See sarcasm Taken in context you obviously meant it to be an insult though I can t figure out why you think that writing about one s own field of expertice is an insult To each his own I suppose maybe you value ideological purity more than you value the truth I feel otherwise No one is neutral admitting one s own biases is called honesty People can write from a neutral point of view though see WP NPOV I didn t blame conservatives I have no patience for people who value the party line over honesty The encyclopaedia has gotten where it is by keeping crackpot ideas in check and requiring verifiable facts Provide some and people will let your edits stand But as for blaming me I m one voice out of thousands I m not the only one editing this page I am not preventing you from adding factual information There s a lot of emotive stuff in that article that isn t encyclopaedic if you worked on making the article more solid people would appreciate the effort But if you choose to stick in intentionally misleading crap like Global Warming is still a theory and not a proven fact Some scientists think that the increased carbon dioxide will actually cause an increase in plant life you will get it reverted because a it doesn t fit with the structure of the article b saying something is just a theory is irrelevent in science you have theories hypothesese and conjecture theory is the most solid of the three and c the greening earth stuff is garbage it is based on intentional misrepresentation of how plants grow Sure more CO2 will enhance photosynthesis at the cellular level but even at the whole plant level the effect disappears very quickly At the ecosystem level there s been almost no observable change after a decade of FACE experiments except in agro ecosystems where they have found much higher levels of attack by insect pests If you bothered to write about what you knew rather than parroting political talking points you would know this already