Had the annual climate change summits sponsored by the United Nations fallen out of favor with Western journalists? That was the question on my mind when I arrived at the Reuters Institute at Oxford University earlier this year to research coverage of the meetings following the Copenhagen conference in December 2009.
Most of the climate correspondents I know that are working for mainstream media in Europe did not go to Cancun or Durban, the two summits following Copenhagen. I had not even attended myself. My colleagues and I were not alone, however. My research soon revealed that journalists from developing countries are now far more numerous at climate change summits than those from developed countries.
For the 16 years preceding Cancun, more than 80 percent of the journalists reporting these conferences came mainly from Europe, the US, Japan and Canada. But Cancun—otherwise known as COP16—saw a reversal of that dynamic, with 55 percent of the reporters from the Global South. This increased to 66 percent in Durban, while those from developed countries dwindled to 34 percent.
The decline of European media attendance is astonishing. European journalists have passed from representing the largest group at all the summits held until Copenhagen, to almost an endangered species. They have dropped from representing 60 percent of the attendance at Copenhagen, to 22 percent in Cancun and 19 percent in Durban. While a number of large developing countries, such as China, India, or Bangladesh, maintained their media presence after Copenhagen—even when expectations for an international agreement were much lower—European countries that traditionally sent a cohort of climate correspondents, such as France, Germany, Spain or the UK, drastically reduced their numbers.
The group of Chinese journalists in Durban, with almost 90 representatives, was larger than any from Europe; there were more journalists from India than from any other single European country, except Germany and the UK; and more came from Bangladesh than from France or Spain.
These new trends raise several questions. For example, does more media attendance from developing countries mean better quality climate news in the vulnerable Global South? I chose to maintain my focus on Europe, and particularly on the significant numbers of climate correspondents in the region that did not attend the last two conferences. The main questions I asked them were: How do you cover from your office in Berlin or London a climate summit that is happening in Mexico or South Africa? And how does that affect the coverage?
I interviewed seven experienced reporters working for mainstream outlets in Western European countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), all of whom used to attend climate summits until Copenhagen and now cover them from afar.
In addition to media organizations downsizing and making budget cuts, all their editors argued that as expectations were lower and there were fewer Heads of State attending Cancun or Durban, it was not worth spending money to send a correspondent abroad for at least a week. The irony is that it was in both of these Conferences that the final agreements, though modest, were nevertheless more noteworthy than those reached in Copenhagen.
Among others, parties agreed in Cancun to limit emissions from deforestation or to create a Green Climate Fund in poor countries, while Durban adopted a management framework for that fund and made significant progress on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation.
For most of these European journalists, reporting these events from their desks meant writing fewer stories about international negotiations on climate change and related issues. In fact, five of the seven submitted only a couple of stories about Durban as a result of not being there. Compare this with their experience while attending previous summits—not only did it mean covering climate change issues before, during and after the conference, but also reporting about local climate stories in the host country.
- 1
- 2
I think you'll see more interest in global warming coverage if and when the globe starts warming again...
Why should journalists report on a phenomenon that either doesn't exist or that has at the very least been suspended for 14 years?
According to NASA, the Earth hasn't warmed a lick since 1998. In fact it has COOLED since then (albeit insignificantly).
That's just the reality.
And nobody except the radical left is buying the semantic transition from "global warming" to "global climate change" or to the even sillier "global extreme" nonsense.
As none other that Nature magazine recently opined "[b]etter models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming."
The "developing nations" are looking for handouts, so it makes sense that journalists from these counties are covering the shakedowns. But why would any other reporter waste his or her time?
If AGW actually exists, then the data will reflect it sooner or later and coverage will ensue.
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 24 Sep 2012 at 12:14 PM
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
#2 Posted by wv, CJR on Tue 25 Sep 2012 at 06:58 AM
The graphs posted by wv make the case against Warmingism in stark detail.
In 140 years, according to NASA, the average global temp has increased from 287.8 K to 288.5 K. A microscopic 0.3% increase.
In the last 70 years, the average temp has increased from 288.2 K to 288.5 K. A even more microscopic 0.1% increase.
Accepting the data, the "warming" we see is a negligible increase that is less than the margin of error of most thermometers.
The Warmingists employ graphing tricks to make the slope look huge - they space fifths of a degrees on the y-axis wide versus decades on the x-axis. This is how they plot an upshooting "hockey stick" to fund Gore's private jet and crazy sex life.
If these graphs were made honestly - if they were plotted in units of degrees Kelvin instead of fifths of degrees on the y-axis and if years were plotted on the x-axis instead of decades, the resulting slope would be fifty times shallower than it is - it would be nearly indistinguishable from a horizontal line.
So what do the Warmingists do when the temperature drops and makes a "reverse hockey stick"?
No problem!
They simply "hide the decline"! They use "Mike's Nature Trick" to ignore the data that refutes Warmingism and to substitute other data that supports it!
See how easy?!
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 25 Sep 2012 at 10:40 AM
Spare yourself the misery folks. This troll has not had a new tune since 1998.
You cannot convince an automaton.
Meanwhile:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2237
"To me, seeing the record Arctic sea ice loss of 2012 is like discovering a growing fire burning in Earth's attic. It is an emergency that requires immediate urgent attention. If you remove an area of sea ice 43% the size of the Contiguous U.S. from the ocean, it is guaranteed to have a significant impact on weather and climate. The extra heat and moisture added to the atmosphere as a result of all that open water over the pole may already be altering jet stream patterns in fall and winter, bringing an increase in extreme weather events. This year's record sea ice loss also contributed to an unprecedented melting event in Greenland. Continued sea ice loss will further increase melting from Greenland, contributing to sea level rise and storm surge damages. Global warming doubters tell us to pay attention to Earth's basement--the Antarctic--pointing out (incorrectly) that there is no fire burning there. But shouldn't we be paying attention to the steadily growing fire in our attic? The house all of humanity lives on is on fire. The fire is certain to spread, since we've ignored it for too long. It is capable of becoming a raging fire that will burn down our house, crippling civilization, unless we take swift and urgent action to combat it."
The only national policies we're seeing in response to global warming are ones to do with securing new trade routes and new oil reserves.
The globe has decided to roast marshmallows over the fire instead of fight it. This is a travesty.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 25 Sep 2012 at 01:14 PM
Unfortunately this global response to the arctic problem/opportunity is indicative of something else. This what plutocracy looks like:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/23/chris-hayes-romney-tapes-reveal-plutocracy-just-whining-about-everything/
We don't care about the problem because to care would create a problem for the rich. We instead invest in the opportunity which only exists because of the very real nature of the problem.
You could say this is cognitive dissonance, but I prefer the term stupid. Wholey and completely stupid.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 25 Sep 2012 at 01:25 PM
Thank you, Thimbles, for calling out the troll.
#6 Posted by Ted, CJR on Tue 25 Sep 2012 at 01:45 PM
You could say this is cognitive dissonance, but I prefer the term stupid. Wholey and completely stupid.
Bill McKibben ... look out, Thimbles has broken out the big guns for this one!
#7 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 25 Sep 2012 at 03:54 PM
How does Warmingism account for the GROWING ANTARCTIC ice?
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 25 Sep 2012 at 06:13 PM
"Bill McKibben ... look out, Thimbles has broken out the big guns for this one!"
Are you going to argue the words or argue the man? Of course you're not going to argue the words since that would maybe hurt that whole "PRAISE BE SCIENCE" thing you've got going on.
Do you hate global warming because you don't believe in the science or do you do it because liberals do? Don't snipe from the edges, if you got something denialist to say, speak.
"How does Warmingism account for the GROWING ANTARCTIC ice?"
Where does the ice come from on the walls of an open freezer on a summer's day?
Hot air holds more moisture, moisture is driven by air currents over a subzero region. Moisture freezes. As long as the region remains sub zero in spite of temperature change, those regions getting more moist air will increase in ice.
And so, those areas on Antarctic land and Himalayan mountains are getting more ice while they remain below zero.
The regions near the antarctic oceans, which are exposed to warmer ocean water because of melting sea ice, have not been increasing. Large ice shelves have been breaking off rather regularly.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 26 Sep 2012 at 12:24 AM
The problem for the Warmingists is that, according to NASA, the arctic ice loss this summer was due to a freak cyclone.
But why let the mere truth ruin a Warmingist fairy tale?
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 26 Sep 2012 at 09:32 AM
"according to NASA, the arctic ice loss this summer was due to a freak cyclone."
Sigh:
http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/09/21/reuters-tv-nasa-says-arctic-cyclone-played-key-role?videoId=237916780&videoChannel=118065
"Scientists say a similar storm decades ago would of had much less impact on the sea ice because they say the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 28 Sep 2012 at 03:44 PM