Pretending otherwise is just more misleading journalism.

But at least you backed them into a corner sufficiently to get them to scramble in order to appear that they have a scrap of objectivity. Key word: appear.

It’s pretty clear from their coverage of everything from politics to economics to security that they are little more than right-wing hacks: the print equivalent of Faux News.

I suspect Lambert et al. are right. I also think Glenn Greenwald has evaluated them correctly. So better to place them where the GOP was before a few “mavericks” like McCain admitted there was global warming.

They’re rigid, market fundamentalists and wholly subsidiary to the Republican Party of the United States. That’s true in terms of their history so far, their ownership, their funding, their management, everything.

Hence, any pressure you can bring to bear on them might bear fruit or might not. You cannot educate them. Politico is a conservative, pro-deregulation, pro-privatization, anti-environmentalist advocacy site.

Best of all, frankly, is what Greenwald does – show what they are, and unless that’s your cup of tea, you’ll avoid them altogether.

In summary: a possibly pressurable right-wing republican media vehicle. It only harms the discussion to pretend they’re “fair and balanced.”

See details @ Deltoid.

Specifically, the original (poor) article was under “Lobbying”.

The letter and good article are under “Ideas”.

There is an element of accuracy here, so I’d actually give Politico the benefit of a doubt, and if someone knowledgable offers to help them a little on science-related reporting, that’s a good investment, and much better than putting out fires.

Glad you’ve gotten some respect on this. I greatly appreciate your work.

But I’m wondering when you are going to comment on Obama’s video message to The Governator’s climate conference, announcing a goal of returning to 1990 emission levels by 2020? We know that’s totally inadequate; it’s way below EU targets (they’re arguing about whether to be 20 or 30% *below* 1990 by 2020); I think it might be low enough to kill a deal at Copenhagen (I hear rumors that Obama may be considering some form of a major emitters process, which could be if/after COP-15 fails). Reducing 80% by 2050 is also no longer really relevant either, but that’s less important than the near-term targets.

Check out Hansen’s latest comments to the Environmental Audit Committee in the United Kingdom, along with audio of Obama and several others, at http://www.ecoshock.org/DNclimate08.html.