As someone who is supsicious of Democrats and Republicans alike I think I am far more objective at evaluating bias than you. You seem to see anything as biased that doesn't cater to predominant Republican views. I see the media's coverage of Iraq as biased and Bush's tax policies as biased. I have never felt Scientific American was biased and have seen many articles counter conclusions made in earlier articles as new data comes in.

The whole stance of the GW denial groups rests on assuming CO2's proven ability to act as a greenhouse gas on planetary scales will not happen on Earth. They dismiss computer models on the basis of they are not perfect without even having crude alternatives to explain observed warming trends or reasons CO2 will not have a warming impact on Earth. That is not and never will be a scientific basis for argument. Sciam would have to change its name to Unscientific American to endorse such handwaving beliefs.

The technical criticisms of The Skeptical Environmentalist were valid by the way although his point that economics are important as environment in reducing mortality was a good one that far too many radical environmentalists ignore. Sciam did not argue against that point but rather his interpretations of technical data. Sciam gave the skeptical environmentalist and his critics public space to debate in a deliberative fashion the issues unlike your typical rightwing or leftwing media programs.

As predicted you seem to continue your support for this articles based solely on its conclusions by casting aspersions on the source of the counter arguments rather than the details of those arguments. Same tactics as Barry and EP Tom. I know you know better.

Regards,
Mark