More seriously, we are the rational side. Climate change is complex, and further complicated by the “sceptics” persistent smoke and mirrors campaign. Non-scientifically trained people will no see who is right by looking at the primary literature, or by counting the number of scientists helplessly writhing on the floor in mirth after hearing a Ball argument. They will form their belief based on surface properties. SV very probably has no idea about climate change or the climate change debate. I doubt that she is even informed enough to be a “sceptic”. She is a stickler for (some) Wikipedia rules, though, and will oppose you based on that no matter what this does to the real quality of the encyclopedia in this field. She has no way of measuring the later, but she believes (with a in no way unusual amount of hypocrisy, see the conjugation above) in the Wikipedia rules. So her behavior, while in some aspects counterproductive from our point of view, is reasonably rational by hers. WP:AGF in this context means accepting that people act on honestly mistaken beliefs even if they should know better. —Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
A truly telling quote from Stephan. SlimVirgin is going to defend the Wikipedia rules, but he sees her doing so as being counter productive from their POV. Really? Who needs rules when we have a POV to push?
Amazingly honest and enlightening. Perhaps the skeptic’s insistence on following the Wikipedia rules is part of the problem on the climate change pages? What a concept.