By Elmer Beaureguard
He then referred to a story that he heard about 2 Geologists on a camping trip that had no news value at all. It was then at 44:45 in the show that Bill Kling said "NPR did recently get a grant... to cover global warming".
The fluffy story in question is part of NPR's Climate Connections which is a collaboration with National Geographic to show "How we are shaping climate".
I suppose partnerships such as these aren't unusal, and Bill Kling and NPR aren't hiding this relationship. My problem is that NPR is supposed to be an unbiased news organization. The President says they are being paid to "cover" global warming, but they only present one side of the issue and assume everybody believes that side. After all the debate is over, right?
Meanwhile there are a lot of scientists who don't believe in manmade global warming. And they are always demonized in the press and are said to be receiving funding from "Big Oil". Well isn't MPR being funded to say what they are saying? Even the IPCC is funded by a political organization called the U.N.. They always fail to mention that the main group of skeptical scientists, who are 17,000 strong and growing, are grass roots and not funded at all.
In researching this article I did a search for "Global Warming" on NPR's website and got 1643 results, none of which that I saw presented the skeptics point of view. And a lot of them are fluffy like "How Chocolate Can Save the Planet".
If I were going to ask Bill Kling a question it would be "Instead of saying the debate is over, why don't you actually have a debate on Global Warming?"
M4GW recieves no funds from anybody whatsoever.
(except from t-shirt and bumper sticker sales)
So what I say here is strictly my opinion and nobody elses.