Libertyforall,

If you think global warming deniers (as I have called them) have a case--as I guess you do--then it is perfectly reasonable and consistent for you to argue that their case should receive due coverage. If you don't, then they are in the same class as, well, 911 conspiracy theorists. After all, that 911 was not a conspiracy by the Bush administration is, like you say about global warming, "not a scientific fact".

And, I don't think Ron was arguing that 911 conspiracy theorists should be quoted for journalistic balance whenever the subject comes up. (Maybe I missed that part.) Rather, he was arguing for "balance" about global warming because, I think, he agrees with you that the critics have a case.

More generally, the argument that because something is "not a scientific fact" and therefore those who disagree have some sort of case is disingenuous. Creationists, for example, argue this all the time about evolution. They want to leave the impression of active debate, into which they can insert their views. Of course, if you believe that creationists have a point, then, as with global warming, this is fully consistent.

I don't mean, but the way, to equate creationism with global warming denial. They have many differences. However, they do share an important similarity: essentially zero evidence in their favor. In the case of creationism, I take it that this case is self evident.

In the case of global warming, the fact is that other proposed explanations of it (measurement error, sunspots, high-level clouds, wiggles of the earth's orbit, etc.) have been duly tested and failed. Why should these failed explanations be given further press coverage, in the name of "dissent"?

Now, if someone comes up with an alternative explanation that works, or that might work, that would be news, and certainly worth reporting. Not, however, because it would be "dissent", but because it really would be news.