamic Earth Models" and its conclusions.
I would happily dismiss him as a guy who worked on a computer model that just happened to be used in simulations of old-earth tectonic process. However, Answers in Genesis likes to thump the table on the guy's mainstream credentials, as if his "mainstream" work wasn't in absolute total contradiction of his creationist work, which is also in conflict with Genesis. (Genesis does not mention all the seas boiling away, an inevitable consequence of Baumgartner's sudden and total subduction of the entire pre-Flood lithosphere. The energy can't just disappear.)
AiG can't have it both ways. If his mainstream work is at all right, his crackpot work is wrong. If his crackpot work is right, Genesis left out some important stuff (and mainstream science is of course wrong too).