I imagine the folks at the Washington Post thought they were being fair and balanced Tuesday when they published two letters to the editor that were skeptical of man's role in global warming as compared to one that supported Nobel Laureate Al Gore's view of the world.
The only problem is that one letter was penned by someone very important to the Global Warmingist-in-Chief and the entire climate movement: Pennsylvania State University professor and creator of the infamous Hockey Stick graph Michael Mann.
The editorial staff also included a link to the world's foremost global warming advocacy website RealClimate so that folks could really get bombarded with viewpoints exclusively on one side of this highly-controversial:
There is a very robust consensus among the world's scientists that humans are altering the Earth's climate. Climate change is already disrupting our global environment, and further increases in greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasingly greater disruption. The world's governments are at the cusp of a crucial conference on the issue that is to occur in Copenhagen.
Unfortunately some have engaged in a smear campaign to distract the public and forestall progress. As reported by The Post, they have stolen thousands of scientists' personal e-mails, including some of mine, and have mined the e-mails for words or phrases whose meaning can easily be distorted. For people interested in what scientists and the science are actually saying, http://RealClimate.org is hosting a conversation on what the context of these e-mails really is.
Michael E. Mann, Boalsburg, Pa.
The writer is director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.
Think that's balanced out by two letters from skeptical laymen nobody's ever heard?
No, I don't either.
On the other hand, the editors could have offset Mann's letter by adding a note to his gratuitous bioline that he's being investigated by his University as a result of his involvement in ClimateGate -- but that might have been what kids these days call "too much information!"
Readers should also review Christine Hall's piece on this subject.