I am becoming more acutely aware of the language and argumentative strategies used by the media, especially on key issues, like environmentalism.

Take a recent article on the Framing Science blog with the title: 90% of Enviro Skeptic Books Have Think Tank Roots.

My initial reaction is: what is wrong with skepticism?  Isn't healthy skepticism the root of all good science?

My main critique of most "greeners" is the true believer nature they exhibit.  In other words, they have so completely accepted the movement that they have ceased to consider evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

In the evironmental movement, very few, if any issues, are settled.  This includes global warming, which, despite public opinion, is far from a consensus among scientists.

My second reaction is: what does it matter what the source of information is?  What does it matter if the books, indeed, did originate in think tanks?  Doesn't their content matter more than their source? 

The answer is yes if science is your main focus; the answer is no if your main goal is politics and ideology.