":::::K: is there possibly any personal circumstance for which we should grant allowance, or are you deliberately obtuse?  I ask because it is a little difficult to assume good faith (what the laywers would call a rebuttable presumption) when, after stating '[t]he article is supposed to represent ""all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"", according to WP:DUE', you leave off the continuation of that quote: in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.  That text goes on to say:

Your argument all along seems to be that the ""skeptical"" views (re climate) should be given equal weight (prominence) with the mainstream, but as can be readily seen, that is not the actual policy here; such ""balance"" would be misleading.  Your omission amounts to misrepresentation.    

"