Can you spot the bias? From the New York Times, a March 8 report by John M. Broder, "At House E.P.A. Hearing, Both Sides Claim Science":
In an effort to support the E.P.A.’s regulatory power, committee Democrats rounded up five eminent academic climatologists who defended the scientific consensus that the planet is warming and that human activities like the burning of fossil fuels are largely responsible.
In the italics, yes, of course -- the New York Times states the so-called global warming "consensus" (a spin of the left) as fact and makes certain to inject it in the copy. A more objective line would have been:
In an effort to support the E.P.A.’s regulatory power, committee Democrats rounded up five eminent academic climatologists who testified that the planet is warming and that human activities like the burning of fossil fuels are largely responsible.
EXCEPT that's not the only bias to be found.
Note the way the GOP rebuttal is described in the next paragraph:
The Republicans countered with two scientific witnesses who said...
The Democrats' witnesses are "eminent academic climatologists" while the GOP's witnesses are merely "scientific witnesses." No academic eminence for them, no sir - yet, strangely, the official witness list for the hearing shows that every single witness is a university-affiliated Ph.D. scientist with appropriate credentials.
