The front page of today’s WaPo screams out the latest on the IPCC study. To their credit, at the end of the article, they cite the view of the George C. Marshall Institute, urging “great caution” about reading too much into the report until the scientific documentation issues several months form now. Conclusions now, science to follow. Probably best to see the science, yes.
In any event, the Post qualifies the Marshall Institute mention with a note about their funding. My, how interesting. We welcome this new policy from the Post, where they apparently will start noting the funding of these various groups. George Soros, Al Gore, Hollywood elites, the whole megillah. If so, it would serve to illuminate the views of groups with misleading names like our favorite, the Union of Concerned Scientists— the union-backed Economic Policy Institute or the lefty “Alliance for Justice.” A little box on each of these groups and their funding, their backers, their agenda, would be most welcome. Let’s hope the Post isn’t so partisan that they’ll limit this treatment only to groups with which they disagree, but to all groups.
Transparency, what a concept.
UPDATE (By Carter Wood, 2:10 p.m.): Information about the funding of non-profit and philanthropic groups is readily available, easy to look up, just a keyboard away. One can turn to CapitalResearch.org for reports on the National Environmental Trust, for example, which was cited in the Washington Post story. Along with objective summaries, Capital Research rates the organizations on a 1-8 scale, 1 being “radical left,” 8 being “free-market right.” The National Environmental Trust earned a 2, but the Post did not characterize the organization in any way.
Latest posts by NAM (see all)
- Manufacturers Win Several Website Design Awards - June 15, 2011
- China Makes Commitments on Trade, Intellectual Property - December 16, 2010
- ITC Details Widespread Theft of Intellectual Property in China - December 14, 2010