Why aren't we seeing more coverage of climate change in the media? The issue is hardly going away. And now that world governments after Durban are not planning to take action 'til 2020, we need more coverage, not less.
Yet environmentalists reported a drop off in climate change reporting in 2009 and 2010, and we may well see this again when we look back at 2011.
What accounts for this change? A partial answer may be the difficulties facing the market at the moment. Newspapers are not a growth industry. As media organizations downsize, an ever decreasing number of journalists are required to cover an ever increasing remit of issues. Not good for any subject.
But the reasons go deeper. A recent report called "Poles Apart: the International Reporting of Climate Scepticism" released by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University (RISJ) gave us good reason to believe that those of us in the UK and the U.S. could be getting a different view of the climate debate than the rest of the world.
Of a sample of papers from Brazil, China, France, India, the UK and the U.S., 80 percent of skepticism reported was from the UK and U.S.. Even France, with its powerful skeptical lobby groups, barely gave these views much "air-time". And journalists from the English speaking world were greatly outnumbered at the Copenhagen summit.
James Painter, RISJ researcher and Head of the Journalism Fellowship Programme, said:
"There are politicians in the UK and the U.S. who espouse some variation of climate scepticism. Both countries also have organisations for 'climate change sceptics' that provide a sceptical voice for the media, particularly in those media outlets that are more receptive to this message. This is why we see more sceptical coverage in the Anglo-Saxon countries than we do in the other countries in the study where one or more of those factors appear to be absent."
Another potential reason ties in with the whole idea of 'news' itself: 'Nothing new to say' is a normal response in journalism to one-time events that have been overexposed. But global warming is hardly that. It is an unfolding story rich in detail, drama and impending tragedy. To say we've already done the story is like saying we've already done sex.
One might respond that we all hard-wired to be interested in sex. But people are also hard-wired to be interested in the weather. We wouldn't have survived otherwise, and the proliferation of weather reporting and weather channels testifies there is no end to people's interest. Climate is weather stretched out in time. Just as people are interested in how sex plays out in relationships, they will be interested in how the weather plays out in climate change.
Or am I imagining this because I happen to care?
A recent Eurobarometer poll is revealing. The pollsters interviewed 27,000 people in 27 countries. This is a mammoth sample compared to most polls. Those interviewed were asked what they thought were the most important issues facing the world. One might expect that Europeans would have said the economy. But no. The number one issue according to the respondents is global poverty. The number two issue is global warming.
More people thought global warming is a critical issue than did before the failed Copenhagen climate talks. Note how accurately people are tracking events. There was no deal in Copenhagen. In Durban there was a "diplomatic success" -- an agreement to reach a deal by 2015, and start taking action by 2020 -- in which the diplomacy is veering further and further from scientific reality.
It is, of course, easier to agree to agree in the future than to actually agree now. It's reminiscent of the character Wimpy in the comic strip Popeye, whose tag line is, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
Global warming is, in fact, more critical now. Emissions have gone up: in 2010 we globally emitted almost 6 percent more than in 2009. This is history's greatest one-year increase. Despite the recession, we are now emitting more than the worst case scenario set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Global warming hardly lacks story lines. A report released recently says parts of lower Manhattan could be submerged in the coming decades. In 2010 some 56,000 Russians died from forest fires, and scientists say there is an 80 percent probability the fires were caused by global warming. Hurricane Katrina was a story line of epic proportions. And yet the world's governments have walked away from creating a binding deal anytime soon -- this is a story line with music by Nero.
Most countries have long running soap operas: As the World Turns ran in the U.S. for more than 50 years; EastEnders is running strong in the UK 25 years on; in Germany GZSZ, Holland GTST and so on. They all run through the gamut of human experience with greed, anger, ignorance and violence playing leading roles. The story line of global warming will run on, and the characters onstage will display the range of behavior from honor to venality that make the best soaps.
Why cut reporting on climate change? The majority of Europeans have an ear tuned to the unfolding tale. If mainstream papers don't cover it, they are missing the story of our time. We will need the progressive elements of the press -- as well as the blogosphere, Twitter and whatever next arises -- to tell the story. The story won't go away. If the mainstream media won't cover it, the public's move to alternative sources of information will only be quicker.
Follow James Thornton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/clientearth
Andrew Winston: Top 10 Green Business Stories of 2011
Craig and Marc Kielburger: Why We're All Confused About Climate Change
William Bradley: Keystone Pipeline: Small Part of a Very Big Picture
Rev. Jim Ball: Durban: Progress for the Planet
Insurers Win First Round of Climate Change Coverage Litigation
BBC given a mandate: balanced climate change coverage | Watts ...
Climate Change (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Silence of the Lambs: Media herd's coverage of climate change "fell ...
Improving Climate Change Coverage | Poynter's News University
From Jan. 4th, 2012, Science News
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/337368/title/Insurance_payouts_point_to_climate_change
So let’s talk science!
Burning of coal and oil creates carbon dioxide faster than natural processes can scrub it out of the air, so it has built up 40% above the natural equilibrium level. (We are adding two million POUNDS PER SECOND).
Carbon dioxide has been known, by scientists, to absorb infrared and heat up the atmosphere since before the US Civil War.
The vast majority of climate and physical scientists agree that humans are warming the atmosphere!
Now let’s talk economics!
Fossil fuel corporations will say whatever they can get away with in order to protect their bottom line profits, including funding think tanks that spread all the talking points that are used to mislead people who deny that global warming is real and a threat to our way of life.
Now let's talk agriculture!
It takes very little climate change to wreck a crop. Go ask a Texan.
Your responses please?
It shouldn't be that difficult.
Finally, the new fire should beam power directly to our houses every day, where we can put up rooftop collectors to capture it. And all this should happen for free.
Lucky for us, nature already did all that for us!
Hope you get exposed to science some day.
We'll put this 'nail in the coffin' in the pile with all the others. The deniers are always trying to create alarm and anxiety about something or other. That's how the pitchfork crowd is kept energized. Fear. They are always afraid of something. Must wear them out.
You've just described Rev Al's playbook to a tee.
"The deniers (that AGW is man made Fraud) are always trying to create alarm and anxiety about something or other. That's how the pitchfork crowd is kept energized. Fear. They are always afraid of something. Must wear them out."
You can follow the long term trends here: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators
I would make a very different prediction for 2012. I think we are going to see stronger linkages identified between global warming and extreme weather.
Allstate CEO Tom Wilson told investors that catastrophic weather losses (beyond hurricanes and earthquakes) had risen four-fold over the last three years, to $2 billion. Premiums for homeowners were rising 7% this year, Wilson said, noting that a big driver is roof damage from hail and wind. "If you had asked me did I think we could have a $355 million hailstorm in Arizona, I wouldn’t have thought that hail could be that bad in Arizona," Wilson said pricing premiums to account for increased extreme weather events "is permanent."
The number of weather-related natural disasters soared last year, providing "further evidence of advancing climate change", according to a major report from Munich Re (one of the world’s leading reinsurance firms). 950 natural disasters were recorded in 2010, nine-tenths of which were weather-related events such as storms, floods or heat waves. Thats 21% higher than the average number of annual incidents recorded over the previous decade.
Insurance companies are in business to make money. They haven’t exactly been shy letting the public know who will be bearing the increased costs of extreme weather events. If you were unaware that your premiums were going up, you can thank the rest of the news media, and our denier friends.
Farmers Insurance will drop 10-thousand wind policies by July. Alfa Insurance is no longer writing wind policies in Southwest Alabama.
A State Farm spokesperson told News 5 they're writing limited polices north of I-10 and are no longer writing wind policies south of the interstate. USAA Insurance recently cancelled more then 15-hundred wind policies in South Mississppi and is refusing to write new polices in Coastal Alabama.
Insurance experts says it's no longer profitable for companies to insure wind and hail policies and believe cancellations will continue until the government steps in and takes a closer look at insurance reform."
http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2011/jan/14/insurance-companies-dropping-wind-coverage-ar-2118785/
Although the Southeast has born the brunt of weather-related catastrophe in recent years, the rest of the country is not immune. New York City has created the Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability to, among other responsibilities, coordinate the development of a “climate adaptation strategy” to deal with the impact of rising oceans and unpredictable storms on the city.8 One area of concern is the lower parts of Manhattan, as far north as the Village, whose elevations make them vulnerable to flooding. In addition, glass in the newest Manhattan buildings can only withstand winds of 110 miles per hour. A Category 3 hurricane generates sustained winds of 111 to 130 miles per hour. One recent study found that a repeat of the “Long Island Express,” the Category 3 storm that hit New England in 1938, would cause $200 billion in damage today.9 '
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/real_property_trust_estate/symposia/2007/reallocating.authcheckdam.pdf
My guess is that many journalist are finially seeing the truth about the global warming myth.
If you say so Walt. You should then be able to provide a citation for credible, reviewed science refuting global warming.
Do you wish to present some scientific arguments that refute the established physics, or will it be more inane straw men from you?
"The source of the nonlinearity may be thought of in terms of a saturation of the absorption capacity of the atmosphere in particular frequency bands. The concentration of greenhouse gases can make the atmosphere essentially opaque in a particular band. If the atmosphere absorbs 100 percent of the radiation in a band the absorption will not be increased when additional greenhouse gases are added. The atmosphere would then be said to be saturated in that particular frequency band. However full saturation may not occur; it is a matter of relative saturation.
Because of the nonlinear response a small increase in a greenhouse gas under conditions of low concentration can have more of an impact than a much larger increase under conditions of high concentration. In the diagram below the increase from A to B produces a much bigger impact on the proportion of radiation energy absorbed than the increase from C to D even though the magnitude of the increase from C to D is larger than the increase from A to B. In fact, from point C no increase in concentration no matter how large will produce as much of an impact as the increase from A to B."
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/radiativeff.htm
See:
Arrhenius, S.A. 1896, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the
Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine, vol 41, pp. 237-276, 1896.
This can be found on the web. Arrhenius was a really good scientist, winning a Nobel for other work.
For an entirely modern review of the the science of how CO2 absorbs infrared heat see:
Pierrehumbert, R.T. Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature, Physics Today,
vol. 64, pp. 33-38, 2011.
when are you going to stop denying basic science..
such as for example your repeated, patently absurd denial that downward infrared radiation exists?
you'll never understand even basic climate science..
until you stop denying science.
--------------------------
A) Because they're all in Snowchurch begging forgiveness LOL:
Snow Church Opens In Bavaria
MITTERFIRMIANSREUT, Germany — A church built entirely of ice and snow has opened in Bavaria — a century after villagers first built a snow church in an act of protest.
The church at Mitterfirmiansreut, near the Czech border, is more than 20 meters (65 feet) in length and boasts a tower. It's made up of some 1,400 cubic meters (49,000 cubic feet) of snow.
The structure was bathed in blue light as it opened Wednesday evening with a blessing from Dean Kajetan Steinbeisser.
But when the ancestors of today's villagers built the first snow church in 1911, they weren't thinking just of architectural achievement.
Steinbeisser says: "It was meant as an act of provocation — believers from the village got together and built a snow church because they didn't have a church here."
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20111229/EU.Germany.Snow.Church/?cid=hero_media
-------------------------
someone tell the IPCC:
9.4. Thermal Stress (Heat Waves, Cold Spells) 9.4.1. Heat Waves
Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters (see Table 3-10).
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=353
Take two plastic bottles filled with air. Shine a heat lamp on them. The air in the bottles warms up. Add CO2 to one bottle. That one heats up more because CO2 is very good at absorbing infrared heat.
Add more CO2 to the atmosphere and it works the same way. It makes the Earth warmer.
If you don't trust scientists you can actually do this experiment yourself. If you don't think science is understandable or repeatable you can do this experiment 1000 times and get the same results 1000 times. If you think climate science is all based on phony computer models do this experiment yourself and you can see the direct physical effect at work.
See for yourself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394168.stm
does not make the bottle any warmer..
ditto the a'sphere!
can you explain how increasing the concentration of a gas that accounts for ~20% of the greenhouse effect WOULDN'T cause temperatures to rise?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
The Loch Ness story was especially interesting.
Still no science, I see.
If you try to understand science by reading newspapers, you will never understand science. Newspapers are designed to sell ad space. The content is merely there to provoke the consumer into consumption.
Reduce CO2 emissions? How? Stop burning oil to drive cars? That just shifts CO2 output to electricity generators. Use solar electricity? How many solar panels would it take to produce enough practical solar electricity 24 hours a day to replace fossil fuels? How much greenhouse gas would be produced in manufacturing those panels and shiping them to their point of use?
The list continues. The prospect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the chance that it might reduce climate change is an absurd proposition, incomprehenisble in the average person's imagination.
Furthermore, science does not produce certainties and the public demands certainty from its decision-makers. Climate variability is measured in probabilities, which cannot be reduced to simple certainlty. Therefore, the public, and policy-makers are unable to come to any understanding of the risks involved in the uncertain measure of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
There is no way to convert the uncertain nature of scientific research in nonlinear systems into coherent government and industry policies.
"How many solar panels would it take to produce enough practical solar electricity 24 hours a day to replace fossil fuels?" Its been estimated that 1/8th the land area of Arizona gets enough solar power to power the entire United States, continuously, with no other power source required, throughout the year (using solar thermal with molten salt storage).
"How much greenhouse gas would be produced in manufacturing those panels and shiping them to their point of use?" None, if the power to manufacture them comes from other solar panels. The material essence of a solar panel is sand.
"The list continues" Oh, I'm sure it does...
"There is no way to convert the uncertain nature of scientific research in nonlinear systems into coherent government and industry policies" The nonlinearity cuts both ways. How certain are you that your preferred 'do nothing' alternative will have a benign outcome? But, you KNEW, didn't you, that choosing to do nothing was still choosing, yes? And all choices carry risks, with uncertainties made MORE uncertain by nonlinearities. So, the nonlinearities, in and of themselves, attend no more risk to MY preferred choice than to yours.
"The prospect of reducing smoking on the chance that it might reduce cancer is an absurd proposition, incomprehenisble in the average person's imagination."
Science denier rhetoric is stupefying.
Sorry that you don't think you are so capable, but I bet you'll find it isn't that hard if you just give it a try.
This is ridiculous BS, Frank "Many Accounts" Luchan. Scientists are very well aware that solar output affects climate. You know this perfectly well, don't you? They also know that no change in the sun can account for the warming we've seen since 1970 or so. And you know that too, don't you, Frank?
Why do you copy and paste lies, Frank Luchan? And why do you not bother to attribute your copy and pasted lie to its author, the Swiftboat-promoting, Rush Limbaugh "investigator", Inhofe "communications director" Marc Morano?
Do you think HuffPosters are stupid?
New Year’s Resolutions For Climate Scientists
13.I will honestly face skeptics in open debate.
14.I will quit trying to stop skeptics from being published
15.I will admit that glaciers have been disappearing for hundreds or thousands of years
16.I will stop telling people that the climate is getting more extreme, without producing any evidence
17.I will admit that hurricanes are on the decline
18.I will admit that severe tornadoes are on the decline
19.I will admit that droughts were much worse in the past
20.I will admit that efforts to shut down power plants have potentially very serious consequences for the future
21.I will pay for my own tickets to tropical climate boondoggles like Cancun, rather than improperly using taxpayer money for political activism
22.I will admit that there is no missing heat
23.I will admit that temperatures have been cooling for at least the last decade
24.I will publish the raw data and not lose it.
25.etc. etc. etc.
Why don't YOU admit you don't really know much and try to learn the science.
2. http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
3. http://www.skepticalscience.com/record-snow-cover.htm
4. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm
5. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Antarctica-absolute-temperatures-too-cold-ice-loss.htm
6. http://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm
7. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
8. http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
9. http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm
10. Who does this?
11. http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
12. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
Thank you, this was fun. Next?
2) Sea level CONTRACTED last year boo hoo.
3) Dec-Feb US temps are trending DOWN. Alot.
4) Yup, about as much as the 1930s. nothing new
5) Current research says Antarctica is trending COLDER
You know, this is boring, refuting every single Church of Climatology myth you folks put forward is just plain boring.
You should try REAL science for once in your lives. It will brighten your day.
Now for the first time, we find out that the formerly respected writers now got looks of betrayal.
Probably the most important reaction to the UEA hacking for journalists was in their own newsrooms, among their own editors who are the gatekeepers controlling if your work appears and how prominently. While some UK surveys show no dramatic loss of credibility for climate scientists with the public, here’s how some senior journalists described what it was like in their newsrooms after hacking:
“dirty looks”
“sense of betrayal”
thought we’d “gone native”
“you told me the science was settled – and it isn’t!”
Presumably the other editors read about people using tricks to hide declines, but instead of seeing the would-be journalists pursue the obvious deceit and malpractice, they must have been shocked to hear whitewash excuses about how it was “taken out of context”. Margot O Neill, 11/09/10.
Meanwhile, the internet provides access to the Climategate e-mails. Anyone can read them. Most adults have worked hard at their jobs, and can detect the ethical problems the Climategate e-mails are infected with. The e-mails speak for themselves. So does the content of the 2007 IPCC report. Fooled once, the editors of newspapers, and the public will not be fooled again.