a) It's part of the media's job to inform the public.

b) You expect it to be easier to to achieve an informed public than an informed media? Aside from being rather cart-before-the-horse (see above) it's also highly improbable that 220+ Million adults would become enlightened more readily than less than 1/10th of 1% of that number of journalists, just from a statistical point of view.

Great post, Ebonmuse. Thanks. I'll be back.

http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=d725f88d-4a36-4bb3-acfa-139731de159d

The JunkScience site is true to its name, it's full of junk.

For an introduction to the facts, try the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change , or look here: http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics.

If you really want to know all the details, nothing better than this site: http://www.realclimate.org/

Global warming is real. Deal with it.

Just one more example of the bias; NAS just released a report that, basically, said Mann's hockey stick is completely false, does not follow proper scientific procedures, and needs to be ignored. The media has not mentioned this at all; all they have done is cling to the aknowledgement that the earth is indeed warmer than it was 400 years ago (during the little ice age). Even then, it often replaces "400" with "1000" or "2000", even though that's not what it says.

I do have a few quotes I saved; these were made in response to Gore's movie, addressing specific claims of global warming scaremongers;
"The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling.... Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all." -- Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
- - -
"Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than one degree C since 1950. And the area of sea ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years." -- Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
- - -
"From data published by the Canadian Ice Service, there has been no precipitous drop-off in the amount or thickness of the ice cap since 1970 when reliable overall coverage became available for the Canadian Arctic." -- Dr./Cdr. M.R. Morgan, FRMS, formerly advisor to the World Meteorological Organization/climatology research scientist at University of Exeter, U.K.
"I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands has fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific." -- Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, N.Z.
- - -
"We find no alarming sea level rise going on, in the Maldives, Tovalu, Venice, the Persian Gulf and even satellite altimetry, if applied properly." -- Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden.
- - -
"Gore is completely wrong here -- malaria has been documented at an altitude of 2,500 metres -- Nairobi and Harare are at altitudes of about 1,500 metres. The new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago. None of the "30 so-called new diseases" Gore references are attributable to global warming, none." -- Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, unit of insects and infectious diseases, Paris, comments on Gore's belief that Nairobi and Harare were founded just above the mosquito line to avoid malaria and how the mosquitoes are now moving to higher altitudes.
- - -
"Our information is that seven of 13 populations of polar bears in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (more than half the world's estimated total) are either stable or increasing..... Of the three that appear to be declining, only one has been shown to be affected by climate change. No one can say with certainty that climate change has not affected these other populations, but it is also true that we have no information to suggest that it has." -- Dr. Mitchell Taylor, manager, wildlife research section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut.
- - -
"Mr. Gore suggests that the Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005. But 1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland and the melt area of ice sheet was exceptionally low due to the cooling caused by volcanic dust emitted from Mt. Pinatubo. If, instead of 1992, Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new Ice Age is just around the corner." -- Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

For the time being, I'm an agnostic.

While I'm not agnostic on the topic, I do relate really well to your point.

But lest we get chewed on again for going off-topic, let me reiterate how I feel this relates to the thread. Sometimes, as I think we all agree, the media feeds us what it believes will sell, the facts be, uh, dadgummed. They give us what we want to hear. They're afraid they won't stay in business long if they don't.

But there are issues that require a level of knowledge beyond most of us. When it comes to subjects so arcane as climatology, only those with years of training followed by years of actual experience will understand the details of the discussion well enough to speak authoritatively. When they don't speak with one voice, things can get a little dicey.

For instance, here's an article questioning the Mann findings: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062806F. It was written by a man with the right credentials. They are summarized this way at the bottom of the article:

"Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite."

You can look at his bio for further details.

Now, one man or the other isn't quite right. Which one?

That's the problem we laymen have to deal with. I simply haven't the tools to tell for sure who's got the better case. I read one side and find the reasoning compelling. Then I read the other side and discover that there are issues the first side chose not to deal with. I read yet a third, also unfavorable analysis that deals with these details. A fourth brings other things yet to light that threaten to sway me in the other direction again. Not having a thoroughgoing understanding of the field, I'm at the mercy of those who do--or claim to. Ultimately, I have to choose to come down (religiously, almost) on one side or the other or take a more agnostic position. For the time being, I'm an agnostic.

What will it take to cut through this illusion of balance and restore true objectivity

I think Montu's putting the onus on the Publishers is the most accurate point of relevance for the quality of what is published.

Some other folks mentioned the ignorance and poor critical thinking skills among readers, and this is certainly the crux most (all?) cultural issues. The Publishers, ie, those with the largest accumulations of power and energy (ie, wealth) to affect large swaths of folk and their opinions, cannot be feeding their readers/viewers slop unless those readers/viewers are unable to discern slop from quality.

Your points about the reporters, Ebonmuse, round out the equation. It's the Publishers who hire the reporters who tittilate the most people, regardless of truth in reporting, that leaves us all shaking our heads over the state of affairs vis-a-vis our MSM.

And since it's dominated this thread: The people at Real Climate are Climate Scientists. Outside of simply and lucidly reporting what is and has been happening climatologically on our Earth, their "agenda" is for our species to survive our own technological evolution. I recommend the site to folk of any, all and no opinion on this enormous issue.

Thanks for an awesome post.