I have a degree in Engineering and a Masters in computer aided engineering. I spend most of my day working with converting maths and physics equations into reliable computer code to create realistic and accurate simulations. It can be fun and it can be tedious.
I love Wikipedia as a reference: It's most important aspect is that it gives every side to an argument. That is rarely found in a static text. Hence impartiality is not guaranteed but we can inform ourselves much better.
My favourite quote is from Alistair Cooke: "There is no such thing as ideological truth". That is more relevant today than ever with the PR/spin/lobbying machines at work. I have been apolitical for some time which allows me to see that all sides sometimes have good ideas. I thought I was a pessimist until I read some of the blogs on the net. I now realise I am actually an optimist.
I have a love-hate relationship with the global warming debate. The love part is that I abhor pollution and hence oil and petrochemical works and frankly I'd have a chemical muffler on every car if I could. I also love alternative energies and I am glad to see them back on the agenda at last. Ironically, I believe that CO2 is the least polluting thing we are emitting but it usually comes with all the other junk in tow. The hate part is that I hate bad science. I have seen too much of it in my lifetime. You know the thing; this thing is bad for you, years later it is good for you, then it is bad again. Scientists telling us to drink 8 glasses of water a day, telling us that BSE cannot transfer to humans, etc, etc. so I have become a natural skeptic to all science. The (quite poor) assumptions in the mathematical modeling of climate change, since it touches on my own area of expertise, are of particular annoyance to me.
With regards to Wikipedia I am concerned that some people are intent on turning this beautiful concept into a propaganda sheet for particular trendy causes. They must be restrained.