And I can agree, too, that many media outlets failed; but others did not. I wrote one of the first national magazine articles on global warming for Discover magazine back in 1986, and there was then, and has been since, solid and consistent reporting by numerous journalists in print, radio, and television, in local, regional, national, and international markets that has looked intelligently and comprehensively at the debates–scientific, political, and economic–about the issue. I get a bit weary, at this late date in the world’s history, of people–yes, even people within the media–engaging in reification. The media is not a unitary phenomenon.

If we had to identify one principle cause for the distortion of scientific opinion regarding global warming in the last decade, we could be fairly safe in looking one place: the Bush administration, viz. the Waxman report. http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/ index.php/ csw/ details/ house_oversight_report/ Of course, if we were trying to understand the complex response to a complex phenomenon, we’d look, with greater particularity, far beyond.

In trying to get people to adopt a diet more in line with the 21st century and oncoming climate-related agriculture troubles, shouldn’t we be using language that doesn’t glorify meat? There are dozens of different words that could have indicated a lack of profundity or substance, ‘profundity’ and ’substance’ being 2.

“2 sides, nothing to bite into like a fresh, organic, no-till garden-grown carrot”

OK so that’s a little overboard, but you get the idea. Come up with your own.

A letter from a layperson like me is easily dismissed, especially if they are getting a lot of letters of support from climate science deniers, but from the heads of faculties and from senior scientists at climate relevant institutions, most editors will at least read them and be much more likely to publish them. At best they will be made more aware of how far from reality some of the garbage they publish really is, at worst they may publish such letters in order to perpetuate controversy and consequently attract some readers – but still publish them. Don’t let silence by scientists on misrepresentations of science be counted as some kind of agreement.

Paulm, I also wonder why there aren’t more demonstrations, etc., but I think it’s all part of the complexity of a never-before-seen, s-l-o-w crisis.
I’m sure you’re aware of the student-driven http://www.powershift09.org, and its planned 10,000-strong meeting and lobbying in WDC from 2/27 to 3/2. Also, there’s the http://www.powerpastcoal.org group, and many others forming.

One more thing, recalling the civil defense concept that goes back to “The British are Coming” and extends to today, isn’t the government somehow obligated to clearly warn it’s citizens of danger? What’s up with that?
Why spend $20 billion of taxpayer dollars on climate research and then not get the word out about all the dire consequences (climatescience.gov)?

I think Andy underestimate the potential impact of a carbon price. I’d argue that a well designed cap-and-trade system is likely to be the most powerful accelerator of clean energy technologies. Not the only thing we need, by any means — certainly we need a suite of solutions, including RPS and phased-in performance standards for coal-fired power plants, and certainly we need to ask hard questions about the total mix of action and investments. (My paper’s focus on cap and trade wasn’t meant to imply that those things aren’t also important.) But putting a price on carbon — including a price floor — will harness a level of private investment far beyond anything the federal government itself can spend. It will generate a great deal of money for R&D and a consumer energy-price cushion. And a mandatory declining cap on emissions is the way to ensure that GHG pollution actually gets cut — a carbon tax won’t do that. There’s reason to be skeptical of Washington’s ability to produce a good bill. But here’s another way of looking at this: Why has the path to legislation been painful and protracted? Because this really does matter. Certainly the fossil fuel interests believe it does, otherwise they wouldn’t be going after it hammer and tongs.

I don’t claim to know what is in the heads of scientists however, given the government attempts to muzzle Dr. Hansen and the public vilification he has received, it’s reasonable to assume that some scientists are reluctant risk their careers. Also, they are often very specialized and don’t necessarily see the big picture.

I agree with Creative Greenious, we need a big umbrella movement. Environmentalism is too fragmented to influence governments all over the globe.

Barry is correct about the media, which is way too timid, and is dependent on advertising.

Perhaps the intertubes came along in the nick of time!

Subscribers don’t even cover the cost of newsprint, ink and delivery for newspapers. It’s the advertisers that pay the salaries and operating expenses.

Dot Earth is one of the most prolific sources of climate change coverage in the major newspapers. But it is often festooned with ads for luxury autos (hyper-carbon), world trotting travel (hyper-carbon) and sprawling showcase homes (hyper-carbon). And i feel the coverage reflects that reality. Few advertisers pay to support a voice saying their product is dangerous.

Until the newspapers develop sources of funding that aren’t hyper-carbon based we will not get climate change honesty from them.

I can think of several models for alternative funding for newspapers…or at least climate sections of newspapers…such as those used by educational institutions and even Obamalike-web-funding.

It is disappointing to see that our leaders are not getting it – look at all the money they have committed to try and kick start the old consumer base paradigm that got us in to this dilemma and which is relentlessly driving our CO2 upwards.(Climate change envoy calls for state aid to create low-carbon economy)

You can see how it happens, with the mad panic that has engulfed us all as we stare over the cliff at the gaping depression sucking us in.

This year is it!

If we don’t switch our bail out packages and infrastructure spending towards obtaining the target for 100% CO2 reduction. then we are hosed for sure. There won’t be a second chance. We will have wasted the money, the political effort and the time (the oh so precious time) correcting the more urgent at the expense of the most essential.(Climate change in 2009: the defining issue)

We won’t make it below 3degrees then! And that means we are looking at +5degrees eventually. (I think we are probably past the tipping point at this time, but lets not go there until we have to)

It must be fate that Obama arrived at this moment. If he is able to realize that this is the most crucial point in the history of mankind and is able to engage the international effort needed, then there is hope.

God bless America.

More important, though, I’m afraid his entire analysis suffers from a big initial presumption — that the most meaningful step in mobilizing the country (and implicitly the world) is getting a price on greenhouse-gas emissions. It’s kind of presumed, in fact, that that’s the keystone, so that reporting on the congressional fight is the most important indicator of media success. I disagree.

There is still lively discourse over what mix of technology and economic policy can set a course toward accelerated de-carbonization of the global energy menu. From my reading (maybe wrong), Joe here also would disagree that the protracted fight over how to put a price on CO2 should be our prime focus.

Read here for more: http://tinyurl.com/dotTechPolicy And of course our ongoing Energy Challenge series: http://www.nytimes.com/energychallenge .

[JR: I do not agree with what you have written Andy, and I do not disagree with Eric. The only plausible choices for achieving 450 ppm (or better) are incredibly strong government regulations and/or a high carbon price. So far, only the second is on the table politically. Given the public's current state of understanding of climate, a fight over how to put a price on CO2 is a very reasonable thing to do. Ideally, it wouldn't be "protracted." If it is, then it was even more necessary. It is unrealistic to think that this can be done without a high CO2 price, as the recent IEA reports make crystal clear.

There may be a "lively discourse over what mix of technology and economic policy can set a course toward accelerated de-carbonization of the global energy menu," but I would actually attribute that to the lack of understanding of the science, of how dire the situation is, which the media itself shares some blame for.]