Balance every opinion is what news media have been doing for over a decade. Even when one side is weighted with evidence and consensus and one is not. This is a website designed to support AB32 and other climate-related legislation in California. If they are to have it there it should be clearly labelled in a category of dissenting opinion, instead of being grouped with other research and funding sources.
At 05:27 AM 10/20/2007, William Silvert wrote: >I don't think that we should be too disturbed about seeing that government >sites and others required to hold a balanced perspective should link to >sceptic sites with even a minimum standard of credibility. Being open to a >charge of censorship would simply consolidate antagonism to research results. > >Scepticism about climate change is not in the same ball park as >creationism, even though the two often go together. They are entitled to a >voice, evn though we don't personally choose to listen. > >Bill Silvert > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Decker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:35 AM >Subject: Heads up: The new Global Warming Denial Front > > >>The George C. Marshall Institute, which has a long history of global >>warming and nuclear weaponry science denial (specifically arguing in favor >>of SDI or "Star Wars" against the consensus of physicists) has launched a >>new PR campaign to suggest that scientists are biased in their findings of >>global climate change due to the fact that there is grant monies to study >>global climate change. >>... >>What is most troublesome, is that somehow this publication has been linked >>to by the California Climate Change Portal (bottom of the funding tab), >>which is a government website meant to aid scientists in addressing this >>problem. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/index.html >> >>Heads up.
