I was thinking about this last night and came to two conclusions First focusing solely on this article is not the way to go I need to go back to square one and add academic rigor if possible to global warming and denialism Don t tell me GW is FA and is therefore academically rigorous the FA star does not even come within discus throwing distance of establishing an article as academically rigorous Second your system of defending this Wikipedia page notice I didn t say article is completely airtight because you hold control over all of the definitions Join any high school debate team and they ll tell you if you own the definitions you own the debate And the problem here is this you define anyone who disagrees with AGW as a denialist and you define everyone who agrees with you as an expert Done The page is impregnable Take forex the quote by Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer Using her comments as supporting evidence of the page s not article s thesis is a flagrant act of POV that proves this page not article is an op ed piece from start to end Barbara Boxer is a politician Every bit of power money and prestige she has comes from her ability to do one thing and thing only to characterize herself as a noble public servant and stereotype her opponents as villains buffoons or both Even more and this is important Barabara Boxer is not a run of the mill politician It would be nearly impossible to find someone more unwaveringly partisan than she is In short the Boxer quote is another bit that does not come close to passing the so what test I intend to delete that one sometime soon too I also wonder whether I should give one of those damn wikicookie templates as a thank you to the editors who revert me every time they do so Or maybe a barnstar I dunno some token of gratitude or other