Climate tweets for 11 July 2014

Lobsters ignore climate change denial, move inexorably north:
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060002588
[food, fishing]

Miami, the great world city, drowning while powers that be look away: @guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/miami-drowning-climate-change-deniers-sea-levels-rising
[sea level, Florida, flooding]

RT Wen Stephenson @wenstephenson:
Wow - just saw this. Whew! @billmckibben goes after @nytimes for its hit job on Tom Steyer...
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5574066?utm_hp_ref=tw
[Bill McKibben, New York Times, journalism]

RT Moms Clean Air Force @CleanAirMoms:
"My money is on the moms." -@SenWhitehouse
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-mothers-climate-change-senate-nu-20140709-story.html … #PlayIn4Climate #ActOnClimate 
http://pic.twitter.com/tmfKLpenDp
[Sheldon Whitehouse]

Anxiety mounts as unusual weather floods North America's farm belt:
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060002617
[food, farming, agriculture, flooding]

Exclusive: Coastal flooding has surged in U.S., @Reuters finds
http://reut.rs/W0V14P 
[sea level]

Parents Blast Climate Denial In Schools: ‘You Have To Teach Real Science’:
http://thkpr.gs/1q2hw6p
[education]

Group Representing 1/2 Billion Christians Will No Longer Support Fossil Fuels:
http://thkpr.gs/1rdRTwB
[investing, divestment, World Council of Churches]

RT Peter Gleick @PeterGleick:
Everyone in the orange-brown areas should be under mandatory water restrictions. Umm, that's 100% of California.
http://pic.twitter.com/s4nUfQ10pH

Forest fires burning on 13,500 hectares in Siberia: @ITARTASSnews-en
http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/739828
[wildfire, Russia]

RT The Story Group @TStoryGroup:
@climatehawk1 Pls pledge your support for "Americans on the Front Lines of Climate Change"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/695998588/americans-on-the-front-lines-of-climate-change

1st drone flyover video from Dark Snow project on Greenland ice cap:
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/07/10/jason-boxdark-snow-on-real-time-with-bill-maher/
[glaciers, sea level]

RT Climate Progress @climateprogress:
'Surreal' 40-minute storm drowns minor league baseball field:
http://thkpr.gs/1resgfh http://pic.twitter.com/haeSlA54YL
[flooding]

Climate tweets for 6 July 2014

RT #ClimateAction @EcoWarrior1980:

The glacier in Alaska named after John Muir... #globalwarming #ClimateAction 

http://pic.twitter.com/LhiWhJLzru

RT Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse says there are more U.S. jobs in solar industry than coal mining - TRUE

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2014/jul/06/sheldon-whitehouse/there-are-already-more-american-jobs-solar-industr/ … via @PolitiFactRI

Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts: @CC_Yale
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/06/todays-solar-power-revolution-powerful-insights-from-energy-experts/

No carbon budget left to burn: @djspratt
http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/07/no-carbon-budget-left-to-burn.html
[science, carbon bubble]

Who can afford to hold back rising seas?: Simple Climate
https://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/who-can-afford-to-hold-back-rising-seas/
[sea level, flooding]

China flooding forms seven-metre-deep lake in Hunan province:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28182485

California severe drought intensifying as Napa wildfire rages on: @guardian
http://gu.com/p/3qybz/tw
[fire]

RT Sierra Club @sierraclub:
"BLM has been saying its coal leasing decisions have no impact on our climate. That assumption is out the window."
http://sc.org/1lWCwrJ
[Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior] 

Climate change: it’s real and it’s serious: @RSnewsroom
http://www.registerstar.com/columnists/land_matters/article_35600790-02ea-11e4-86dd-0019bb2963f4.html#.U7hEZXbC4Rc.twitter
[Citizens' Climate Lobby]

RT Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann: If U parrot David Rose/Daily Mail's latest #climatechange denial ruse (Antarctic sea ice) U R not 2B taken seriously: http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm
[denial]

RT Jamison Foser @jamisonfoser:
1st CNN https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/479991779995815938 … now @NYTimes omits oil $ of global warming deniers attacking Steyer:
http://pic.twitter.com/mbPc8gdESm
[journalism, denial, New York Times]

RT Lang Banks, WWF @LangBanks:
Number of the day: Potential annual cut in health costs from pollution by growing renewables
http://bit.ly/1m5ka88 http://pic.twitter.com/Dq0eCbQW1A

Obama Advisor on Front Lines of Climate Fight: @NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/john-holdrens-influence-seen-in-obama-policies.html?smid=tw-share
[John Holdren]

Anglican church synod urges Australian govt to respect science on climate change: @guardian:
http://gu.com/p/3qkya/tw

RT Tom Steyer @TomSteyer:
Climate change is the issue of our generation, but I will be the first to admit—it hasn't always been on my radar.
http://WLOL.US/hb 

RT Eric Holthaus @EricHolthaus:
How to make your summer roadtrip a whole lot greener: Excellent tips from @markv747
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/07/road_trip_costs_and_climate_change_tips_to_make_your_drive_more_environmentally.html http://pic.twitter.com/KhYz8R4R8L

Climate tweets for 29 May 2014

New Video: @NeilTyson destroys climate deniers: @motherjones 
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/cosmos-tyson-sagan-climate-change-episode
[science, Cosmos, denial]

RT Elizabeth Kolbert @ElizKolbert:
Isn't it time to drop "scientists say" before phrase "GHG's are the chief cause of global warming?" 
http://nyti.ms/1nG4g3R
[science, journalism, New York Times]

RT Neela Banerjee @neelaeast:
Obama's new rule on power plants expected to be most significant effort to counter climate change in U.S. history 
http://fw.to/ijJdJSN

In Historic Blunder, Some States Retreat on Zero-Carbon Power: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/business/energy-environment/a-pushback-on-green-power.html
[Ohio, renewable energy, clean energy, Kansas, denial]

Kentucky, Indiana face big challenge with new climate rules: @courierjournal 
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/watchdog-earth/2014/05/28/benchmarking-air-emissions-report/9677747/

And The Biggest Power Polluter Is: American Electric Power Company: @CERESnews 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/05/28/and-the-biggest-power-polluter-is-aep/

Navajo Nation's Shifting Sands of Climate Change: @ClimateCentral
http://shar.es/Vi2Wr
[drought, farming, ranching, water]

Will Big Oil Execs Ever Stand Trial for Willful Climate Deceit?: @CommonDreams 
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/28-7
[denial]

RT Jeff Corbin @Jeff_d_corbin:
ICYMI: My reply to @AmyRidenour: Denying science versus debating policy: 
http://garnetgoesgreen.blogspot.com/2014/05/denying-science-versus-debating-policy.html
[denial]

RT Fossil Free @GoFossilFree:
Want to launch a fossil fuel divestment campaign in your community? Step 1: join the web workshop: 
http://buff.ly/1mw18oj
[investing]

India’s lethal heatwave strikes again: @ClimateNewsNet
http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2014/05/indias-lethal-heat-wave-strikes-again/
#climatedeaths

Climate tweets for 7 May 2014

Stanford University Will Purge Coal Investments From $18.7 Billion Endowment: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/07/3435130/stanford-divests/
[divestment]

Report: Climate change effects extreme for California: @mydesert
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/06/climate-change-report-california/8788503/
[National Climate Assessment, science]

Impact of Climate Change On U.S. Midwest: More Heat, More Droughts, More Floods, Fewer Crops
http://thkpr.gs/1o6OjoX
[National Climate Assessment, science]

7 scary facts about how global warming is scorching the U.S.: @motherjones 
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/national-assessment-climate-ameriica
[National Climate Assessment, science]

It's game over for KeystoneXL pipeline: @MichaelEMann: @guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/06/keystone-xl-pipeline-vote-senate
[oil, tar sands]

Climate Change Forecast to Worsen U.S. Ozone Pollution: @Environment_New
http://ens-newswire.com/2014/05/05/climate-change-forecast-to-worsen-u-s-ozone-pollution/ 
[air pollution, science]

RT Andrew Freedman ‏@afreedma  19h
The front page of today’s @nytimes marks a milestone in U.S. climate covg., IMO. 
http://pic.twitter.com/IGE13e5pkm
[National Climate Assessment, New York Times, science, journalism]

“Oklahoma burning”: Heat ignites temperature records, wildfires in Southern Plains: 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/05/05/oklahoma-is-burning-heat-ignites-temperature-records-blazes-in-southern-plains/ 
[fire, heat waves]

Climate tweets for 21 April 2014

Hot Western U.S., Cold East May Be Norm as World Warms: @ClimateCentral http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hot-west-cold-east-may-be-norm-as-world-warms-17319 

[science]

Conservative heavyweights have solar industry in their sights: @latimes 
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solar-kochs-20140420,0,2718030,full.story#axzz2zSS1VPZS 

[Koch, renewable energy, clean energy]

What GOP's War On Science Looks Like: @io9 

http://io9.com/this-is-what-the-gops-war-on-science-looks-like-1556202056 

Editorial: World "Running Out of Time" to deal with global warming inexpensively: @nytimes 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/opinion/running-out-of-time.html?amp%3B_r=0 

.@SkepticScience consensus paper voted ERL's best article of 2013: http://www.skepticalscience.com/SkS-consensus-paper-ERL-best-article-2013.html 

[science]

RT Climate Reality ‏@ClimateReality:

Time to stand up. On #EarthDay let's make our commitment to climate heard. RT & join our @ThunderclapIt today 

http://bit.ly/OfUirA 

Drilling holes in ice sheds light on future climate: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/19/environment-climate-change-ice-core-ancient-air/ 

[science]

RT CitizensClimateLobby ‏@citizensclimate:
Editorial in San Antonio calls for putting price on carbon! The high cost of climate change denial 

http://ow.ly/vXP0h 

EV or not EV? That is (not really) the question

My wife and I got a ride last evening in a Mitsubishi MiEV and were very impressed. It's a small but reasonably roomy 100 percent electric 4-person vehicle, range 50-60 miles, 22 hours to charge (from zero to full) on 110, 7 hours to charge on 220.  Talking with its owner brought out an aspect to those numbers I hadn't considered, which is that if you drive it 20 miles, it can probably be fully charged again overnight because it won't be down to zero.  Duh. Which means, in turn, that if your commute is not too long, you may be able to use it every day for several days ...

Anyway, that prompted a discussion, because my wife had seen a reference somewhere recently to how EVs (electric vehicles) may not be as clean as hybrids, depending on the fuels that the utility system in your region uses to generate electricity. I've also seen this issue raised a number of times, perhaps most prominently in a New York Times article discussing a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) study on the issue.

I have a beef, not with UCS--which is a great organization--but with the implications that can easily be drawn from such a study, specifically the implication that anyone, anywhere, should feel free to go ahead and buy a gasoline auto if the utility system in the region depends heavily on coal.  Don't do it!

I say not so, and here's why.  The problem with carbon emissions from an EV, such as they are, is not inherent with the EV, it's a problem with the utility system, and a problem that can actually be fixed, by the utility building or purchasing more renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, biomass) power plants.  The problem with carbon emissions from a gas auto is inherent with the auto, and you're investing in a (small) piece of infrastructure that will never get better until it goes to the junkyard at the end of its useful life, 10 to 20 years from now.

The Times article, and the UCS study itself, suggest how easy it is to misread the issue.   The article ends as follows: "'To prevent the worse consequences of global warming,' the report concludes, 'the automotive industry must deliver viable alternatives to the oil-fueled internal combustion engine, i.e., vehicles boasting zero or near-zero emissions.'" (emphasis added)  But what about the utility industry?  It's remarkable that it isn't mentioned, given the subject of the study. More importantly, it's remarkable because using electricity to break into the transportation energy market is a huge potential opportunity for electric utilities to expand their business.  Geez.

(I've had at least one argument on the Web about a closely related topic.  The people involved were very environmentally conscious, and dissing the idea of driving entirely for the same reason, saying that bicycling is the only way to go.  In essence, I told them, "If you want to see gasoline autos for the indefinite future, just keep belittling EVs and that is what you will get.")

Luckily, it turns out that our region (northeastern U.S.) has a relatively low-carbon generating mix, and so an EV tops the best hybrid, which means there is a good chance we will pop for one.  To me, it's a no-brainer, not only because of the reasoning above, but because buying or leasing it helps demonstrate there is a market and sends a message to other drivers who see it around town.

The one (very minor) downside?  Owning an EV will boost our electric bills a tad, just as we are beating them into submission with a backyard solar system.  Still, that's a minor issue, as driving an EV costs roughly 1/4 as much per mile as driving a gasoline auto.

Heat threatens leatherback sea turtles in Costa Rica

Endangered leatherback sea turtles on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica are threatened by beaches that are hotter in the past, creating conditions that interfere with normal hatching, according to an article in The New York Times' Green blog by Rachel Nuwer:

"James Spotila, the Betz Chair professor of environmental science at Drexel University in Philadelphia, says that in decades to come, global warming is likely to heat up the beach and kill off turtles. 'They’re facing not just one problem, but a convergence of many negative effects of both people and climate change,' he said in an interview ...

"'I’d say this is yet another example in this mounting pile of how global warming and climate change are threatening animals and plants all over the place,' Dr. Spotila said." (emphasis added)

Justin Gillis on connecting the (climate change) dots

There's an excellent and very insightful Q&A interview with Justin Gillis, the New York Times reporter who recently won Columbia University's 2011 Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism, at the Columbia Journalism Review website.

Since I have complained previously about the Times' coverage of climate change (here, here, here, and probably other places as well), it's considerable comfort to know that Mr. Gillis has a largely similar view of what has been happening in the mainstream media on the issue. I'm really impressed with some of the things he has to say:

- "I started taking classes and the more I learned, the more I thought to myself, 'This is the biggest problem we have—bigger than global poverty. Why am I not working on it?'" (emphasis added)

- "One thing I’m seeing—and I see it in our own paper as well as many other news outlets—is that people are covering the crazy weather we’re having and, more often than not, dodging the subject of whether there’s any relationship to climate change. TV weathermen are dodging that subject. Print reporters are dodging the subject ... [I]t’s a bit of a scandal that there’s not enough connecting the dots for people." (emphasis added)

Hear, hear!

My enthusiasm is only tempered by a few things. First, Mr. Gillis essentially waves away a goof in one of his recent stories, which included a paragraph about "climate researchers who question the scientific consensus about global warming ..." and in the very next paragraph quoted Myron Ebell, who is described as a "climate skeptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute."  This unfortunate combination suggested that Mr. Ebell is a climate researcher, when in fact he is an economist--and an economist who works for a group that has run TV ads extolling the virtues of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas associated with global warming.

Mr. Gillis's comment on this? "I suppose that in retrospect, given how much complaint there was, I wish I had made clear that Ebell is not a scientist, but an economist. I had quoted him many times before and know who he is, what he does, and what perspective he represents." But, of course, it's not enough that Mr. Gillis knows who Mr. Ebell is--that's essential information, bearing directly on Mr. Ebell's credibility, that should be shared with readers.

I noticed this reference when I read the story and was disturbed (actually, pissed would be more accurate) by it.  Joe Romm noticed it also, and wrote a post at ClimateProgress titled False Balance Lives at the New York Times, which perhaps accounts for the second thing that bothered me--Mr. Gillis taking a swing at Romm a bit later on in the CJR interview: "I think some people, like Joe Romm, would like us to send a bugler in a coat of mail around with the paper every morning playing taps and proclaiming that climate change is a problem."

Well, gosh, Mr. Gillis, if the media isn't going to do that job for us, who will?  As you have correctly said, it's the biggest problem we have, and opinion polls make it clear that the public has no idea of its seriousness.  I for one am really grateful for Joe and the folks at Skeptical Science who are keeping those of us concerned about global warming up to speed and doing battle daily with the incessant river of lies and distortions from those in denial about climate change.

Finally, my enthusiasm is restrained by the fact that the Times and most other papers continue to write about America's new-found abundance of fossil fuels with barely a whisper about global warming. I'll have more to say about this soon.

All of that being said, let me end on an up note--I appreciate Mr. Gillis and his efforts to bring more of a focus on climate change and its likely impacts, to one of the leading newspapers in America, and I wish him every success.  The work he's been doing at the Times is critical, and God knows, we need all the help we can get.

'You may not be interested in climate change, but climate change is interested in you'

That's the best line in Tom Friedman's terrific column in today's New York Times, pointing out the climate-driven factors that have played an overlooked role in the political uprisings of the Arab Spring (food prices in Tunisia, water shortages in Yemen).  Friedman references Joe Romm's excellent Climate Progress blog as well (congrats, Joe!) and concludes:

[W]e should all remember that quote attributed to Leon Trotsky: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." Well, you may not be interested in climate change, but climate change is interested in you.

Folks, this is not a hoax. We and the Arabs need to figure out — and fast — more ways to partner to mitigate the environmental threats where we can and to build greater resiliency against those where we can’t. Twenty years from now, this could be all that we’re talking about. [emphasis added]

Take the blinders off!

In the wake of the astonishing record heat wave of recent days (see U.S. heat 'unprecedented,' 7,000 records set or tied, Reuters, March 23), the flow of what-me-worry reporting from the New York Times continued, with a lengthy article by Clifford Krauss and Eric Lipton on the new U.S. oil and natural gas drilling boom.

Krauss and Lipton tell the story of how increased oil & gas production from fracking and better auto efficiency due to rising fleet economy standards have combined to put U.S. oil imports on a downward trajectory after a long climb.  "[T]he domestic trends are unmistakable," they write. "Not only has the United States reduced oil imports from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries by more than 20 percent in the last three years, it has become a net exporter of refined petroleum products like gasoline for the first time since the Truman presidency. The natural gas industry, which less than a decade ago feared running out of domestic gas, is suddenly dealing with a glut so vast that import facilities are applying for licenses to export gas to Europe and Asia."

Whoopee!  The only thing missing from this saga of new hydrocarbon wealth is its impact on global warming.  Climate change is mentioned just three times, briefly, and in a political context rather than a scientific one: while Candidate Obama "promoted policies to help combat global warming" in 2008, President Obama has "de-emphasized the challenges of climate change."

I know, I know, it's an energy story, but the question remains: how much longer before energy stories (not to mention weather stories) are viewed as incomplete unless they incorporate discussion of global warming?  It's been a long wait: in 1990, I wrote a letter to the Times complaining about a similar non-mention of climate in a story about the glowing market prospects for the coal industry.

Not that there aren't encouraging signs. Over at the Washington Post, which has been equally out to lunch on global warming, the editorial staff put together a strong screed on the subject today (Rising concern on climate change, March 24).  Said the Post sternly, "[T]he only energy debate America seems capable of having during this election year revolves around whom to blame for higher gas prices and who can bring them down again. Neither of those is the first, second or even 10th question we’d ask of America’s leaders on energy."

I agree, it's a problem.  But when the most respected news sources publish story after story about high gas prices and energy with barely a mention of the most important problem with which they are inextricably intertwined, what are political candidates supposed to do?

The blinders have to come off.  The tunnel vision has to stop.  And as hard as the media try to pass the buck, it has to start with them finding ways to ask the hard questions and change the national conversation.  (For an entirely different take, see Lessons from Obama's Keystone Cave-In by Jeff Goodell on Rolling Stone's Politics blog, March 23, in which he asks the burning question: Will Barack Obama go down in history as the President who cooked the planet?)

Connecting dots on weather & climate: local newspaper shows how it's done

After two stories in two days by national-level media dropped the ball on global warming, my local paper, the Valley News, came through yesterday. Kudos!

Here is the magical (dare I call it remarkable?) text from the story "So Far, Winter Is a Washout" by Aimee Caruso:

Chris Bouchard, a meteorologist at the Fairbanks Museum in St. Johnsbury, Vt., said it's fairly unusual to have no snow in December, especially because the snowfall is just a few inches below normal.

"What's weird about it is it's been very warm, so a lot of (the snow) has melted, resulting in our measly snowpack," Bouchard said.

Last month was the third warmest November on record in Vermont, with an average temperature of 41.2.  The warmest year was 1948, with an average temperature of 42.6.

It's also been an unusually wet year, Bouchard said.  As of yesterday morning, 51.14 inches of melted precipitation made it the wettest year since records started being kept in 1894 ...

It's hard to say why Vermont has had four of its wettest years on record in the past six years, he said, but possible explanations include a transitory weather pattern or "some link to climate change.

"Warmer and wetter are two trends you would expect here in the Northeast with a warming climate," Bouchard said.

There now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

By contrast, a lump of coal goes out to the New York Times, which carried a story of similar length on the same subject (lack of snow, warm weather) Dec. 23, but managed to avoid any mention of global warming even though it included the following text: "Week after maddening week of unusually balmy temperatures have made snowfall scant in New England ... "

And a slightly smaller lump to the Associated Press, with an entry also dated Dec. 23 and titled "With snow scarce, northern U.S. has brown Christmas."  The author, John Flesher, doesn't fail to ask the obvious question--is there a reason for this?--but rather than bring up the sticky wicket of global climate change, he opts instead for "La Nina, the cooling of the equatorial Pacific Ocean that affects weather worldwide, has nudged the jet stream farther north. Air pressure over the northern Atlantic has steered storm systems away from the East Coast."

To be fair, climate science doesn't tell us a whole lot about snow--snowfalls may be much heavier due to the increased moisture content of the atmosphere, or they may be much lighter because they are replaced by rain, or the snow may melt because of warmer temperatures.  So that's a plausible reason for not bringing it up.

Still, the weather has clearly been odd--otherwise, there would be no reason for writing about it--and one factor has clearly been unusually warm temperatures.  Global warming "loads the [weather] dice," making warm spells more likely, as Mr. Bouchard noted, and it's my view that every feature story about unusual weather that dovetails with climate science should "connect the dots."

The New York Times does connect the dots sometimes--in its "Temperature Rising" series, which focuses explicitly on major issues relating to global warming, and, more interestingly, when its stories relate to politics.  Take, for example, this recent segment from a story titled "Climate Scientists Hampered in Study of 2011 Extremes," by Justin Gillis:

This year, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tried to push through a reorganization that would have provided better climate forecasts to businesses, citizens and local governments, Republicans in the House of Representatives blocked it. The idea had originated in the Bush administration, was strongly endorsed by an outside review panel and would have cost no extra money. But the House Republicans, many of whom reject the overwhelming scientific consensus about the causes of global warming, labeled the plan an attempt by the Obama administration to start a “propaganda” arm on climate.

Note the bolded passages, which provide the extra factual context a reader needs to make, yes, judgments about what is happening.  Let's look at the same paragraph without the bolded parts:

This year, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tried to push through a reorganization that would have provided better climate forecasts to businesses, citizens and local governments, Republicans in the House of Representatives blocked it, labeling the plan an attempt by the Obama administration to start a “propaganda” arm on climate.

The latter approach has far too frequently characterized the Times' approach to weather and climate coverage.  Congratulations to Mr. Gillis for "telling it like it is" on the news story of the century--the disruption of Earth's climate by human-caused emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

UPDATE: To get a sense of just how different climate reporting can be, see this example from today's edition of the Montreal Gazette: "Quebec on the verge of catastrophic climate change, expert [says]."

Related posts:

How the New York Times could cover global warming, Dec. 23, 2011
The New York Times and global warming (not): why?, Oct. 3, 2011

How the New York Times could cover global warming

I've complained (hmmm, maybe "ranted" is the appropriate word) here previously about the New York Times and its "coverage" of global warming.

It's interesting to compare that coverage with the Times' coverage of Congress. The e-mail alert (from the Times) for the breaking story of the day on Saturday, December 17, reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

“Senate Votes to Extend Payroll Tax Cut for Two Months

“WASHINGTON — In the ultimate cap to a year of last-minute, half-loaf legislation, the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Saturday to extend a payroll tax cut for a two months, with the chamber’s leaders and the White House proclaiming victory, even as they pushed the issue of how to extend the tax cut and unemployment benefits into the new year. …

“The agreement — should it get through the House — mirrors a series of 11th-hour deals devised by the the 112th Congress that appear to solve an impending crisis, but simply push it forward …

“A failure to even extend a modest tax break for 160 million Americans for a single year — something both sides would love as political feathers in their election-year caps — is particularly remarkable in a Congress charged with far more significant items.

“‘Today is an important day for our country,’ said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, as he explained from the Senate floor Saturday why his chamber would be voting on a bill, conceived Friday in private between Senate leaders to extend the tax for only two months. ‘We are doing today exactly what the Founding Fathers thought we would do,’ and passage of the bills is ‘an accomplishment important for the American people.’

Notice that the reporting is very judgmental--I have bolded some of the pieces of the text that, while they are arguably accurate reporting, also appear to express the personal views of the reporter.  Certainly, they are not "straight reporting."  Also, the article positions the quote from Reid in such a way as to make him appear either openly cynical or stupid.

The NYT does this regularly with political news, so its reporters do know how to take a position, in a news story. The mystery is why it is so assiduous about writing news stories about global warming as neutrally (and even cluelessly) as possible. It has, for example, carried lengthy articles about the recent rash of wildfires in the western U.S. and on the record-breaking Texas drought of 2011 without mentioning global warming at all.  Its blog even reported on the most well-known skeptic politician, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), sending a self-congratulatory message to skeptics at the Cancun international climate conference--without any discussion of the climate science he belittles.

That said, some credit is due. On the same day as the story above, it carried a long story on methane that actually discusses climate science as if it were settled.  I hope it's the beginning of a sea change, but at this point, it's hard to be optimistic.