"
 NPOV of GW article 

I'm adding an {{POV}} tag at the top of the GW article.  This will add the GW article to the Category:NPOV disputes.  This talk section can serve as a springboard to add specific content to the article.    
Sounds like a silly idea to me. -  
Very silly. I just explained why in some detail in the thread above. There are only two views with regard to settled science: Those who understand it and those who don't. Claiming that an article on settled, mainstream science is unbalanced because it doesn't give enough weight to discussing the fallacies of 'those who don't' is just silly.   
 Second the POV Tag Motion - The polarized POV must be neutralized for the reader to understand.  In addition, NPOV changes just like the science does. Above, I've found evidence that the article does not adequately address the scientific views on carbon cycle effects on Global Warming.  As well, the article's comparitive revelance to the ""Anthropogenic Global Warming"" hypothesis could be better attributed.    

Raise specific issues here first. Discuss them with your fellow volunteer editors first. Make specific suggestions for improvement first. Failure to engage at the talkpage is disruptive and may lead to blocks. - 2/0 (cont.) 

Seems like double standards here. My recent change was reverted within 15 minutes but still no one on this page can tell me why. Many editors believe that this article is biased and represents one POV but that must be discussed here first.   

 I've been discussing my concerns here after being reverted. The POV tag is necessary to reinforce the POV disputes occurring in this talk page, there are at least two sides in the dispute and at least 3 issues underway with multiple editors involved, the POV tag may pave the way for further dispute resolution methods should talk be stymied.  I applaud Mytwocents for taking about the tag before moving to post it, the right way to go for peaceful resolution.    

I support a POV tag on this article - this entire tree of articles is pretty bad from a POV perspective.   

This article as it stands, written from a scientific perspective (which I believe to be appropriate), does not have a POV problem. There are a fair number of editors who want it written from another perspective, that's the problem, and not one likely to lead to a resolution (just look back through the last few years of discussion on this page).   

I support the tag. The article fails to address a lack of concensus on the issue.  
 How about you make a small, good faith effort to impove it?   
I support the tag.   
 On what grounds? All I've seen from you is complaints of talk-page stuff. What edits have you made to improve the article that have been reverted?   

I propose that we close this thread unless somebody comes up with an actual POV problem and shows that it hasn't been honestly addressed here.  NPOV tags are not to be applied for frivolous reasons. TS 

I think that may be premature.  That Mytwocents and others have expressed POV concerns is considered strong evidence th