“A lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its boots.” - Mark Twain

This article provides great summary of a topic that always concerns me - the control that the media has on the climate change 'debate'. I highly recommend it in full, but here is a good clip:

"It’s much more difficult to have a story in the newspaper or a TV news segment, explaining the latest study in Nature or Science, than it is to have an unqualified scientist or “spokesman” offer a pithy, controversial quote or sound bite not necessarily grounded in fact.

This reality has given the fossil-fuel lobby a major leg up, writes James Hoggan, co-author of a Climate Cover-Up and founder of DeSmogBlog.com. Hoggan’s must-read book describes in disturbing detail the well-oiled campaign to confuse the public and confound the science, creating enough doubt to thwart meaningful action and protect a world economic order built around the burning of oil, coal, and natural gas."

Another problem that this article doesn't address enough is the need for the global media to give balance by providing 'both sides' of the story. I can see where they are coming from, that the media is supposed to facilitate public debate and let people decide for themselves the true nature of a story, but in the case of science, I think it may be best to allow real working scientists provide much of the dialogue. With some 95% of climate scientists providing data in support of human-induced climate change, they should not be given the same airtime as (often unqualified) contrarians. (a few examples: here, here, here). I mean, if 95% of scientists suggested that a particular medicine was dangerous, would they be given equal airtime to the 5% that thought it was safe? Well, maybe if the pharmaceutical industry paid them to...but i digress.