Might as well create a user page. Thanks
saw you tried to do some sensible edits on global warming and met the usual response. If you haven't guessed already, the people that run Wikipedia are very biased in their views so that it is a waste of time trying to edit the article. Indeed, the only effect of editing the article is likely to be the removal of the most obvious POV pushing which makes the whole article look untrustworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
Yes, I found out quickly not to waste any time there. The other effect of editing that article is the risk of being falsely accused of edit warring, falsely accused of battleground behavior, and being banned from wikipedia. I already got the first 2, not going for the trifecta. Editing that article is like asking Hitler if you can help edit Mein Kampf. Like asking a Moslem Cleric if you can edit the Koran and take out the bit about killing infidels. The global warming article looks like it was written by people with no science background at all. The scientific errors are glaring. DigbyDalton (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Do not give up!
I read your post and want you know that I am not a fan of global warming either. Just find more references that dispute their's.