This isn't a review of the article; it's a comment on our reviews. Our biases are more evident in this subject than in politics. Maybe it's a problem that should be addressed by NewsTrust staff. I don't know how to overcome it, but the first step would seem to be to recognize it in ourselves.

"Preface: How Could So Many Climate Modelers Be Wrong?" The knowledgeable answer: they aren't. It's unfortunate when an otherwise (presumably) competent expert is so eager for publication or acclaim that he'll blindfold his sense of proportion and claim his nit-picks trump massively studied and accepted, peer-reviewed results.

Good reprise of reports that should have had widespread coverage in the MSM.

This is another (mercifully short) attack on science using cherry-picked data and missapplied statistics. I suspect the Gateway "Pundit" gets his info from Exxon-funded pseudo-scientists who, for example, claim a short-term zig on the chart negates the extreme, long-term zag.

De Young reports that Obama is winning over military leaders. His pragmatic and realistic approach contrasts favorably with that of his predecessor. Well written, understandable, and convincing, the article is still a bit long and rambling.

Fantastic story! A look inside the shady and lethal combination of government and crime. The author has the right credentials, but unfortunately, as should be expected of an article about a crime boss and the CIA, it's not well supported by sources.

Very good report using personal interest to hook the reader. The focus of the story is the effect of predatory lending on the poor. That device is used to make the part played by subprime mortgages in the economy's meltdown understandable and interesting.

17 years later, and after about 6 years of study, the truth emerges. This is important news, told clearly.

The article doesn't say much that's new, but it does a good job of putting gas prices into perspective in relation to other factors in the recession.

Anderson writes well, but missed his calling. He should be on conservative talk radio. This is a cherry-picked argument against liberals as socialists. ". . . [A] new and improved and ever more aggressive socialist like Obama is not the answer."

By calling the banksters only "borderline criminal" Klein shows restraint. While the entire Left complains about Obama's post-election centrist and pro-business moves, she offers well-reasoned arguments for doing what his base elected him to do: "[D]isregard the calls for a seamless transition and do the hard stuff first."

This is not so much a news report of a statement by the senator as it is an opinion piece on its error and probable affect on the run-off. The latter is thinly supported.

CIA analyst in seven administrations condemns slant and inaccuracy of presidential intelligence briefings and briefers, including CIA chiefs, former and present.

Brief reports on the 3 senate races still unresolved: Minnesota, Alaska, Georgia. Short and sweet but incomplete. Appears accurate, but unsourced..

Thorough and basically impartial analysis, well supported. But I'm puzzled by the statement, "... [Obama's 16-month] withdrawal schedule was viewed by many in both Baghdad and Washington as a risky campaign pledge. But now Iraqi leaders say it is achievable." I recall earlier agreement with that schedule and wonder if Graff forgot.

"Gail the Actuary" analyzes Rubin's report, making it understandable by ignorant laymen (like me). The argument is well supported that peak oil, not the subprime bubble, was the trigger and underlying cause of the recession. Less well supported is the assertion that low oil prices will cause recovery.

Pinkney warns that Obama will make exploitation of citizens by Wall Street and the military worse than it has been, because, 1. Wall Street financed his campaign, and 2. Being a ("slippery tongued") Black will let him get away with more. (That's the whole argument.)

This is a report on a report in the (Chinese-American) World Journal, reporting on U.S. Census figures which show surprising disparities in household income by ethnic groups. The most reliable info could be the comment after the article by a first generation Asian American, pointing out that Asians often live in extended family settings, so household figures would be skewed.

Short and readable is good, but there's little that's new. Scientific American could support their data better, for the benefit of those who can recognize possible misinterpretation of statistics (while perhaps accepting the obviously distorted statistics of Exxon-Mobil funded propagandists).

This is an abbreviated report on a Pew Research study. The Moderate Voice offers no insights, while the original provides important clues to why we Americans are still so partisan and ignorant.

". . . a repeat of the Florida fiasco of 2000 could occur in any of a dozen battleground states." The writers managed to provide fairly thorough information without finger-pointing. This would be a must-read if it were more hard-hitting.

3BlueDudes tend to be optimistic. Big oil's record profits provide a good excuse for listing bad Bush policies, but it's a stretch to say those profits will be a significant factor in the election. Most voters won't pay attention. Most of the rest may shrug it off as the result of earlier record prices and expect big oil to suffer a bit in the current market.

The difference between Pew Research Center's poll results and those being reported in the MSM is definitely news. 3BlueDudes posted the link to Pew at the head of this article, so we could check to see their news is fact. What's missing is the reason Pew results differ.

Good article. After accusing Obama of everything from betraying the troops to wanting to teach sex to kindergartners, the straight talk express has finally hit on a reasonable-sounding argument. Murray quotes reasons why "one-party rule" won't be the single-minded monster it was under the Republicans, but I think the claim will have an effect on the remaining undecideds.

Brief and to the point. Kammer's view: since neither "endorser" can be trusted, and either or both could be trying to damage the endorsee, both stories should be disregarded entirely.

Excellent, hard-hitting article, thoroughly documented. Richardson reports on election fraud in 2000 and 2004, and efforts to defraud in this election. He reveals the motivation behind the McCain campaign's attack on ACORN, and evidence that Obama and the Democrats are better prepared to counter election fraud this time.

The article is thorough and accurate, but written reports don't convey Powell's sincerity and intelligence as evident in the interview. An anonymous Republican official said, "This Powell endorsement is the nail in the coffin." I wish that were true, but it's only the reaction of someone who paid attention, unlike most voters. Powell's work for the Bush administration unfairly diminished his public image, because the MSM didn't report his resentment at being forced to lie to the UN.