Researchers at the University of Oxford's Environmental Change Institute say that superficial and simplistic tabloid coverage and limited depth in reporting had contributed to a "significant divergence from the scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change", according to the Guardian article.

Overall, the percentage of coverage that was deemed to accurately represent the scientific consensus on climate change ranged from 67-83% during the study period from 2000-2006. Only 1.8% of tabloid coverage was written by specialist correspondents, according to the research team.

Quality press has been generally accurate, according to the Oxford researchers, when it comes to the topic of climate change, but UK tabloids have a far wider readership with greater public influence. (note the readership tables in the study pdf.)

When interviewees were asked to comment on this divergence (between the quality press and tabloids), many pointed to constraints they faced as journalists and editors deriving from various politicaleconomic pressures, such as covering a broad range of news 'beats' with little specialist training and understanding,

"There is a really deliberately contrarian tone to threads, and though this is part of the irony and cynicism - to the extent that this influences the public understanding and perception it is detrimental," said co-author Max Boykoff.

Do you think the "quality press" in the U.S. has accurately represented the scientific consensus? I know many will argue that there is no real scientific consensus.

Do you notice this trend with any of the the U.S. tabloids? I really can't say, since I pretty much avoid them. Anyway, there is more than enough tabloid news now on the television.

By the way, What does Britney Spears think about global warming? Now that's the ultimate question!