This is a great piece from a sober writer at the American Interest.  Walter Russell Mead does an excellent job outlining a raft of reports from British press that contine to find serious mistakes or hyperbolized information regarding Global Warming.  He notes how very little of this is breaking into the mainstream U.S. press.

Hopefully, this will change without becoming "exposed" only on conservative blogs where it would be tempting for the media elite to be dismissive. 

By the way, I should make it clear that while I think there is nothing wrong with attempting to prudently deal with concerns over Global Warming, the radicalism of the "Save the Earth Now" crowd is shocking.  There seems to be no thought given to what happens to the world economy if draconian steps are simply mandated through diktats from unnaccountable bureaucrats.  Indeed, as the below quote makes clear, public confidence would be enhanced more by frank acknowledgments of scientific limitation more than by the lies that seem to keep being exposed.

Check out these sections,

"In my February 1 post on The Death of Global Warming, I said that the movement had been killed by two things: bad science and bad politics.  The Guardian hopes that the parrot isn’t dead yet, but it seems to agree with my basic diagnosis: “It is bad science and bad politics to counter scepticism with righteous indignation. In the long run, public confidence will be inspired more by frankness about what science cannot explain,” write the editors.

The editors pick up another theme that is familiar to readers of this blog:

“In trying to avert dangerous climate change, governments are aiming for something extraordinary. They want to transform the global economy because of a hypothesis for which the evidence is mostly inaccessible to the layman.

It is the biggest pre-emption in history, and it relies on collective trust in science.”