I don't mind a bit of science creeping into Wikipedia, but let's not exalt it or enshrine it. Science can make mistakes. If a bunch of scientists agree on something, that doesn't make it true. If they change their minds later, that doesn't make it false. If a hypothesis is true, but scientists refuse to accept it, that doesn't make it false. And if they eventually decide to accept it, that ACCEPTANCE does not MAKE IT become true. What bothers me is when some contributors insist that Wikipedia endorse a particular point of view (see [[Wikipedia:POV]]) on the grounds that "scientists believe it" or that "it is scientific". Much ink has been spilled (or phosphor illuminated) to show that, e.g., the runaway greenhouse theory (aka Global Warming) enjoys consensus support of the world's climatologists and that THEREFORE this encyclopedia should stop dicking around and just ENDORSE it. I have pretty much decided to stay away from the climate pages, because I'm tired of this battle. But I'm never going to drop the subject completely: the subject being, * "How shall Wikipedia describe unsettled scientific questions?" 1. Perhaps my first error is to assume that global warming has not been settled. The United Nations' climate panel makes it sound like there's virtually no other hypothesis being entertained. Only nuts like Singer, Lindzen and Balunias think otherwise (and they're obviously on the industry payroll, so they can safely be ignored). 2. Or perhaps even if it's been "settled" (in the sense of all but an inconsiderable percentage of the world's scientists endorsing it), Wikipedia should still remain neutral on the question - saying only that XX% of the world's scientists endorse the theory, according to surveys conducted by P, Q, and R. Ed Poor Great-grandson of the notable astronomer Charles Lane Poor