Rosenbaum fails to mention that journalists also have a responsibility to distinguish credible dissent from non-credible dissent. Admittedly, Einstein's theories were initially considered wacko...but they were based on a new way of looking at the world, examining results that scientists had previously discounted or not paid attention to, such as the way light bends around a star. When a massive number of scientists examine the same data and 99.9% eventually agree on the same conclusions, there is a clear scientific consensus that should not be denied for the sake of a few ideologically-motivated cranks.

The scientists who deny that global warming is occurring are a tiny cabal of about 5 people, headed by astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas who has worked for such formidable conservative organizations as the Hoover Institution. The conservative publications in the country, desperate to manufacture some dissent on this issue, have led a concerted effort to widely disseminate reports from these same 5 scientists. Their reports contain no new data or scientific results except for claims that have already been addressed and debunked by scientific fact, such as the idea that CO2 levels naturally fluctuate (they do, but as even the relatively mainstream audience of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth knows, the CO2 level today is vastly higher than during any of those natural CO2 peaks in the past).

And yet, mainstream journalists, in their search for objectivity and "dissent," have only recently realized that they can find no credible scientific sources who have new data or new theories that could possibly debunk the consensus that global warming is a real danger. Agreed, some of the journalists who write stories about the threat of warming probably have little idea about the scientific basis of their claims either, or don't bother to write about it when they are doing a puff piece to sell condos in the Middle East. But that doesn't mean the scientific consensus is wrong.

Please, Rosenbaum, realize that there is a difference between credible dissent based on new theories and new evidence, and mere mindless repetition of objections that have already been debunked. Credible dissent is a good thing for journalists to find. But dissent for its own sake doesn't lead to anything but bad journalism.