MSNBC tends to run poorly cited articles about the environment. I think this is exactly why some groups discount the environmental emphasis or "green movement". In a recent article on water shortages (read it here), the story comes with no evidence to back up its claims. The story mentions one scientist whom the story says "Wong said the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that as many as 2 billion people won't have sufficient access to clean water by 2050." The problem with that statement is that the story gives no context to it. There is no mention of when and where Dr. Wong said this, or what study his statement was based upon. In short, there is no way for the reader to judge the validity of his claim.

Basically this type of writing is little more than propaganda. That is precisely why some groups doubt that climate change is happening. Environmental groups cry out that oil companies are distributing "misinformation" in an attempt to stifle environmental groups and increase their profits. This may be the case - but as long as environmental articles are written like the one mentioned at MSNBC, no reader will be able to make an informed judgment. We need facts, we need evidence, we need citations or at least the mention of where the information came from.