Changes

::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

::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

Ed, it seams to me that it's allmost impossible to get you to talk about the subject in hand, which was your claim on the article pages, that there is no consensus over global warming amongs scientists. You have in no way commented my critisism towards your source and age of the study nor have you commented in any way the other evidences i provide. You just keep ranting on liberal bias where there clearly is none to be found, just you trying to defend an entry that in no intelligable way can be defended. That is i presume allso the reason why you don't respond to me.  

Ed, it seams to me that it's allmost impossible to get you to talk about the subject in hand, which was your claim on the article pages, that there is no consensus over global warming amongs scientists. You have in no way commented my critisism towards your source and age of the study nor have you commented in any way the other evidences i provide. You just keep ranting on liberal bias where there clearly is none to be found, just you trying to defend an entry that in no intelligable way can be defended. That is i presume allso the reason why you don't respond to me.