Objectivity is hard to come by these days...

Retired WDFL-- er WCCO anchor Don Shelby recently apologized for presenting balanced coverage on anthropogenic climate change:

The TV newsman’s mea culpa about having misreported climate change came after of years of treating the story the same as he would any other, requiring the views of two opposing parties, Shelby told the packed lecture hall of the chemistry building.

But, he said, climate change is not a pro or con issue; it’s a scientific fact. And journalists who work to “balance” a story present an inaccurate picture when they give equal weight to sources promulgating inaccurate facts.

I see.  Inaccurate?  Or did he mean inconvenient?

The reality is that when it comes to ACC, the facts are not known.  There's a "consensus" among a group of scientists that continues to fluctuate in size.  There's volumes of data that are incongruous with intricate data models fully understood only by the researchers whom promote them.  ACC is far from being accepted as scientific fact.  It's theory.  If a scientist has a competing theory that also fits some or all of the data, shouldn't that be given due consideration by a true journalist (You know, the near-mythical kind interested in telling the reader/viewer/listener the Who-What-Where-When-Why-How?)

Then there's this commentary gem from the Minneapolis Star & Sickle:

The Republican self-deception that draws the most attention is the refusal to believe that President Obama is American-born.
But there are Republican doctrinal fantasies that may be more dangerous: the conviction that taxes can always go down but never up, for example, and the gathering consensus among Republican leaders that human-caused climate change does not exist.

The title of the opinion piece by the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt?

 How does one have discourse with deniers?

Well, Fred, if you were interested in a discourse, I'd recommend not calling us "deniers".  We're skeptics.  We're not disregarding facts (as some on your side are apt to do), but you haven't sold us on the conclusions drawn from the available data.

First off, the Birther movement draws the most attention because that's the way the media wants it.  It's easier  to portray conservatives as a bunch of loons rather than engage them in debate.  Methinks an insecurity is betrayed by such an action.

Second, Fred, Republican lawmakers have to routinely adjust taxes down because Democrat lawmakers like to adjust them up.  I wonder if Democrats think the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is a straight line, versus the more nuanced view the Republicans have with regard to the Laffer Curve.  Also, population increases allow tax revenues to be collected from a more diverse base.  If government can live within its means, it can raise plenty of revenue by focusing on volume.  Keep taxes low, and middle-class people can afford to have more kids, meaning additional revenue 18 years down the road.  Keep taxes low, and upper-class people can put more of their money at risk in ventures that result in more jobs.

Wait a minute, that's too forward-thinking for the party of instant-gratification!  Why am I bothering to explain macro-economics to people who've formed a preconceived notion that the very engine of their existing wealth and the wealth of their nation, capitalism, is evil?