 :::::I see what you are saying about the Global Warming article not including a 'skeptic viewpoint'. I think part of the problem there is that there are people who (for motives best known to themselves) come up with arguments against every aspect of global warming. It's possible to come up with an argument for or against anything, so which ones to include? If we include all of them the article becomes nonsense. The way I got into all this was after talking to a skeptic; he told me that the satellite data showed no warming. So I thought I'd go to Wikipedia to find the facts (and in my experience with the right caution it's not a bad place to look for facts). What I found at Satellite temperature measurements was a mess - not the Wikipedia I'm used to at all. There were lots of unconnected facts pulled from journals, a lot of them clearly trying to push an anti global warming POV and bits POVing back. The article is much better now (with only minuscule contributions from me) and bits have been split off, I'm still working on UAH satellite temperature dataset which still has a mess in the middle section. BTW what I found when I researched the topic was that the satellite data definitely does show warming, even the data as produced by Christy and Spencer shows significant warming (though others had to point out the errors that they were making before they corrected them), so there was a grain of truth in the skeptic line (ie at one point in the 1990's the UAH dataset didn't show warming but since it's been corrected - mostly for the satellites orbital decay) but ultimately what I was told by a skeptic turned out to be at best a gross error (and that seems to be a pattern when I look in depth at skeptic arguments, but it often takes time). Now taking this as an example should the GW article include a line saying that some people think that the satellite data doesn't show warming?