Is your only source for this accusation this email?
Their byline, "pro-environment conservatives exposing the lies of the radical eco-movement", shows an obvious bias. It supposes "lies", calls them "radical", and states an obvious political position - "conservative". They cite an article by the National Review, which is a partisan publication. Hardly seems to be an objective source.
Reading the article, I find it to be a partisan political piece. Given the sources, and the content, I'm inclined to dismiss all of it as bullshit. I'm not saying that what's written is true or false, I'm saying that given its source and given the sensationalistic way in which it's presented I'm inclined to believe it's untrustworthy. There's lots of crap like this floating around on the Internet after all, and any savvy person needs to be able to quickly filter the crap out. After all, didn't you know that Barack Obama was a _hidden Muslim_??!?!?! It's true, someone sent me an email that claims it's from a reliable source~
Don't believe everything you read online, do your own investigation, and especially don't believe partisan ranting that's emailed to you - from either the left or the right. 99 times out of a 100 it's bullshit.
It amazes me what people consider to be "journalism" these days.
Jeffrey.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO [email protected] wrote:
Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, I disagree with the form of editing/bullying that is going on in this case. If Wikipedia is to survive as a reliable source of information, uncluding scientific info, then they need to folow their own rules. Science should be honest or truth-seeking, no matter where it leads you.
Brian P.S. Sorry for the HTML format.