Issues 
Well, I am very displeased with this article and with wikipedia for not wishing to ensure that all sides of the issue be reported on this sensitive topic.  The integrity of this article is only about a 50 out of 100. I too have added information to the introduction of this article lending mere existance to the fact that global warming is still disputed by some, and it too has dissappeared or was even removed by wikipedia.  I believe that enough discussion has occurred here, as per their request, to warrant that tiny tidbit of informaton being sited fairly in the INTRODUCTION of this article, alongside the rant in the INTRODUCTION that argues for global warming.  If Wikipedia cannot do something so simple and fair and chooses to support silencing those whose views are contrary to their own, as a supposedly fair, balanced, and factual encyclopedia, I will have to boycott further use of this resource, because it's no resource when the information in it is purposefully skewed and where the encyclopedia takes actions that blatently support the skewing of information and the omission of facts.  Wikipedia monitors this article has has repeatedly removed such additions that alter the single-sided position of this article, for one my own addition.  Therefore, wikipedia, I request once again that this information be added and it's evidence for that sited, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT DEMEANING LANGUAGE, in this article, as this is only fair and factual.  My previous changes are on file and I would not mind them being replaced.  The controversary section isn't enough because it's language is clearly demeaning to any idea that does not support global warming and the introduction starts out stating it as a fact without lending weight to other views.  I don't have a problem with calling global warming a fact, I simply want it stated that it is a fact that many people still dissagree and have good evidence to support that idea.  Just because Al Gore thinks we're headed for death doesn't make it so, as was pointed out in the last post here that just because a leader says that everyone agrees with him doesn't make it true.  I remind you that plenty of action groups, left wing radical groups and individuals, non-existant scientists, and other disreputable groups and people have also supported global warming, and therefore, I want to state for the record that just because an oil tycoon signs against global warming doesn't mean everyone who does isn't credible.  You never hear about the 10s of thousands of scientists that dispute it, but 1 that agrees with GW, he makes the front page.  Anyway, I come down hardest on wikipedia because they're the host of this article and it is their responsibility to make sure its' integrity is maintained, and there they have failed in my opinion. Borghuman

See Wikipedia:Undue weight - although I personally have no problem with mentioning that there are people willing to deny facts, it's on about the same level as ignoring claims of people who still believe the earth is flat. A mention would do no harm, however. -