An analysis of the New York Times' coverage of climate change since 1980 reveals that the paper has poorly presented the basic facts that could persuade skeptics that the problem is real, that it's happening now, that the changes will be permanent, and that humans are responsible for it. "If The New York Times isn't doing it, my guess is that it is just not happening across print journalism," says earth and planetary science professor David Romps, who co-authored the paper with Jean Retzinger, former associate director of Berkeley's Media Studies program. "One of the hopes is that, by at least pointing this out, it might occur to people to take a look at what kind of context is provided in news coverage of climate change." As an example of the poor coverage, the researchers found that only 4 percent of the paper's climate change stories mentioned that there's a scientific consensus on the issue, with 99 percent of scientists in agreement. "The notion that there is a scientific consensus has been referred to as a gateway belief by people who study how the public thinks about climate change," Professor Romps says. "They find that, if you can get people to understand that fact, it kind of pries the door open and makes them open to learning more and potentially changing their minds." This story originated at Berkeley News.