46
edits
Changes
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 13:59, July 3, 2007
, 13:59, July 3, 2007no edit summary
:Meanwhile, if you find any scientific evidence ''in favor'' of [[AGW]], please add it to the article. Unlike Wikipedia, we want to present both sides.
:Meanwhile, if you find any scientific evidence ''in favor'' of [[AGW]], please add it to the article. Unlike Wikipedia, we want to present both sides.
::I have a note to add to this discussion. You (I am not sure of the author, they are not listed) say above, "we want to present both sides." Unless I am mistaken, this discussion is revolving around the acquisition of '''facts''' for an article on Global Warming. You cannot "present both sides" of a fact, because facts do not have two sides. There is not a 'liberal' side and a 'conservative' side of a fact. There are two sides to every story, every debate, every controversy, but facts have only one side: unbiased truth. The only way that you can present a fact is to present it without bias. You cannot fix 'liberal bias' on a 'fact' by instead presenting the fact with 'conservative bias'. You can, however, fix liberal bias on an article which ''interprets'' facts, and from them produces an opinion. You could, in this way, "present both sides" by reporting a study (a fact) along with two articles - one from a source widely considered to be 'liberal', and one from a source widely considered to be 'conservative'. But first, you ''must'' present the facts. [[User:Simple|Simple]] 09:59 (GMT -5) 3 July 2007