The national press is abuzz over two recent articles on evidence of global warming in the journal Science. But despite beautiful pictures, like this one in the New York Times (cropped for your Slog-viewing pleasure), there are weird equivocations in the newspaper regurgitations.

The New York Times reports that the authors of the studies contend “the new findings made a strong case for the danger of failing to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that trap heat in a greenhouselike effect.” But the he said/she said journalistic imperative also leads to the following:

Many experts on climate and the poles, citing evidence from past natural warm periods, agreed with the general notion that a world much warmer than today’s, regardless of the cause of warming, will have higher sea levels.

But significant disagreements remain over whether recent changes in sea level and ice conditions cited in the new studies could be attributed to rising concentrations of the greenhouse gases and temperatures linked by most experts to human activities.

Who are these “many experts” who disagree with the studies’ authors? Dear NYT, Take a clue from Elizabeth Kolbert and teach the facts, not the (fake) controversy.