The Atlantic's James Fallows takes a look at a Times story-headlined "In Face of Skeptics, Experts Affirm Climate Peril"-versus a Washington Post story-headlined "Stolen files of 'Climate-gate' suggest some viewpoints on change are disregarded"-on the same topic. He concludes: "Not to overdramatize, but: in a way the papers are betting their reputations with these articles. The Times, that climate change is simply a matter of science versus ignorance; the Post, that this is best treated as another '-Gate' style flap where it's hard to get to the bottom of the story."
Well, the one good thing about the Climategate idiocy is that it shows me which of my friends on Facebook I can let in to my bunker after the weather totally goes off the cliff.
Glaciers really don't give a shit about the press.
No, but to state the obvious, this kind of thing can have a big impact on public perception, and therefore action. And the fact is that the opposition has created and pushed very successfully a simple (and false, but nevermind) narrative that plays into what people want to believe (even I would rather believe global warming is a conspiracy created by crazy scientists--who wouldn't?).
As for the articles, I don't know the Post writers, but Andrew Revkin at the Times is very knowledgeable about every aspect of these issues, and I'm not surprised he took on the issue directly and intelligently.
Unfortunately, the NYT also has John Tierney to write for the crackpot side.
"Eminent scientists claim that greenhouse gases are raising the temperature of the globe. Eminent crackpots claim 'But hey! It's like, 30 degrees outside!' We report, you decide."
And look! A handy infographic shows up in my tumblr feed.
Things like measurements really aren't a matter of opinion.
Well, for some things, yes.