It’s important to often clarify and remind readers of our mission. Simply, I try to be intellectually honest. I’m not trying to appeal to or anger any one constituency. I gather the facts through research and interviews and then establish a thesis on which to base the column. I do not report the news and I do not give my opinion. I analyze issues.

Ok, so how does this work in practice? Take global warming, which stirs the emotions on both sides of the issue: I’m not a scientist. Quite frankly, I’m a journalist who has developed an expertise in energy issues. I’m unqualified to say if the phenomenon exists. But I am prepared to talk to different experts and to synthesize their positions. And it’s not up to me – or any journalist for that matter – to tell Congress what to do.

On this matter, most scientists in this area say that the problem is real. It also appears to be inevitable that Washington will enact legislation to constrain carbon use. A column, henceforth, might imply that global warming is considered a threat and that lawmakers will act accordingly. My job, in this instance, is then to talk with industrial types to find out their strategies and to flesh out a central idea.

So, when you read, notice that I typically start with a news hook. And rather than do a he-said, she-said piece, I then postulate a theme, put it in context and work to support it. It’s not my opinion. It’s simply my take.

To be sure, the columns both deserve and need to be critiqued. They are read by a wide swath of interests and let me assure you that I remain steadfastly independent – otherwise the whole concept underlying our efforts would be meaningless. Obviously there are constraints with respect to time and space. As such, the analyses may be incomplete, have voids and even errors. But that’s why we give the readers their forum, as well to provide an outlet to have a respectful, stimulating discussion.