Changes

:Because Rush Limbaugh was specifically addressing the article in question, and in relation to Climategate and the global warming hoax. I could have asked myself a similar question, "Why am I adding an opinion story from a journalist in the UK who wrote about a [[polar bear]] hoax?" I did so because the point is, in spite of Climategate, there are still those in the media pushing an environmental agenda and also ignoring the facts at the same time. Limbaugh's article works as an excellent counter argument to the false claims made by ''The Guardian''. With regards to the fact about polar bears (males eating their young), I think such a reference does need to be placed within the article about "Polar bears." But in the case of this article, it doesn't seem like citing proof of this fact is necessary here. I could see the argument that it is needed in the polar bear article though, so you bring up a good point. Also: on the topic of politics and climate science, I completely agree with you that it's a huge problem that climate science has shown to be (or become) a sub-branch of climate politics. It's an issue discussed in this article under the [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] section (see quote by Rex Murphy). [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 17:12, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Because Rush Limbaugh was specifically addressing the article in question, and in relation to Climategate and the global warming hoax. I could have asked myself a similar question, "Why am I adding an opinion story from a journalist in the UK who wrote about a [[polar bear]] hoax?" I did so because the point is, in spite of Climategate, there are still those in the media pushing an environmental agenda and also ignoring the facts at the same time. Limbaugh's article works as an excellent counter argument to the false claims made by ''The Guardian''. With regards to the fact about polar bears (males eating their young), I think such a reference does need to be placed within the article about "Polar bears." But in the case of this article, it doesn't seem like citing proof of this fact is necessary here. I could see the argument that it is needed in the polar bear article though, so you bring up a good point. Also: on the topic of politics and climate science, I completely agree with you that it's a huge problem that climate science has shown to be (or become) a sub-branch of climate politics. It's an issue discussed in this article under the [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] section (see quote by Rex Murphy). [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 17:12, 10 December 2009 (EST)