AGW is a non-story says NY Times blog --and here's why
RayLopez99
nothing behind it to show it might truly damage the planet. If and
when it does, it will get more press.
RL
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/the-greatest-story-rarely-told/
The diagram, drawn by compiling weekly news summaries from
Journalism.org, contains not even a postage-stamp-size space for
coverage of climate — or the environment as a whole, for that matter.
While Joe Romm recently published a list of journalists who had moved
furthest from what he considers excellence in climate coverage in 2009
(yours truly included), the absence of coverage didn’t make his cut.
The crew at Journalism.org, which is run by the Pew Research Center’s
Project for Excellence in Journalism, had already noted in a year-end
wrapup that environmental coverage, including climate, was down
somewhat from 2007 and 2008, representing 1.5 percent of overall
coverage.
richp
> A story gets press based on its economic value. AGW right now has
> nothing behind it to show it might truly damage the planet. If and
> when it does, it will get more press.
>
> RL
>
>
> The diagram, drawn by compiling weekly news summaries from
> Journalism.org, contains not even a postage-stamp-size space for
> coverage of climate — or the environment as a whole, for that matter.
> While Joe Romm recently published a list of journalists who had moved
> furthest from what he considers excellence in climate coverage in 2009
> (yours truly included), the absence of coverage didn’t make his cut.
>
> The crew at Journalism.org, which is run by the Pew Research Center’s
> Project for Excellence in Journalism, had already noted in a year-end
> wrapup that environmental coverage, including climate, was down
> somewhat from 2007 and 2008, representing 1.5 percent of overall
> coverage.
If and when it does, it will too late.
erschro...@gmail.com
> A story gets press based on its economic value. AGW right now has
> nothing behind it to show it might truly damage the planet. If and
> when it does, it will get more press.
>
Ray, a blog is not a "story" in the N Y Times, which means an article
one of its editors or reporters wrote.
> RL
>
> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/the-greatest-story-rarel...
>
> The diagram, drawn by compiling weekly news summaries from
> Journalism.org, contains not even a postage-stamp-size space for
> coverage of climate — or the environment as a whole, for that matter.
> While Joe Romm recently published a list of journalists who had moved
> furthest from what he considers excellence in climate coverage in 2009
> (yours truly included), the absence of coverage didn’t make his cut.
>
> The crew at Journalism.org, which is run by the Pew Research Center’s
> Project for Excellence in Journalism, had already noted in a year-end
> wrapup that environmental coverage, including climate, was down
> somewhat from 2007 and 2008, representing 1.5 percent of overall
> coverage.
You don't see much coverage of evolution either, or other things that
are settled.
Catoni
>"You don't see much coverage of evolution either, or other things that
>are settled."
Reply:
1. AGW is only settled in the little minds of the Alarmists and
their political shill "scientists".
2. Evolution doesn't demand that we all fork out hundreds of
billions of dollars in the next decade or two. and undermine the
economic system of the western nations.
3. You're an idiot.
Buerste
"richp" <travelin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3db89055-9234-4843...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 2, 6:49 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A story gets press based on its economic value. AGW right now has
> nothing behind it to show it might truly damage the planet. If and
> when it does, it will get more press.
>
> RL
>
> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/the-greatest-story-rarel...
>
> The diagram, drawn by compiling weekly news summaries from
> Journalism.org, contains not even a postage-stamp-size space for
> While Joe Romm recently published a list of journalists who had moved
> furthest from what he considers excellence in climate coverage in 2009
>
> The crew at Journalism.org, which is run by the Pew Research Center�s
> Project for Excellence in Journalism, had already noted in a year-end
> wrapup that environmental coverage, including climate, was down
> somewhat from 2007 and 2008, representing 1.5 percent of overall
> coverage.
If and when it does, it will too late.
*****************
For what?
richp
> "richp" <travelingman95...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3db89055-9234-4843...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 2, 6:49 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A story gets press based on its economic value. AGW right now has
> > nothing behind it to show it might truly damage the planet. If and
> > when it does, it will get more press.
>
> > RL
>
> >http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/the-greatest-story-rarel...
>
> > The diagram, drawn by compiling weekly news summaries from
> > Journalism.org, contains not even a postage-stamp-size space for
> > While Joe Romm recently published a list of journalists who had moved
> > furthest from what he considers excellence in climate coverage in 2009
>
> > The crew at Journalism.org, which is run by the Pew Research Center’s
> > Project for Excellence in Journalism, had already noted in a year-end
> > wrapup that environmental coverage, including climate, was down
> > somewhat from 2007 and 2008, representing 1.5 percent of overall
> > coverage.
>
> If and when it does, it will too late.
> *****************
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Saving the civilization
RayLopez99
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 9:49 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A story gets press based on its economic value. AGW right now has
> > nothing behind it to show it might truly damage the planet. If and
> > when it does, it will get more press.
>
> Ray, a blog is not a "story" in the N Y Times, which means an article
> one of its editors or reporters wrote.
Correlation strong.
>
> You don't see much coverage of evolution either, or other things that
> are settled.
False analogy. You don't see much coverage of flat earth either, is
that settled?
Truth be told, the real issue on AGW is its effects--trivial (as says
the IPCC at the lower bound) or 1 metre sea level rise as say the
Greenies?
RL