I was reading this AP article today about the Supreme Court hearing the Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency case. Something stuck out, and I realized something that has been irritating me about mainstream media coverage of global warming (and all issues involving science). The author of the piece is confusing "scientists" with "science". "Many scientists believe..." is used to indicate the opinion is somehow part of the scientific consensus.
There is a very important distinction between what a "scientist" may believe and what constitutes the "scientific consensus". Because a scientists believes something to be true, it is not necessarily part of the scientific consensus, unless there has been science done to make it so. For example, just because my brother (a scientist) makes a claim (e.g. "I'm the King of the World"), does not make it part of the scientific consensus. Saying that "scientists agree" on something is equivalent to saying that "some people agree". Both are logical fallacies of appeal to majority, and the first is a fallacy of appeal to authority.
Given that the article generally agrees with my belief that global warming is a serious problem that should be addressed presently, why am I concerned about such a pedantic issue? I believe that this kind of language perpetuates what I see as an epidemic misunderstanding of the practice and value of science. That widespread misunderstanding is used to coerce the public into believing there is doubt where there is none, rejecting good science because of the words used to describe it, and accepting bad science just because someone who has a Ph.D. happens to have a positive opinion of it.
Science is not a rank by which arbitrary opinions become valid, it's a rigorous activity which allows us to come to objective consensus.