The Cunctator wrote:
The problem is that Ed Poor has been editing articles
on
climate science to give equal weight to opinions outside
of mainstream science, and describing the different sides
as "environmentalists, liberals, Democrats and some
scientists" and "other scientists".
This has been my impression as well. I have also asked Ed a few times in the
past (directly and indirectly) to refrain from making substantial edits to
the global warming articles. IMO, his POV on this issue seems too entrenched
for him to edit neutrally. Thus he tends to sometimes give more weight to
'anti-global warming theory' camps than is perhaps warrented.
I know my limits - my POV on homosexuality-related issues, for example, is so
far to the left that I honestly have a very hard time even seeing my own
bias. So I tend to direct major edits to articles I don't feel so
passionately about. It is much easier to be an approximation of neutral doing
that.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)