The US in general and Newsvine in particular (notably Science Has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth") remain mired in argument about global climate change. We all need to look directly at the science and take a less political approach to the earth's climate.
Stanford biologist Stephen Schneider offers some sage advice for good reporting on scientific topics. Responsible political journalism, he writes, requires that the journalist cover both sides of an issue. Journalists might reasonably think that responsible science journalism needs to get both sides as well. But there aren't 'sides' in science; instead there's "a spectrum of potential outcomes, oftentimes accompanied by a considerable history of scientific assessment of the relative credibility of these many possibilities." Attempts to get 'both sides' can result in pitting the large majority of scientists against a few outliers. Scientists who don't see global warming as a problem get attention because the issue is a politically contentious one -- not because they constitute a significant force in climatological research.
The current consensus among scientists is that global warming is a problem we need to address. Scientists don't get any favors from the government for warning us about global warming. And the scientific community isn't averse to new revelations -- reversals of common wisdom can win you a Nobel prize. So I don't buy the argument that mainstream scientists are either too politically motivated or too stick-in-the-mud to listen to the outliers. The outliers just haven't come up with enough convincing data. If they do, I'll be listening. But until then, I'm saving energy where I can, and encouraging others (individuals and nations alike) to do the same.