By Jeff Poor | November 28, 2009 | 4:49 PM EST

The global warming alarmists are beginning to lose the PR battle, at least that is what a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll is indicating. But this has the usual purveyors of climate change doom-and-gloom trying to rationalize the shift in public opinion.

 The Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin, who regularly has her objectivity called into question on the issue of anthropogenic global warming, attributed this to nothing more than political polarization. Eilperin, a former contributor for the left-of-center Huffington Post and wife of the liberal Center for American Progress' so-called "climate specialist" Andrew Light, appeared on MSNBC on Nov. 28 and offered that explanation.

"What you're seeing is increasing political polarization," Eilperin said. "What we've seen is from since three-and-a-half years ago where there was kind of an all-time high in terms of people believing in it. You've seen the biggest drop among Republicans by about something like 22 points, and then independents dropped less than that and then with Democrats, it was a much smaller drop - just about 6 points."

By Tim Graham | November 4, 2009 | 11:09 PM EST

Unlike some Washington Post ombudsmen (ahem, Geneva Overholser), Andrew Alexander deserves credit for raising the question of liberal bias, and reporters’ connections to the liberal movement, even by marriage. But he didn’t tell the whole story. At best, he gets an I for Incomplete. On Sunday, Alexander reported:

By Amy Ridenour | July 8, 2008 | 3:43 PM EDT

I believe the Washington Post knows perfectly well that the word "censor" does not belong in the lead of today's Juliet Eilperin story, but the editors left it in (or inserted it?) anyway. The story, "Cheney Aides Altered EPA Testimony, Agency Official Says Ex-Administrator Says Official From Vice President's Office Edited Out Six Pages," begins:

By Tim Graham | May 12, 2008 | 5:25 PM EDT

Washington Post environmental reporter-slash-advocate Juliet Eilperin penned a front-page piece in Monday’s Post on how John McCain is "instinctive" on environmental matters, pulling a "balancing act," which means insufficiently radical enough to please the Sierra Club and their media friends. Eilperin’s piece was loaded with the opinions of environmental "interest groups" without any group or any policy being labeled as liberal:

By Jeff Poor | May 6, 2008 | 9:20 AM EDT

Shortly after reporting on her Web site that GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000, Arianna Huffington continued to denigrate the presumptive Republican nominee before a Washington, D.C., audience.

"Actually, you know what I think - the more I think of it, John McCain should not be allowed to hold sharp scissors," Huffington said. "[Y]ou know he wants to make the tax cuts permanent. He wants bigger corporate tax cuts. You know, it's an endless process. You know it's basically, exactly what this country does not need. It's expanding and deepening the last eight years."

Earlier, Huffington had charged that the media are playing "Pontius Pilate" when dealing with the issue of global warming.

By Amy Ridenour | April 17, 2008 | 12:44 PM EDT

I already knew Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wasn't a clear thinker, but I still had to chuckle at her quote in today's Washington Post article on climate change:

The president's plan to have America stand by while greenhouse gases reach dangerous levels and threaten America and the world is worse than doing nothing -- it is the height of irresponsibility.

What's the difference between "standing by" and "doing nothing"? Why, no difference at all.

By Tim Graham | December 28, 2007 | 8:29 AM EST

The Washington Post reviewed Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple’s "A Contract for the Earth" on Sunday, but Post "national environmental reporter" Juliet Eilperin was torn. On one hand, she wanted to say that even the Republicans recognize and bow before the Global Warming Threat. On the other hand, she simply had to mock the idea that private-sector solutions would help rather than stringent government mandates: "This is no revolutionary manifesto.