mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
How the MSM Talks About Climate Change

Here’s a graph, based on work by Colorado University’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, that shows the extent to which the world’s mainstream media covered climate change over the past decade:

world graph

Click to enlarge.

Notice the spike in late 2009—a result of the disastrous Copenhagen climate summit—and the gradual tapering off over the past four years. Here’s another graph that illustrates American media’s climate change coverage:

US graph

Click to enlarge.

Last month US climate coverage hit its lowest point in nearly a decade. President Obama’s climate change speech in June wasn’t enough to turn the receding tide in media attention. Might the failure of climate models to explain the recent slowdown in warming have anything to do with that?

Features Icon
show comments
  • Corlyss

    The gradual disappearance of “climate change” from the popular consciousness is a consummation devoutly to be wished. The sooner this magical thinking that puts man at the center of climate causation, the better it is for science, public policy, and global prosperity.

    • Andrew Allison

      Corlyss my friend, you haven’t been keeping up with climate “science”. The current AGW thesis it that the reason temperatures haven’t risen for 16 years is that the “excess heat” (the idea that CO2 = more heat being settled pseudo-science) has magically started to be absorbed by the deep oceans. The facts that there’s a body of science which explains how heat is transferred to the deep ocean, deep ocean temperatures fluctuate cyclically, and that arctic ice today is 60% more extensive than it was at the same time last year are irrelevant to the AGW true believers. It would be laughable were it not for the fact that there’s a potential for serious economic damage if these imbeciles get their way.
      There is no question that surface temperature is higher than it has been in recent history. Neither is there any that, despite the three hottest years on record, average temperature has been trending DOWN since 1997.

      In point of fact, the most significant climate change in the past 160 years is the sudden halt, in late 1996, of the very rapid increase temperature which began 20 years earlier (the typical cycle lasts about 30 years). I recommend going long Long Johns LOL

      • Corlyss

        I’m not listening to any “climate science” that doesn’t take into account that big round yellow ball in the sky. I gave it a fair hearing for 15 years. I’m done.

      • bpuharic

        Hmm…seems you got it wrong by 120%:

        “By September 2012, sea-ice cover had retreated to its lowest levels since the beginning of satellite records, falling to 1.32 million square miles.

        That was, the report noted, a whopping 18% lower than the previous low, set in 2007, and a staggering 54% lower than the mark for 1980.”

        But Rush (PBUH) has the True Story (TM).

        Carry on.

        • Andrew Allison

          You really must try and engage brain before operating fingers. Arctic sea ice is, as I wrote, currently 60% more extensive than it was this time last year. Furthermore, despite the record high annual average temperatures in 2005 and 2010, five and ten year global average temperatures peaked in 2005.and have been trending down ever since.

      • ljgude

        Yes, it reminds me of the witch craze – even James 1st devoted a significant portion of his Royal energies to a treatise on the problem. If you have trouble finding witches you know are there, just look diligently at slightly eccentric older women who live alone and have no fiercely protective male relatives Your search will be soon rewarded. It is just a scandal that Obama is neglecting this important problem. Oh, I take that back, I forgot that Warlock George Zimmerman. He didn’t get him, but he sure tried as hard as any Jesuit.

  • gvanderleun

    Global warmists are definitely shoveling “seaweed” against the tide. One can only hope it covers them and is then set on fire.

  • lukelea
  • John1838

    “Might the failure of climate models to explain the recent slowdown in warming have anything to do with that?”
    That, and that the climate science community has been exposed as having pushed a political agenda, yes.

    • bpuharic

      Exposed? I think you’ve been watching too many movies with dirty old men

      Only Rush (PBUH) says there’s a political agenda. Those of us who are scientists know that the right wing, which doesn’t even accept evolution, is delusional on climate change since it may lead them to question their Wall Street Masters of the universe.

      • John1838

        Grin for the dirty old men comment.

        I doubt that “Only Rush says there’s a political agenda.” Besides, what’s a rock band got to do with this?
        A very few, largely discredited, folk in the right wing don’t accept evolution. The left is cursed with some people with absurd positions as well. Generalizing either subgroup to represent the whole group serves no purpose, as it’s obviously false from the start.

        My original comment dealt with the column’s final paragraph concerning MSM’s yawning interest in climate change stories. It’s factual, so I’ll stick with it.

        • bpuharic

          60% of Republicans don’t accept evolution (google it). No wonder they won’t accept climate change. Might have to actually question Wall Street

  • John Appleton

    This article may address some of your concerns Walter. Though the science might get a bit too complicated for you, or you may just willfully choose to ignore evidence that is counter to your hard-headed, not-backed-by-any-science-whatsoever beliefs.

    What a shame that the US Government paid to fly you out to India as an expert speaker on foreign policy. When someone is so ignorant and wrong on the important global issue of climate change it is difficult to take seriously any of their other foreign policy stances.

    • bpuharic

      So how long have you been a communist? 🙂

      Seriously…WRM isn’t a scientist, but as a scientist I just wonder how difficult is it for non scientists to process evidence based on tangible metrics.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service