Don't weep for the youth of America, for about a week after the Harvard Crimson published a shocking editorial antagonistic to Nobel Laureate Al Gore, Stanford University held a luncheon entitled "Is Global Warming a Myth?"

Adding to your likely surprise, the guest speaker was the world-renowned global warming skeptic S. Frederick Singer.

Maybe even more astounding, the Stanford paper gave his speech a rather positive review (emphasis added throughout):

The former space scientist and government scientific administrator, who is co-author of the bestselling book, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years," claimed that observed warming is produced by the sun and that "human contribution is negligible." Singer's research suggests that for the past million years, the Earth has gone through warming and cooling phrases that have lasted about 1,500 years each. He writes that these phases are in no way correlated with carbon dioxide levels.

[...]

The speaker explained that the recent warming the Earth has experienced is not dangerous and is not something humans could alter. Global warming activists such as Al Gore, Singer chided, are hyping the problem. He said that such activists have not come close to demonstrating that human-generated greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming.

Amazingly fair representation of likely what Singer said, correct? The author, Mima Mohammed, chose not to reference noted alarmists in order to discredit the speaker's points, even as they went counter to the Global Warmingist-in-Chief's.

Rather refreshing, don't you think?

Of course, the folks at Think Progress and Media Matters wouldn't agree, but I digress as the article began presenting a number of inconvenient truths most media members have been hiding from the public:

If politicians truly wanted to make a change to affect energy use, Singer said, they would have to increase taxes on gasoline, which would decrease use of vehicles. He believes that such taxes would hit people of low income the hardest.

The speaker claimed that many businesses, such as the wind farm industry, are making money off the global warming hype. Singer said that it is essential to convince the proponents of global warming that what they are doing is counterproductive and will not make any difference to the climate.

Yet, what was likely most surprising was the following:

Paul Craft ‘09, an editor at The Stanford Review, said he appreciated the speaker's unconventional views.

"He made an interesting argument - the nature of science is to have a debate about the evidence," Craft said. "Therefore, I think it's healthy to have dissenting opinions regardless of where you stand of the issue."

How delightful: Someone that understands how science works, and that the debate is far from over.

We need more objective journalists like Craft and Mohammed, wouldn't you agree?

Bravo, Stanford - which is a lot coming from a Bear!

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.