The Public's Not Really That Split How's this for a misleading headline?

Today the Times runs a story about a poll on global warming.

Americans in large bipartisan numbers say the heating of the earth’s atmosphere is having serious effects on the environment now or will soon and think that it is necessary to take immediate steps to reduce its effects, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds.

Ninety percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate. Nineteen percent said it was not necessary to act now, and 1 percent said no steps were needed.

Ninety percent of Dems, 80% of independents, and—and this surprises me somewhat—60% of Republicans think immediate action is required.

If you polled the question, Is the sky blue?, you might not get such a level of consensus.

So what is the Times' headline?

Public Remains Split on Response to Warming

This is absurd. If you read the entire story, what you see is evidence of a landmark shift: the ascension of environmentalism to the forefront of the public consciousness.

I've been writing about the environment for years, and in my experience, politicians—even well-meaning ones—have all had the same mantra: "We want to do good things for the environment, but the public just doesn't care; when you ask people what issues are important to them at election time, the environment is always way down the list."

And for many years that was true.

This poll is evidence that, at last, there is a broad public consensus that the nation must act as a steward of the world's environment. Of course, people will always be split on how best to act. That's as it should be.

But this near-unanimity on the need to act? That's the story—and that's what the Times' headline should reflect.  ¶ 7:52 AM