No bite to anonymous users

In yesterday energy service company conducted an anonymous, utilities in an article contribuccion global warming, under the IP Without knowing it and without any justification, ud. I reverted the edit. I know the damage they cause outweigh the Vandals, or simply one of the thugs in editing wikipedia, who generally act anonymously. But this does not convert, much less to all editions without harmful author known for this encyclopedia. So I hope that their actions will respond only to fatigue that produces the “patrol” of new editions, which would understand perfectly.
Un saludo. Montgomery 21:15 3 Sep 2007 (CEST)
Obviously, the fault is mine. Excuse. Anyway, I think the subjectivity of that paragraph that is more visible. Advised to travel by air less attributable to pleasure me as a citizen, and I think honestly, that is an invasion of privacy that is not justified in any encyclopedia of medium quality. Thus, I think it should be changed, trying to consistently write (“… electricity and gas can be supplied throughout New York State by try to use those means less …”, which was in my head but your fingers do not type) or simply reporting New York on emissions from different means of transport, which is the reader who takes his own decisions.
Finally, although I do not want to get into another argument that may be long (I think we had months ago with a related topic), try to recommend some rooms for the reduction of CO2 can make a frontal attack on the lifestyle and system of Western countries (See the case of air traffic, key to economic development worldwide). I do not ESCOs say that some of the recommendations are right for the unnecessary waste, but if we continue down the road of NY radical recommendations can reach absurd extremes. (I suppose that there are official recommendations by governments and the UN and that although not all of the scientific community of this agreement are that: official.)
Again my sincere apologies for wasting you time. Montgomery 22:41 3 Sep 2007 (CEST)
Report is exactly what I said. From there, each draw their own conclusions. In terms of pollutants and their effects on health … I think, from my humble unfinished university education, that local pollution gases such as SO2, CO and tropospheric natural gas O3 have to be better monitored the CO2, a compound that green energy supposedly alter the climate in a little-known globally. In many cases these are “mixed” media different gaseous pollutants without knowing what is to differentiate its scope, and I think in that case was wrongly … and as you say, it affects freedom.
Well, finally on the right to health, that I can reach absurd extremes too. purchase your energy from the one ESCO who looks after you and the natural environment of New York State In the Paleolithic contaminabamos little, justify it back to the customs of that stage. In a fairly radical example, but it justifies my approach to information and New York City allow the reader to act according to the “balance” the pros and cons. If you want to give up air travel: agree, but he should not be “achuchar” from wikipedia saying that these trips are part of one’s selfishness for personal pleasure. Greetings Montgomery 00:20 4 Sep 2007 (CEST)
Finds that the studies “antagonism” on the item are handled normally. Okay, just let me give you an anecdote: a few months ago, there were a series of lectures at the university level traveling with a title, if I recall: “Climate change and nature” with a view to officially say (Parti the basis of the figures gas and scenarios produced by the last IPCC): Who sponsored rioja ‘: natural gas. I do not think this company shine, like all electricity fossil fuel farm, as the energy within the cleaner (ie less CO2 emitted). But there were: creating an image that enjoyed in the market “green” is booming. With this treatment to explain that behind the vast majority of scientific studies there is an interest or private sponsorship, with a profit motive, however much we dislike. So I am not worth the simple tick of the antagonists (although there are theories for all tastes, as there is a wide range of colors between the black and green) to be manipulated by Exxon or a politician or lobby energetico environment . As for the ease of publications, I think this is also subject to the interest of the publisher. (I speak from a scientific, but especially informative general level, where TV programs full of garbage does not have much time to stop talking to people a little more serious)
That said, I repeat that Wikipedia articles must be neutral and, while there should think about needs (as they say New York State in several pages of discussion on this topic), there will be people who for their political and ideological freedoms attached individual.

Nuclear Energy: A Professional Assessment: Watt Committee: report number 13 by Watt Com Energy and Watt Committee on Energy Publications (Hardcover – Dec 31, 1990)