> The point of my post was the obvious lack of balanced
> reporting with respect to environmental issues. I
> consider John Stossel to be a credible journalist who
> helps show the other side.

And the point of my post was that "balanced reporting" depends on your point of view, and just because you think global warming isn't real doesn't make it so. Similarly, just because you think Stossel--a journalist who has had more than one highly publicized problem with credibility in his career--is a credible journalist, that doesn't mean he is. Personally, I don't think he's much of a journalist at all. Instead of reporting facts, he pursues agendas.

> You don't consider John Stossel to be balanced in his
> reporting...do you consider Dan Rather to be balanced?
> How about Peter Jennings?

What does Stossel's well-documented disregard for journalistic ethics have to do with Rather or Jennings? Why bring them into the discussion?

> What's your problem with "corporate intests"? I think
> this world is a far better place with big corporations
> and the jobs and services they provide.

Again, your opinion. I look at the unprecedented latitude granted to corporations in the 1990s and find a laundry list of despicable acts. How about the jobs they've farmed out to wonderful places like Saipan? How about the corporations who are taking advantage of NAFTA's Chapter 11? (Do some research.) Provide all the jobs and services you want, but when you act without conscience, in a bald-faced grab for a dollar, at the expense of public health and safety, I say your "interests" deserve to be scrutinized.

> I won't argue whose side has more studies to support
> their claims as that wouldn't mean a thing. All that
> would tell you is who has invested more in studies. I
> would just like it taught that there are intelligent
> people on both sides of the issues and I would like to
> see those being educated to have all the facts so they
> can better decide for themselves what the truth is.

Who has invested more in studies? Gee, um, I don't know, Kevin--who has deeper pockets? Multinational corporations, or consumer advocacy groups? Are you really as naive as you seem?

And by the way, the tenor of your previous post certainly did not convey what you said in your last paragraph. Calling global warming education "dogma" and "deceit" is a far cry from saying you just want people to have all the facts, ma'am.