User talk:6strings

Reomoving important information does not ad to the article. All of the information needs to be represented to avoid onesidedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6strings (talk • contribs)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Global Warming article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing!

In response to your complaint about my reverts
If you would read the Global Warming article carefully, you will see that your information dump is at best redundant and at worst incorrect. The article already does a good job of catering to alternate theories and is not beholden to either an environmentalist stance or (for lack of a proper antonym) an anti-Global Warming stance. If your article has relevant information, please take the time to properly format and link it, so that it flows well with the rest of the article. Your article has source citations, something that is sorely needed on wikipedia. If you are so adamant about your information, then please add it with proper citations to the main article.

I am not reverting your textdump simply because I do not believe it and have something against the global warming denying camp. For instance, as a biologist the section concerning the "benefits of global warming" is perhaps the most ludicrous thing I have ever read in my entire life. Rubisco starts breaking down carbon compounds and releasing oxygen without energy generation at higher temperatures. Their own enzymes would make plants *less* efficient at higher temperatures. Temperature moderation in plants is one of their most robust systems, and they still can't handle a very drastic shift. However, because someone out there believes it and because I think it should be posited simply so that it can be discussed and refuted, I don't delete it from the article. Also, it's under the proper heading and is formatted correctly. It's all part of being NPOV. If you are allowed to text dump whatever you want into the middle of the article where it is very prominent, your opinion is given more attention simply because of gaudy formatting.

Simply put, play by the rules, and you won't be reverted.

You asked for recommendations:

 * break info into sections by topic and place under proper headings
 * use wikipedia markup for citations and heading changes
 * Try to be NPOV: as a scientist myself, i am incensed that you would think that neither we onr our discipline can answer economic or policy decisions.  If we, who know and spend our lives trying to know, can't make policy, then who should?  By your assertion on science, you would believe those who *don't* know should.  And I very much doubt you believe that.
 * try not to be so shrill. this is wikipedia, not imdb.com.  most of us are reasonable people

So that's my shpiel as a wikipedian. As a human being, I want to ask you: why do you feel you need to tow the anti-global warming line so much? Why is it necessary for regular people to fight the coal and oil companies' battles for them? What benefit do you get by supporting gasoline? Even if global warming is bunk (which "most scientsts" certainly believe it is not, I can personally attest) there are plenty of other reasons to abandon gasoline and other fossil fuels as energy sources. What benefit do you get supporting gasoline? I ask this not as the shrill left-winger you might think I am, but as a sober individual wiht a serious question that I would like to know the answer to.

My response
I simply wished to have all of the relavant information represented. I read all of both articles and did not feel that there was any redundancy. I am a scientist aswell. I have not belived in this theory of global warming from the start, and it bothers me that people take it at face value with out loking at the facts. BY presenting all of the facts on one single page you are able to evaluate more prescisly. As a scientist i am sure you respect lots of proof that the theories that contribute to your field are proven. Scince fact is backed up by lots of data, and lots of test. I do not feel the data suggesting the existence of global warming is suffiecient. Scinetist are taking 40 to a hundred years of data about the earth, which is billions of years old, and drwing conlusions about it. I feel these conclusions are drawn too quiclky, especcialy when there is discrepancies in the data. (Read the article to get what i am taking about.)

In respnse to my motivations, i have noproblem supporting alternative fules, and do not dipute the harmfull health effects caused by emmisions. BY the way i never thought of you as a shrill left- winger. I just thought you didnt verymuch like the other side fo the argument. I feel the need to support the anti-global warming liine, not to support the corrupt evil oil and coal companies, but to present factual data, and relevant information to this myth.