No American journalist has shown an understanding of the climate crisis. Instead of familiarizing themselves with the 1.5C IPCC report (there are plenty of scientists who can help them if they have questions), journalists turn the science into a he said-she said debate. Not a one seems to know the report. If they did, they would know that there's no "fix," no way to turn back the clock or to calibrate the damage through long-range plans, and that what is at stake is how much worse things are going to get.
American journalists consider the main story to be changes in businesses such as energy and utilities and other business changes, when every generation goes through vast business changes without even hardly noticing. Journalists treat the costs of the new businesses as being great additional costs, when they in fact are mostly just replacement costs for current expenditures of existing businesses.
The real story, the only one really, is what conditions young people today will have to live in. If we continue to do nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions eminent scientists such as James G Anderson, Kevin Anderson, Joanne Chory, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber tell us that the young within their lifetimes will undergo a near extinction of the human race similar to that of a world-wide nuclear war.
28
And the Times illustrates the point of critics by yet more "he said, she said" writing about the climate emergency. Why quote people spouting falsehoods without pointing out that they are, in fact, falsehoods? It's not clear why it's a priority to tell readers about false claims at all, but if you must, at least label them as such.
20
We need nuance in the sense that we need to distinguish the technological problem from the political one. Every climate article should indicate: 1) this is an urgent, manmade crisis; 2) human ingenuity has developed proven solutions (e.g., see the book: DrawDown); 3) we need our leaders to galvanize the required moonshot effort. We will not be able to make the needed "unprecedented transformation" (directly from the UN report) via individual actions alone, though they are needed. Reporting individual actions as a solution to the crisis feels false and despair-inducing. In addition to writing about solutions, we need journalists to show us the world at the other end of this transformation, that is, the cleaner, healthier, fairer, more abundant 21st Century world that human brilliance promises.
10
Media is having too hard of a time making climate science interesting.
Start at the beginning. The long term carbon cycle of ocean sediment to mountains that melt back to the sea is quite compelling.
Once understood, the shorter term carbon cycles make a unity bordering on poetic beauty. The sediments, the forests, the fossil carbon all play their role as thermostat for the green eden we emerged from, and now depend on for every breath we give and take.
6
Given the direct relation between our energy systems (here and worldwide) and the climate, I think it would be great if the NYTimes and other papers mixed in more coverage on the energy transition. For one thing, there's a lot of positive news happening, in states (even red ones), in cities and globally. Positive news showing change is under way.
Some insisted a decade or so ago that the grid can't handle more than 15% or 20% renewable.
In 2015: "Grid operators in Texas and Colorado have figured out how to successfully integrate renewable penetration levels of up to 50%, showing that growing concerns about reliability issues stemming from increases in variable generation may be overblown, according to a new study."
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/texas-colorado-set-model-for-increased-renewables-integration-under-clean/400855/
More stories, too, about the amazing annual drops in costs for wind, solar, energy storage, like the record-low solar+storage deal L.A. is closing in on.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/los-angeles-solicits-record-solar-storage-deal-at-199713-cents-kwh/558018/
Multiple states get >30% of their electricity from renewables, and the club keeps growing. Please cover that, and about regulatory changes that will help, and states making it happen - places like Kansas, where wind will pass coal quite soon, (because it's cheaper).
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=KS
Basically, remind people the change is possible, is under way, and is good for us.
10
I have written several times to the Climate group at the NYTs to urge them to not do silly puff pieces on the Climate Crisis, but to no avail. After a year I just gave up and stopped reading the Climate pieces altogether.
It amazes me that the most important story of our life time goes without it's own section and front page articles everyday. The NYT's poor reporting has been a source of endless frustration for many people, and I dearly hope that changes.
To assume that the news should be nuanced to "handle" the reader is absurd, and insulting. We need strong and truthful reporting now, without this we cannot get on with vital education. With the truth, scientists will be encouraged to speak more freely, and people will be able to come out and speak, instead of hiding their knowledge from a world in denial.
What the NYTs does is critical now. I praise the Guardian and WaPo for their reporting. So many of us have had to turn to a host of other publications to gather our Climate Crisis news. Get with it NYTs, before the resentment of your poor reporting grows further, as it's pretty close to a breaking point now.
What I would like to see;
A column on the day's published research journals explained in easy language, with the references to read the papers.
And full coverage of all the day's weather anomalies, and this is important, around the World! And discussion of them by a Climate Science writer, so that readers can understand the effects and causes.
26
@Leslie S YES! Thank you! Especially your last paragraph. It is beyond absurd in this day and age to say something like: "“We have good research that in amping up the threat without actually providing people with things they can do, you end up with fatalism, despair, depression, a sense of paralysis....” etc. It is not journalism's job to protect readers from the truth! This crisis is beyond giving individuals some "helpful hints" on recycling. What's needed is honest assessment of what can and cannot be done to bring pressure to bear on corporations and nations to take the necessary steps NOW to protect their citizens and consumers. Explaining reality as experienced globally may even help change the minds of "deniers" -- but isn't providing information that may save the planet a more important goal?
11
There are very few Climate deniers. There are enough people with enough money making huge profits on the status quo to fund an alternate reality.
Good journalism would turn up the heat on those who profit from from the misinformation they are putting in the atmosphere. False information like burning coal is polluting our society. A little more journalistic scrubbing is required.
9
I am a proud denier but again if it was not for climate change the while north eastern of the US would still be under 2 miles of ice
Thank you for this thoughtful piece & stories so far.
In 2016, the NYT, in its advertisement seeking a climate change editor, called climate change "the most important story in the world."
That description is not yet reflected in the NYT.
The most important story in the world requires a foundational shift at all levels in framing & how everyone is deployed and how you use every penny of your budget. Operationally, are you making decisions with climate foremost?
How can you make a livable climate the lens for examining nearly every single subject, by every reporter/every editor/every desk? How can you include climate context? Can the lede spot be climate solutions every day? What is your very highest public service?
Science shows us that cigarettes kill, so we cover that industry accordingly. We know, too, about all fossil fuels. We know that we have 10-11 years to head off what scientists call the perfect storm: water shortages, food scarcity & biodiversity collapse made catastrophic by growing population, migration & ever-worsening weather and temperature extremes.
This is a planetary emergency. Why do we still see in NYT uncritical pieces about the fossil fuel boom in the Permian Basin, about beef, about growing corn for ethanol production & animal feed, about air travel, about gas-powered cars, about the GDP?
Borrow best ideas from the Guardian; partner with the WAPO & every other paper. The natural systems that are prerequisites to all life depend on it.
13
Meanwhile in last weekend's Wall Street Journal we can find this gem from a opinion writer who specializes in climate science denial and misinformation: "I mean every word of the following: Ignore climate-science reporting in major U.S. news organs. The press has given up wrestling with the limits of knowledge or accurately relaying the caveats tied to highly abstract computer models"
As if computer models are all there is to report on in the relevant domains of earth, climate, physical and biological sciences. In fact, if you have access to the digital Wall Street Journal just look at the comments on any given article about climate. Comments on any article about climate from the WSJ in any context result in a deluge of some of the most insane denial and anti-scientific idiocy on the entire web. And that is saying something. How do these morons, fools, and paid liars explain what is going on right now in the Arctic - in Alaska? This is all normal since climate has always changed and humans have nothing to do with it? It's a big conspiracy of fake news? A liberal hoax to control everyone? You will see all this and much more in the WSJ on a daily basis. And they will keep repeating whatever nonsense they believe regardless of any facts presented or overwhelming debunking.
Moreover they enable any number of writers to spew out misinformation, lies and propaganda. That is one thing I find completely vile to the point of criminality.
11
@jgury - I just looked at that and yeah, typical Murdoch droning, and yes, their comments section reads like a denier blog.
In the piece you mention, the typical. Blame "the mainstream media". Ignore the nuance other reporting provided - oh, and sloppiness like linking to the 2014 National Climate Assessment while calling it the 2018 one.
Just like Murdoch's Fox, you can expect the opinion side of WSJ to promote pretty much ANY theory that delays accepting reality. But the news side of the organizations carry on talking about what's really happening.
WSJ on June 19 in their Science section: "A new study—based partly on declassified spy-satellite data—found that glaciers in the Himalayas were losing volume at much faster rates in recent years, adding more evidence suggesting that a changing climate is affecting an important water source.
The rate at which Himalayan glaciers lost volume more than doubled between 2000 and 2016, compared with the rate between 1975 and 2000, according to the study, which was published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances.
The study attributes the glacial retreat to higher temperatures, which were approximately one degree Celsius warmer for the 2000-to-2016 time frame.
Its findings echo results from other research indicating that climate change is forcing the retreat of glaciers around the world, which researchers say threatens to raise sea levels, trigger flooding and, over the long-term, shrink water supplies."
Straight reporting.
3
When an article in the NYT about the share of emissions in the USA between the different sources of CO2 ?
@JPH - here's a very broad-brush picture of the CO2 emission sources from our EPA
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/#iallsectors/carbondioxide/inventsect/all
More detail here:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
The reports are prepared annually as part of our obligations to the UN climate treaty George H.W. Bush signed into law (after the Senate ratified it with broad support in both parties) back in 1992.
"EPA has prepared the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks since the early 1990s. This annual report provides a comprehensive accounting of total greenhouse gas emissions for all man-made sources in the United States. The gases covered by the Inventory include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride. The Inventory also calculates carbon dioxide emissions that are removed from the atmosphere by “sinks,” e.g., through the uptake of carbon and storage in forests, vegetation, and soils.
The national greenhouse gas inventory is submitted to the United Nations in accordance with the Framework Convention on Climate Change"
3
I have one question for all the alarmists out here. If you strongly believe in climate science -- what are your feelings about Charles Murray. Have you read the bell curve? Do you believe the data on IQ? why or why not?
1
@Ralphie
The subject here is climate for which there is an over abundance of evidence in support across many scientific disciplines.
10
@Erik Frederiksen There is strong evidence that supports the high heritability of IQ, the existence of stable group differences, yet everyone seems to deny that science. Seems to me many people accept science they like, but reject other science.
The support for climate science is weak. Study the temp record in detail. It's available at Berkeley earth.
@Ralphie
Here’s a graph of the last 20,000 years of global temperature, does the red bit on the right look natural to you?
Btw, not a single professional scientific association on the planet agrees with climate contrarians like you.
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png
11
One problem with climate coverage is newspapers' reliance on ad hoc, episodic coverage ("what is the latest story?" rather than "what are the current climate stories and trends and what do they add up to?"), as Erik alludes to There is no overarching presentation format and hence no push to connect the dots. The NY Times, for example, should put all its climate leads and headlines for the day together on one page (say, on p. 2 or 3, now given over to reruns, thin features and high-end advertising, or even on p. 1. as The Times would cover a war). This would promote some interdisciplinary perspective on interrelations and cumulative seriousness. It also wouldn't hurt to publish, every day, the current numbers. on, to name a few, GHG emissions, oil and coal production and consumption, and deforestation (all rising globally and in most countries), to disabuse the public of any idea that we are making some progress.
10
Even if it isn't our fault- the science says it is, but even if it ISN'T humanity's fault-
It's still our responsibility.
If we don't deal with this, the rate of extinctions will go up. We're beginning to see some effects now, of species becoming endangered because of climate change. Pollinators are dying in numbers that ought to be alarming, and if the ocean temperatures rise by even a small margin- there's a problem that almost nobody wants to talk about, that being methane. Methane's greenhouse effect is worse than CO2's by far, and if sea ice and the arctic start releasing it-
That's game over for a massive number of species. Maybe humanity, too. It may not be an emergency in the sense that if we do something NOW then changes will happen NOW- but it is an emergency in the sense that if we don't do something SOON, we won't be able to do anything.
12
@LSFoster Thank you, an excellent point.
How about publishing an article a day on the front page by a climate scientist?
Here's David Griggs, former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific assessment unit:
“I think we are heading to a future with considerably greater warming than 2 degrees centigrade, and when the world doesn’t do something about it it brings a whole range of emotions into play, depression is clearly something.
You get days you are down, because what you know, and what you can see coming, is not good."
https://youtu.be/jIy0t5P0CUQ?t=213
10
It is complicated. Separating the various sciences, as taught and learned in school, often doesn't work in practice. The best applied science comes from interdisciplinary teams. In the real world of climate science including economics, the social sciences, media, technology, history, agriculture, the list is almost endless and begs to be "simplified." Somehow, we must learn to understand the complexity without begging off that it's just too much, too hard, too late.
4
how about instead of alarmism and "we are climate change soldiers" or whatever silliness these journalists think they are doing, how about objectivity? How about some honest critiques of climate science (there are plenty to be made) -- how about honest reporting about whether a weather event can be attributed to a changing climate or not. How about honest treatment of all the various factors that interplay to create climate rather than a simple equation -- more fossil fuel burning = we're all gonna die --
And be honest and call skeptics skeptics. Too much of this reporting is evangelical in nature.
Honesty and evenhandedness, (not crusading) is the best way to present a story. On any topic.
6
@Ralphie
Skepticism is not believing what someone tells you, investigating all the information before coming to a conclusion. Skepticism is a good thing.
Global warming skepticism is not that. It’s the complete opposite of that. It’s coming to a preconceived conclusion and cherry-picking the information that backs up your opinion.
Global warming skepticism isn’t skepticism at all.
41
@Ralphie - The problem isn't skepticism, which assumes that the skeptic is educated about the science, but actual denial of the facts. The greenhouse effect is demonstrably real, the globe is warming primarily because we've been resurrecting the carbon from a prehistoric atmosphere, and, sadly, the whole issue has been turned into a partisan squabble. The science itself is pretty robust, so the real question is are we going to do something as a species to arrest the process, or are we going to let our grandchildren and the rest of the planet deal with the consequences?
32
@Erik Frederiksen Exactly -- and I've researched the temp record thoroughly -- much more thoroughly I imagine than anyone commenting here -- or I do say -- the writer.
Simply put, the global temp record is a farce. The climate scientists claim we have a valid global temp record going back to 1880 but that simply isn't true. In 1880, 1900, 1950, most large land masses (ex the US) had but a handful of temp stations, mostly on the coasts. There were no temp stations below the Antarctic Circle or above the Arctic. Further, there was no common protocols used -- the purpose of most of these stations was to support local ag.
Then, the raw temp data has been adjusted-- almost almost to show a steeper warming trend than the raw data. In short, the vaunted global record is built on nothing more than extrapolations and adjustments.
Beyond that -- temp stations with more than 1000 months of reporting often don't show much warming. Some show actual cooling -- until of course the adjustments are thrown in.
No one doubts the role of green house gasses or that CO2 is a GH gas. But climate doesn't depend on a single variable.
As far as other events that are supposedly related to GW, we haven't actually seen an increase in Atlantic hurricanes, tornadoes, or extreme flooding. Our experience with the polar regions is limited.
2
Le Monde French newspaper published today an article about a study on CO2 emissions for France.
Car, Industry, meat, energy, etc...
For those who can read French .
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2019/07/08/voiture-industrie-viande-quelles-sont-les-causes-du-rechauffement-climatique-en-france_5486767_4355770.html#
2
Yes, cover it. This is the defining story of our times. Start digging.
6
I don't think "Climate Emergency" is a useful way to insist journalists deal with this problem. Not because we don't have an awful lot of work, but because "Emergency" doesn't fit, and implies quick fix.
A similar situation where we dodged a bullet was the CFC-caused ozone hole. Urgent? Yes. But then a grind of international cooperation, now decades later we're seeing signs of recovery. Not a quick fix.
Human's get adrenaline during an emergency, but adrenaline can't be sustained, and decarbonizing our global systems will take decades, and impacts will still be building when we've finished the job. It's a slow-rolling disaster.
So I don't think calling it "emergency!" will make the solution happen sooner, nor do I think it will change the minds of people who think an ignorant denier - Watters the Fox Entertainer - is a source of good information.
But his quote did provide a good insight into the problem, as well as how stupid his type of denial is. Y2K was not an "emergency" on the night of December 31, 1999, precisely because of long-term, careful, sustained effort by software companies and their customers in the years leading up to that night.
Was there sensationalist coverage of Y2K at the time? Yes, that's the nature of the news/entertainment industry. But there was a looming, inescapable issue that needed sustained effort to prevent widespread damage. The work got done in time, in a long, boring, sustained effort. And some still deny it was a problem at all.
2
Would be helpful to the American public if the media would express the rise in temperatures in Farenheit rather than Celsius. Many American readers no doubt misunderstand how much change we're talking about.
3
The Columbia Journalism Review is correct: “The media are complacent while the world burns.” Sadly, this very much includes the New York Times. I have been following its coverage since the mid-2000s -- and it has been shameful. We remember that the environment desk was disbanded a few years ago. We remember Andrew Revkin sitting on the fence for clicks. We remember excellent environmental journalists being kept off the permanent staff. You cannot nuance your way our of this one, NYT: you have been part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Can you turn that around? I do hope so.
7
Great story but, I believe the Canadian Magazine is Macleans. Not Mcleans.
Unfortunately, there's a vocal subset of Americans that think it's cool or somehow intellectually stronger to go against anything put out by an "expert." Because experts haven't been 100% right in the past, everything they say is suspect now, and to believe their claims makes you a fool.
There's almost nothing you can do to alter such a mindset once it's been established. Our only option is simply to marginalize them so the rest of us can get on with solving the problem.
3
The fact that 28 of 50 American media outlets did not mention the UN's climate report is appalling. I wonder if foreign media are doing a better or worse job in covering this existential threat.
2
i don't know seems like the press has decided as always to defer to capital and be cowards about it
2
How to play the story about global warming? Dah! How about reporting the truth? Global warming is here. Only an idiot would say it isn't.
Dump the spin.
4
This article feels as if the Times is still struggling to find its voice as it rather dryly includes the opinions of non-scientist climate deniers who speak in political terms with no scientific knowledge to back up their opinions. That this article prominently features false equivalencies is a prime example of why the Times has failed to cover climate properly. When The glaciers that feed the rivers that water the fields that feed billions of people are rapidly in decline, when the population of wildlife has decreased by 60% between 1970 and 2014 and decreased by over 90% in some tropical areas, when 8,000 square miles of the Gulf of Mexico is made hypoxic from fertilizer runoff into the Mississippi River exacerbated by record floods in the Midwest that prevented agricultural plantings this year, when we learn that permafrost is melting 60 ft down and whole landscapes are collapsing, when we already know from WHO statistics that over 7 million people die prematurely each year from air pollution, when we are known to be in the sixth extinction, when climate emergencies are growing at an exponential as opposed to linear rate—when all that is already known about climate collapse is arbitrarily put into a hopper and cherry picked in an article and then blithely compares climate change to a bad prediction Hillary Clinton would win the presidency—is grossly irresponsible journalism no matter how you cut it. False equivalencies have no place here.
4
"Mr. Watters’s view lines up with the roughly one-third of Americans who believe that climate change is mostly due to natural trends..."
These are evangelical dingbats in the mold of Mike Pompeo. They simply cannot see outside of their biblical worldview.
3
Is this just industry consolidation or simply a lack of independant reporting ? It already seems like the media outlets simply reguritate news stories after putting fresh headlines on.
1
Of course it's climate emergency, and we were warned long time ago. We have to do something.
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
UNITED NATIONS (AP), June 29, 1989
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
1
Its a real stretch to call The Guardian “left wing”, and its not accurate. “Center-left”, or “marginally left of center” would be more appropriate.
Furthermore, they are one of the very best and serious news sources around. Yet unlike the New York Times- no paywall!! Imagine that.
5
What can we do? Free vasectomies for all who want them would be a good start. Overpopulation is the root of most of our troubles. Whats that? You can afford one? Make the appointment today then and save the planet.
1
As an analogy to climate science coverage, news media have, for decades, covered business and the economy in detail, not only reporting what happened, but probing why economic changes occurred. Climate science needs a similar depth of coverage, although with an understanding that we are dealing with longer term trends. Where the Times et al publish reporting and speculation on the effects of economic indicators, they also need front page coverage of climate indicators and potential impacts.
4
Reporting about the climate crisis is important and should be front page news constantly as it may help getting people to vote for an administration that at least believes in the crisis and is willing to address it rather than to continue to support profits and social welfare for corporations over yet another issue that benefits the majority of the US population / world. Without political change we have no chance of recovery. Although Inslee is not my first choice he is correct in priorities and if addressed smartly we can use combatting climate change to move forward all agendas.
7
I do not see how any of the approaches described here will help. Climate change denial in the US has become too political to expect anyone to change their views based on greater information or even inflammatory rhetoric. My conversations with committed climate denial relatives always comes back to their distrust of any information published in sources that the right wing considers biased and which certainly includes the NYT and Guardian. In my somewhat apocalyptic view the only thing that will help is snatching political control from the "biased news" skeptics of our right wing and keeping them out of any political decision making. I feel that informing them is not an option.
7
Why is a field of soybeans less carbon absorptive than trees on the same acreage? Just curious?
1
@northlander
Because soybeans are an annual crop which is turned into carbon-releasing products. Trees can 'sequester' carbon for much longer, depending on their lifespan.
If burned or allowed to decompose, they will release carbon then. But if turned into building materials intended to last a long time (think of the centuries-old timber framed homes in Scandinavia, for example) or other products with their own significant lifespan, that carbon stays sequestered for much longer than that
of an annual crop. Hemp is one annual crop with a lot of carbon sequestration potential, as it can be turned into many useful and lasting products.
5
@northlander
Body mass. A tree can process much more carbon than a small crop plant.
1
@northlander
Soybeans are harvested, year after year, and their product goes to free carbon in the end. A stand of trees, when not burned as fuel, locks the carbon into trunks that endure.
2
It's refreshing to see the issue being taken seriously by the press, but it is notoriously difficult, at least in a democracy, to ask people to make sacrifices in the present for some future gain. Suppose someone were to tell you that gasoline prices would have to triple (to the level of Europe) and that you'd have to give up air conditioning. And meat. Would you vote for her?
4
It is very obvious what people in the US can do. They can elect a Democratic president who claims that they will make fighting climate change a high priority. That is probably the only thing that can be done which could actually make a dramatic difference. We need a president who can bring the country together as much as possible to fight climate change and also get countries around the world to do more. It's a big job. Taking a look at the climate plan on Jay Inslee's website provides an idea of how big a job it it. For those who do not want to vote for a Democrat the alternative is to vote for Bill Weld in the Republican primary. The most important decision is really in the hands of the American voters. They blew it big time in 2016 and we can't get back the lost years but in 2020 they will have one more chance as the window of opportunity is almost completely closed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
10
Climate Change is a looming future disaster. People are fixated on current disasters. Authoritarian regimes – China, Russia, etc. are concerned with gaining power and wealth, America is set on maintaining its superpower status. The public accommodates poverty, health care extortion, mass shootings, mass immigration, airline tragedies, mass bombings, poison attacks, and accumulating natural disasters. Ideally we need a united nations that can bring about sustainable peace and development. Authoritarian regime must be transitioned, so that the public can legislate safe automobiles, safe power plants, and alternative fuels.
2
Great, cover it, share the info, spread the word, support the science, try to make a difference. I did read and loved Wallace-Wells's book, thank you! Read CHOKING too
But it is too late, the tipping point is well past (but don't tell folks that).
Citizens cannot effect the changes that must be done. Plastic straws and plastic bags...silly and futile. Businesses big and small cannot accomplish it, and won't. Governments won't do what is needed, certainly most of them won't.
If "they" CAN manage the climate emergency, let's also ask them to manage the plastic, coal waste, mines, smoke, chemical and other pollution; and overfishing, deforestation, permafrost, floods and droughts, garbage and the ineffective recycling, fires, oil spills and leaks, pipelines...any of which should be easier than the climate.
Acceptance of the truth is going to be very difficult. It is done. we will lose. It's almost time for palliative care (make it hurt less).
Certainly I hope I am not correct.
10
@ProfTom
You are very definitely most likely correct :
arctic-news.blogspot.com
The top post is seriously alarmist, scroll down to the one below it for some very recent climate data. (Since then, Alaska has had a state-wide heat wave and the temperatures in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas --
the wild card in the equation -- are way above normal).
@irene
Yes, the arctic-news stuff is scary.
However all the articles were from the same "Guy". (Guy McPherson)
I did a double-take when Guy claimed methane's green house effect was 1000 times higher than CO2. I have seen many references to a value of between 30 and 39--and this is 19th century science.
Guy also predicts a massive release of methane in an "overturn". There is no evidence cited to back this up. As a non-scientist with engineering and scientific training, I have learned that most things are modeled by a linear or exponetial curve. An exponetial curve can rise quickly--but not from a flat linear curve.
See https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/
For a masively detailed, factual and evidence based discussion.
@Mark Johnson
The top article at the moment is by Guy McPherson, but there are a great many contributors to that website and a lot of
data is presented. Most important is the
research being done in the East Siberian
Sea, much of it here in Fairbanks. (Except
our governor is hellbent on gutting the
University and we may lose our top climate
researchers. I secretly suspect that Governor Dunleavy is being groomed to follow The Donald in 2024).
1
I believe no matter what the scientists and the journalists say, until it hits home with continued economic impact we will stay in denial (as is so with plastics). I see now that like an addict, the world, especially the U.S. will have a hard bottom. We are addicted to our consumerism and don't even know it. Reduce is correct -- everything.
We have grand children and they have, through divorce, three sets of grand parents. We are the only set of grand parents that do not ply them with plastic toys, dolls, gadgetry. The other grand parents can not seem to give them enough 'stuff' (usually made out of plastic).
The climate emergency or change is endemic. It will be a hard, hard bottom.
6
No matter their varying cosmic or terrestrial origin causes all five of the Earth's past mass extinctions manifested themselves in evolutionary fit natural climate change selection conditions.
The veterbrate winners of the last major extinction were the birds and the bony fish. While the invertebrate victors were the social insects particularly the ants and termites. Longevity favored cephalopods, scorpions sharks.
Are humans as climate changing ' smart' as any of them?
1
Some questions I have:
1. What are the most likely changes if we continue to elect Republicans? (i.e. Continue to burn as much fossil carbon as possible)
2. If we do "all that we can" to limit greenhouse gas emissions, how long will the temperatures keep rising, and how high?
3. Carbon capture and sequestation is now part of our assumed response to meet the 1.5 degree C limit. How much effort on the needed technologies is funded by the US government?
4. Many of the assylum seekers on the border are said to be fleeing from areas no longer able to support agriculture. How many? Based on current climate projections, how many more should we expect based on our efforts to curb greenhouse gases? How many US citizens will join them?
5. How much of US farmland is at risk from flooding? from heat?, from draught?. How will this change?
6. What parts of the US will be lost to year-round human habitation, without 24 hour air conditioning protection?, by flooding?
So many questions.
9
"Climate Science Denier" is a misnomer. The science used to document climate change is not unique to the study of climate. If you're denying climate science, you're denying science, pure and simple.
25
Yes, to echo others, thank you for this article. This is why we pay for a subscription to this benchmark paper: Meta analysis of media and information trends and the way public perception is shaped. Multi-dimensional intellectualism is so crucial for the future.
7
New York Times, thank you for publishing this article . The issue of media coverage in an unprecedented crisis such as this is vitally important to all of us. The leadership you are taking here will, I hope, have an impact on other media and, I also hope, result in the global crisis on your front page more often.
13
One thought would be to cover climate change the same way that markets and the economy are covered. Report on data and studies, forecasts of potential future impacts, current impacts, and any political and societal reactions to the ebb and flow of climate change related phenomena around the world. Let Bulls and Bears have their say and don't worry if large number of people either don't care or choose to remain uninterested. Just cover the story in a methodical fashion and the people who are prone to engagement will engage.
2
@Rick Love good points, but you see, pushing this narrative, which is close to a religion, is what all this coverage is about. Hence, the emotionally charged verbiage (deniers vs skeptics; climate crisis vs change (maybe, maybe not)).
@Ralphie - (maybe, maybe not) is denying what's been measured by thermometers, sea-level measurements, observations of ice mass and extent, gravity shifts being just a few of the observational systems that show things are warming and changing. It's denying what the basic physics and chemistry tell us happens when greenhouse concentrations change. It's denying what archeology and geology tell us happened in the past when greenhouse gas concentrations changed.
Before you huff about data again, in the totally unsubstantiated way you do, note again that plants and insects are moving towards the pole and moving uphill on mountains, because they are surviving due to warming environments, not because they've somehow been hoodwinked by looking at data sets you incessantly grumble things about.
Skeptics? They look seriously at something and then change their mind if evidence warrants that. Robert Muller started Berkeley Earth because he was skeptical about measurements - until the evidence convinced him and he (read this phrase) changed his mind.
You are not that kind of skeptic.
8
@b fagan Fagan, I invite you once again to visit Berkeley earth where they have an archive of all the temp data stations. Look at the count and placement of stations on various land masses. Then look at the raw v adjusted temps.
Perhaps Muller changed his mind, or so he says (maybe his was a false flag operation), but the data his site shows raises more questions than answers. He adjusts all the raw data -- up.
You simply uncritically accept the "data" (extrapolated, adjusted and not gathered in a systematic fashion from sites that were not randomly selected) as if it is gospel.
Just have an open mind.
The media has fallen down on the job of educating the public about humanity’s greatest challenge.
Even among many who view global warming as a threat there’s a lack of understanding about how much of a threat it poses.
Within a few decades of continued warming we’re looking at droughts worse than the Dust Bowl severely impacting the bread baskets of the world causing massive famines and economic decline.
Weakened by that we’d shortly be faced with retreating from the coastal areas where most of our large cities are located as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet falls apart.
Observations show the planet is responding faster than expected to our atmospheric experiment.
20
The science is irrefutable - if you accept science. The climate deniers are sowing doubt to defend the consumer's way of life, based on cheap electricity, natural gas, and gasoline.
The economics are undeniable - if it's coming out of your wallet. Until we consumers are ready to renounce our SUVs, big houses, jet travel, internet, home-delivery of toothpaste, etc., etc., the deniers will have the upper hand.
15
Your article of today about planting billions of tree does not mention that in many countries trees are useful mainly as sources of firewood for cooking. Some may be cut down long before they get into absorbing large amounts of CO2.
1
Crop management has been going on for 10,000 years. But we have to act now. Plant 2,000,000,000. The other 1,000,000,000 for harvest and use.
1
OK, but what about the Amazon? Sometimes I think we should be bullying Brazil instead of Iran.
Where bullying means our beloved sanctions.
1
A lot of the problem is confusion about what will actually work. The USA now accounts for about half the emissions of China, and their emissions are growing as ours shrink. Conservation and restraint here are more than matched by expansion elsewhere by peoples whose aspirations for a prosperous life will not be denied. The destruction of forests is part of this. Journalism needs to take all this into account and maybe aid in the search for realistic solutions in geoengineering.
2
@Bruce Williams
The US produces around twice the CO2 per capita as China, despite having ceded much of its manufacturing to China.
10
@Erik Frederiksen
US consumers account for about 2 barrels of oil (hydrocarbons) per year to enable a quality of life that the world relishes. China still sits below 1 barrel but they are rapidly moving their 10x population out of poverty and toward the 2 barrel quality of life standard. That transition is going to happen.
2
Matthew C. Nisbet, a communications professor at Northeastern University and the editor of the journal Environmental Communication, has argued for more nuance. “We have good research that in amping up the threat without actually providing people with things they can do, you end up with fatalism, despair, depression, a sense of paralysis, or a sense of dismissiveness and denial,” he said.
But there are things we can do - conserve resources, switch to alternate energies, re-establish forests, etc...
Haha.. no wait, we live in a country run by the GOP.
We can do one thing. We can vote the Republicans out. Starting with Trump and working down the line to city dogcatcher. Then we can fix the planet.
21
Yes, the media is getting better at reporting but the media is also full of deniers and charlatans.
The difference between diet science and Climate science is in your eyes.
You can see that diets don't work. You can see that the climate emergency is here and happening everyday!
In both cases a more educated public is needed. Else the evil do'ers like Betsy Devos will hold sway by holding down the great masses of the public.
11
I don't know what is more alarming. The ignorance of the GOP and its President in denying the science of global warming and its consequences, or the loss of Mad magazine. "What me worry?" When reality becomes irrational, it is difficult to laugh at the outcome.
7
We DO need more reporting on Climate Change from media
explaining the principles and mechanisms how Green House gas can disrupt global climate both in the short and long term
other than scientific explanation
the extent of damage and human sufferings will be the pivot to help Americans to take necessary actions
13
I think there is a great deal to be learned from this line:
"The Guardian, the left-wing British daily, recently updated its house style to prefer the phrase “climate emergency” over “climate change.” It also recommends “climate science denier” in place of “climate skeptic.” The publication has also started listing the global carbon dioxide level on its daily weather page."
The lesson here is about the legitimate news media - in which I've long worked - and how it frames the truth. It is NOT taking sides to say these things; it is merely citing facts.
And, in spades, the very same lesson needs to be applied to the massive demonization and disinformation machine, embodied by Fox "News" but including quite a few others, that daily is directly attacking our democracy by polluting discourse with lies, distortions and inflammatory rhetoric meant to fog rational debate.
The timidity of major news outlets in directly confronting these lies has been one of the great frustrations of my late career - as well as an awful abdication of journalists' core role to present the truth and expose those who abuse it.
We need to apply the Guardian's standard of how it now reports on climate to all of our standards of how we report on the daily gusher of lies and disinformation that has so many of our citizens siloed in a place George Orwell would well recognize.
66
@Steve Tripoli
The Guardian has an excellent website. I go to it 2nd every morning, right after the NY Times. The Guardian's recent series of articles on plastics was something everyone should read - especially trump and his supporters
8
Reporters cover glaciers and the heat wave in Paree
instead of murder or the crooks in Washington DC.
With thermometers and graphics they are trying for a scoop
to be the first to show that Iceland's turning into soup.
Never mind the president or war with dull Iran;
journalists are writing bout the driftwood in Spokane.
The permafrost's releasing greenhouse gases, so the Times
is sending ten reporters out to chronicle these crimes.
After crying 'wolf' so long, the fourth estate at last
has convinced its readers that we all are being gassed.
Papers have tapped into all our guilt and dim unease,
as circulation climbs and they begin to pulp more trees.
2
Trees! Plant them, protect existing ones.
A green planet is the best defense against out of control climate change.
13
@RjW Absolutely. Two Trillion trees, over 10 years will solve the problem in the short term....until we go carbon free.
At 500Billion a year ( about equal to current annual cost of clomate change) it is a doable and cost effective path. In fact it is the only solution to save the planet from dire consequences for everyone !!!!
Turning Nebraska into a food forest will save the Nebraska farmers, improve the environment (soil, water, air) and reduce pesticide and fertilizer runoff that is killing the Gulf of Mexico.
10
@Louis J
But, as any Californian homeowner should know, don't plant your trees too close to your home (some areas reccomend a 100 foot minimum "defensible perimeter").
High heat and drought, both intensified by our changing climate, dramatically increase the risk of urban and suburban forest fires.
3
This article is disconcerting in the way that it coolly analyzes usage of words and phrases describing the terrifying crisis of climate change, aka global warming, aka climate emergency. It is as if a group of fireman are standing outside a large multifamily building filled with children, adults and their families and pets, discussing 'should we call it a fire?' 'no, let's call it an inferno' 'no that's too strong, how about raging fire' 'well let's just call it a campfire, it won't be so scary and the fire will go out by itself'...all while people, animals, property are all quickly destroyed in a horrific way.
My God I don't know which is scarier, that our world is in such horrific trouble or the reactions of those who could make a difference standing around quibbling about what to call it or whether it's even happening!
70
Ellen S
It’s the job of a journalist (and a politician) to use language that has the most desired result — awareness in readers and support from constituents. Decades of well documented science fact has been in unpersuasive (I know... I can’t believe it either, but it’s true). Telling the climate story is the most urgent duty of today’s media — not to mention political leaders — but they need to do it effectively. And that means choosing their words with regard for the context of those in the audience.
6
@Thomas E Beach - so the job of a journalist is storytelling. I guess that would be different from a reporter, whose job it is to accurately report the facts. 'To get the desired effect' is more like a marketing copy editor's job.
2
The corporate media will cover climate change as an emergency only when it starts to affect its' profit margin. It will be a challenge to maintain subscription levels during a massive die off.
7
The reporting on the Cllmate Emergency reminds me of how the New York Times reported on the Holocaust as it was happening--the information was there, but buried in the middle of the paper, giving readers the subtle impression that the situation was not as dire as would be implied by the actual content of the articles. If human inhabitation of the Earth is under severe threat, as it increasingly appears that it it, that should be on page 1, under a 6 column headline.
88
@Code1 YES! If a global climate crisis is NOT front page news, then you have to ask what is? In 1944 the war was on the front page of the Times every single day. Doesn't the possible demise of our biosphere warrant similar coverage?
6
@Code1
That’s a distinct problem with journalism being a business.
We are about making money and not solving problems.
5
The author neglected to mention the climate change desk of The Boston Globe.
6
While the New York Times has published some excellent articles on climate change, the fact that they're generally buried in the back of the paper (Climate as a sub-tab on the Science tab??) is dismaying. We're watching the world as we've known it disappear before our eyes. If that's not front page news Every Day, what is?
65
I had a friend who sought hospice care for her dying child. She was rejected because the child wasn't sick enough. When the organization did a follow up call two months later to inquire after the child's status, on the off chance that she now qualified for this specialized care, my friend informed them her daughter was dead. "Is that sick enough?"
So, national and local news outlets have decided to cover the story of our life time. Good for them. The end of times is a really, really good story.
53
Thank you New York Times for publishing this excellent analysis. The most important points made: the urgency of the climate crisis must be front-and-center for all news organizations AND credible guidance about what we can do must be part of the story. People become overwhelmed and dismissive about the climate because it is overwhelming -- terrifying, complex, demoralizing as well -- and they will tune it out until the flood waters fill their living rooms.
The climate challenge is a solvable problem requiring a national call-to-action and a VISION of how wonderful our communities can be: walkable, filled with green space, served by efficient energy systems and designed for resiliency in the face of extreme weather events. This can be an exciting time of investment, ingenuity and discovery. That story needs to be told, and the media need to get on with it.
13
The broadcast media especially should be made to feel the heat. Time and again they will cover some mega tornado, monster hurricane or epic blizzard as though it were simply a weather report, not say a word about climate destabilization and end with "back to you in the studio." Local news typically reports weather and almost never says anything about climate. These institutions could be key in making the public more aware yet seem stuck in a simple here-now mode and avoid connecting the past with the present and future. Climate destabilization appears to move like the hour hand on an analogue clock but how we move to respond should be like the second hand. Time is of the essence and our responses have been far too slow. We better get moving. We have to go way beyond mere adaptation and mitigation.
33
So - the NYT evaluates the devastating extinction of species, the agonizing deaths from hunger of seals and polar bears, the worldwide loss of insects, as a rhetorical and political issue? This seems like a soulless disconnection from the planet that nurtures and enfolds us. We are stewards of this planet, not merely commentators.
Mr Watters's equation of the awareness of a climate emergency with the loss at the polls of Hilary Clinton, is a breathtakingly idiosyncratic fantasy of his own that should not reach the pages of a credible newspaper.
54
@Elizabeth P Do not forget the orcas of the Pacific Northwest. Their food supplies dwindling in the ocean, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee refuses to breech the dams that would release fish to the orcas. Why doesn't he do this?
10
@Elizabeth P
Do not forget the children in cages at our border. Many of them have been forced to flee farms that will no longer provide enough food to avoid starvation. Among the species already suffering loss and hunger and forced migration is Homo sapiens.
Climate refugees are already a "thing". Their numbers will increase. On our current fossil fuel burn rate, we will add domestic climate refugees fairly soon.
12
Im glad FL finally woke up. Please include solutions in teaching people. There are so many solutions to our climate crisis.
Permiculture has many of those solutions to farming different and cleaning up polluted land. China is way ahead of us in understanding what needs to be done.
29
@Therese Stellato
Exactly.
While our environmental tragedies can be "denied" by those with a motive to do so, and few welcome mega-doses of bad news, it's critical to remind people of positive steps they can take, all of which are indisputable goods. The list is known as the four R's:
Reduce
Reuse
Recycle
don't vote Republican
28