User talk:Gcburns

Welcome
Beware of where you tread ! WP is crazy about protecting this AGW material. The WSJ even called them out yesterday for bias “beyond the call of duty”. I’ve been removed so many times I just let it roll off my back. I became interested when one of my daughters came back from school a few years ago with an assignment to study global warming and the teacher recommended they review WP as fact. After studying it with her a bit I realized that some of it didn’t pass the common sense test and ever since I’ve battled the editors over how the article is bias. In fact, anything that even “touches” AGW receives the same treatment. Look – I understand everything is up for debate, but to refer to a theory as fact and mess with the kids heads is a different matter completely. http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/wikipedia-wicked-pedia-bias-%E2%80%93-or-how-global-warming-hysterics-systematically-alters-everything-critically-of-global-warming/ http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/media-and-culture/wikipedia-bias-200807181717/ http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/09/wikipedia-promoting-global-warming-hysteria http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_H/threadview?m=tm&bn=8899&tid=565831&mid=565831&tof=2&frt=2 http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3RXPPYI6K709I http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/wiki-whacked-by-political-bias/ The list is endless…

Mk 68.56.175.27 (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)