Well, I kinda agree with old Charlie on this. There is the MEDIA OF THE LEFT and the MEDIA OF THE RIGHT, and not much in the middle. Sure seems to be more of the media steering to port than to the starboard; I could be wrong ... but I don't think so.
Is there any merit to THIS CLIMATE SKEPTIC ARTICLE or is it just more partisan blather? Many folks only search for news that supports their views and they take what they read, see, and hear on pure faith. I've been burned far too often to accept anything on faith.
Then there is this INQUISITION ARTICLE making big waves. IMHO is a kinda a bit of a stretch to compare the actions of the 16 PARTISAN State Attorney Generals to The Inquisition, but one could argue that it is no more of a stretch than the stuff peddled by Al Gore et al. Which side uses the most blatant propaganda? Each side will point across the aisle. We now have the "INQUISITORS" to support the "ALARMISTS" against the "DENIERS." "Heh, good times, Baby! Good times! Where's the whiskey?"
I'll conclude this diatribe by offering that it was a huge tactical mistake for the advocates, politicians, and pundits to make the leap from "Air Pollution" to "Climate Change." Controlling Air Pollution is much easier to sell politically; banning coal because it pollutes the air and the land is a more convincing argument than banning coal because it puts carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere. IMHO, it IS high time to incrementally move away from coal. Elon Musk has done more than anyone else to demonstrate that mankind is creative enough to use technology to wean our society from dependence on fossil fuels. The politicians could do far worse than to collectively look to Elon Musk for leadership.