In a story today about a lawsuit filed by automakers in hopes of getting a California fuel economy law struck down, Danny Hakim of the New York Times writes:
Smog-forming pollutants from cars have been regulated for decades, but the California law would be the first in North America to address automotive emissions of the gases linked by many scientists to global warming trends.
"Linked by many scientists?"
Science magazine recently conducted a study of the 928 peer-reviewed papers and reports published between 1993 and 2003 which included the phrase "climate change." Not a single one argued that the earth's warming was a natural phenomenon.
Science concluded: "Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists [over the question of whether warming is man-made], but that impression is incorrect."
Hakim could more accurately have written: "[T]he California law would be the first in North America to address automotive emissions of the gases which scientists agree cause global warming." Or even: "[O]f the gases which cause global warming."
This isn't to single out Hakim, whose reporting on the ongoing battle between automakers and environmentalists over fuel economy has been among the best. But, unfortunately, his hedging construction in today's story reflects the standard operating procedure for reporters dealing with this issue. That's why it needs saying: Despite the protests of some in the auto, oil, gas, and coal industries, a scientific consensus has been achieved on the question of what causes global warming, and news reports should reflect that.
Like so much else, this ultimately comes down to a reporter straining to remain "even-handed" by implying that there are two sides to an issue -- even when every peer-reviewed study comes down on one side.
But why give any credence at all to a discredited point of view?
