Indeed, there is an increasingly large body of research demonstrating that climate change is not, as the author of one of last week’s studies characterized it, a “victimless crime.” But as reporters plumb the depths of weather-climate connections, they should repeat this mantra: evidence, nuance, complexity, uncertainty; evidence, nuance, complexity, uncertainty.
The Observatory
01:49 PM - February 24, 2011
Extreme Measures
Must reporters cite climate change in every article about severe weather?
‘See you on the other side’ - Meet Jessica Lum, a terminally ill 25-year-old who chose to spend what little time she had practicing journalism
#Realtalk: This is the best moment to be in journalism - The old stuff isn’t coming back, but that’s okay
Streams of consciousness - Millennials expect a steady diet of quick-hit, social-media-mediated bits and bytes. What does that mean for journalism?
Sticking with the truth - How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism
An ink-stained stretch - Can Aaron Kushner save the Orange County Register—and the newspaper industry?
This is the best moment to be in journalism (25)
The WSJ editorial page hits rock bottom (19)
The New York Times told me to take this down
“If you wouldn’t mind using another publication to advertise your infringement tool, we’d appreciate it”
In AP, Rosen investigations, government makes criminals of reporters
“[A]s flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration”
Jay Carney press briefing blues
“Reporters are increasingly skeptical about Carney’s demeanor and the veracity of some answers”
Jaron Lanier wants to build a new middle class on micropayments
A future where writers can gain wealth through a “freelance economy”
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
Uptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for a neighborhood in New Orleans
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
Climate change isn't just mentioned in every story about storms. It is mentioned in every story, no matter what the topic. Poverty, colonialism, financial markets, consumer goods, foreign policy, NASA, war, drought, etc., etc. BBC talks about almost nothing else.
#1 Posted by Ed Franks, CJR on Fri 25 Feb 2011 at 10:55 PM
Climate change isn't just mentioned in every story about storms. It is mentioned in every story, no matter what the topic. Poverty, colonialism, financial markets, consumer goods, foreign policy, NASA, war, drought, etc., etc. BBC talks about almost nothing else.
#2 Posted by Ed Franks, PhD, CJR on Fri 25 Feb 2011 at 10:56 PM
Climate change isn't getting enough press?
What with the polar bears drowning in the meltwaters of corporate greed?
The Category 7 hurricanes pummeling the coasts (at the beckoning of CO-2 spewing Republicans)?
The Himalayan glaciers disappearing in a few years?
What will it take to get people to wake up and give a crap about this issue?
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 25 Feb 2011 at 11:23 PM
'Polar bears drowinng in the meltwaters of corporate greed' . . . Some writing by feverish political ideologues is beyond parody . . .
#4 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sun 27 Feb 2011 at 08:31 AM
I'll add that the line may have been a parody . . . I hope so . . .
#5 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sun 27 Feb 2011 at 08:34 AM
Yes, it would have been more accurate to say, "What with the polar bears starving in the meltwaters of a corporate sea, wrapped in a thick blanket of greed?"
Padkiller's never been good with the metaphors.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 27 Feb 2011 at 06:30 PM
What's wrong with either not speculating about climate change if there's no evidence of a connection or saying something like "nobody can tell whether or to what extent this event was influenced by Global Warming"?
Oh, that's right. It doesn't make for a very good story. Far better to have a good story than an accurate statement of fact (or of ignorance).
Of course, those who want to argue in favour of the Anthropogenic Climate Change thesis might ask themselves "If we blame Global Warming when it gets hot, and we blame Global Warming when it gets cold and we blame Global Warming when things stay more-or-less the same, will people stop listening to us?"
No. Thought not. Nobody asks that question.
#7 Posted by Mike Funnell, CJR on Sun 27 Feb 2011 at 07:13 PM
What's wrong with either not speculating about climate change if there's no evidence of a connection or saying something like "nobody can tell whether or to what extent this event was influenced by Global Warming"?
Oh, that's right. It doesn't make for a very good story. Far better to have a good story than an accurate statement of fact (or of ignorance).
Of course, those who want to argue in favour of the Anthropogenic Climate Change thesis might ask themselves "If we blame Global Warming when it gets hot, and we blame Global Warming when it gets cold and we blame Global Warming when things stay more-or-less the same, will people stop listening to us?"
No. Thought not. Nobody asks that question.
#8 Posted by Mike Funnell, CJR on Sun 27 Feb 2011 at 07:15 PM
Everybody knows that the AGW schtick is utter nonsense, above all its proponents (like Al Gore, who jets in private fashion to his mansions and houseboats from his newly acquired multimillion dollar sea-level condo in San Francisco)...
That's why "global warming" consistently rates about ten points lower than nose hair removal removal among the concerns voiced by American voters.
When I was a kid... We were told to expect an ice age by the same "professors" who are now cashing in the AGW silliness. 35 years later, we've been hearing about the coming AGW disaster for nearly 20 years, now.
Of course, the plain REALITY (there's that word again) is that (i) there hasn't been any statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years and (ii) there is not a computer climate model in existence that can both justify the AGW nonsense and also account for this 15 years without warming. The stubborn refusal of the globe to actually warm for these past 15 years has been acknowledged to be a "travesty" by AGW's strongest proponents.
The only utility AGW held to anyone was its purported justification for snatching money and property from the carbon spewing "rich" to dole to the carbon-deprived "poor"... This commie plan is, of course, the screwy wet dream of the leftists. If it weren't for the IPCC (itself a leftist wealth-redistribution arm of the UN), the AGW stupidity wouldn't even exist. This former utility was practically destroyed by the Climategate and subsequent IPCC scandals.
So shine on, all you Crazy AGW Diamonds!
Don't despair... Some intellectual among you will concoct a new environmental reason to soak the rich soon enough.. Cell phone radiation... Plastic contamination... Transfat distribution... Soil depletion... Something..
There will always be some screwy justification for taking the property of others for the common good.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 27 Feb 2011 at 08:32 PM
Seems reasonable to me that a concerned, thinking journalist would speculate aloud that there could be a connection between a particularly severe storm and AGW if reference is made to the fact that the available science supports the plausibility, if not the likelihood, that this is the reason that climate extremes are becoming more commonplace.
Clearly, an editorial requirement that AGW be referenced in any story of weather tragedy would be inappropriate - but not because the science doesn't suggest trends that make these tragedies more commonplace. The corollary to THIS would be to specifically forbid any reporting suggesting that a particular tragedy is consistent w/ trends precipitated by AGW until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to whomever feels it still needs to be proven.
Since there's no way to design a randomized controlled trial in this situation, computer modeling, temperature trend, and ice core data are what we're left with. The Nature articles simple buttress an argument that's already pretty well buttressed - that modeling works, and predicts trends that are comprised of a lot of worsening storms. If a journalist agrees with this, than the connection "should" be drawn.
#10 Posted by Eric Unzicker, CJR on Mon 28 Feb 2011 at 01:21 AM