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)