Skeptics are a strange lot. Some of them refuse to admit the serious threat of human activities to the environment, and they are tired of people who disagree with them. Those people, say skeptics, spread nothing but bad news about the environment. The "eco-guilt" brought on by the discouraging news about our planet gives rise to the popularity of skeptics as people search for more comforting worldviews. Perhaps that explain why a new book by Bjorn Lomborg received so much publicity. That book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, declares that it measures the "real state of the world" as fine. Of course, another explanation is the deep pockets some big businesses with special interests. Indeed, Mr. Lomborg's views are similar to those of some Industry-funded organizations, which start huge activities though the media to confuse the public about issues like global warming. So it was strange to see Mr. Lomborg's book go largely unchallenged in the media though his beliefs were contrary to most scientific opinions. One national newspaper in Canada ran a number of articles and reviews full of words of praise, even with the conclusion that "After Lomborg, the environmental movement will begin to die down." Such one-sided views should have immediately been challenged. But only a different review appeared in Nature, a respected science magazine with specific readership. The review remarked that Mr. Lomborg's "preference for unexamined materials is incredible  ".  A critical   eye is valuable, and the media should present information in such a way that could allow people to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, that is often inaccessible as blocked by the desire to be shocking or to defend some special interests. People might become half-blind before a world partially exhibited by the media. That's a shame, because matters concerning the health of the planet are far too important to be treated lightly. What is the author's main purpose in writing the passage?
To encourage the skeptics to have a critical eye. To warn the public of the danger of half-blindness with reviews. To blame the media's lack of responsibility in presenting information. To show the importance of presenting overall information by the media.