A comment from a reader of NRI’s Media Malpractice blog, referencing this post:

I am noticing that the MSM’s reporting on greenhouse gas issues is getting more sparing with the balancing statements — i.e., a sentence or two toward the end of the story to acknowledge that adherence to the alarmist consensus is not universal. The likely explanation for such a change is the realization that ten years with no warming is threatening the consensus. More specifically, the pervasive regulatory scheme that is the alarmists’ ultimate goal is less of a sure thing than it seemed to be a year or two ago. When alarmism reigned supreme, a sort of lese majeste on the part of the MSM could admit the existence of dissent. But now that the supremacy of alarmism is in question, the wagons are being circled.

So, how obviously are the media protecting the warming franchise? Is the ritual, late-paragraph “but, not everyone agrees. . . . Joe Blow, an industry-funded . . . ” statement going the way of warming? This easily tracked point may be something to keep an eye out for, Planet Gore readers. The NRI reader suggests “a rough scorecard to chart the number of stories with balancing statements vs. the ones consisting of alarmist statements alone, to see if there is an actual trend.”

Send along helpful thoughts or examples.