8 ms·

Coverage in The Guardian as well: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record http://www.theguardian.co

Coverage in The Guardian as well: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-tem... It's very disappointing this isn't a major story (outside the remaining climate denial outlets, such as Fox/Murdoch/WSJ). I don't recall seeing it covered in the NY Times, for example. Perhaps I overlooked it, but it should have been a big enough story that overlooking it was very unlikely.

sosborn 10y ago
Unfortunately, after a while it stops being "news".
ChuckMcM 10y ago
What would be the story? Climate change is real? I think that is pretty well understood by most of the NY Times readers. The story is now "This week in Apocolpyse Forecasting." Two things make this challenging, one is that the highest/lowest/largest/smallest in recorded history is like 150 - 200 years usually, and folks know that in human history at least people were living near gaciers and munching on Mammoth and Sabertooth. So clearly there are temperatures that are both "previously experienced by humans" and "not part of the recorded human record". I think climate change news now that would get coverage would be actions being taken (as opposed to observations being made). What actions will Texas take after this season to mitigate the risk of flooding? What actions will California take to insure reliable water sources across both drought and excess modalities? I think we've reached the "Ok, so what?" phase.
- cryptoz 10y ago
  The main problem with that thinking is that if the story is just about adaptation topics, we're going to be fighting a losing war for centuries. Adaptation is urgent to save human lives, yes - but vastly more important is to reduce greenhouse gas output. There is only one story right now for the US News to focus on: Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax. Ted Cruz also thinks climate change is a hoax. Hillary Clinton thinks climate change is not a problem and that we should increase our greenhouse gas output as fast as possible. Bernie Sanders considers climate change to be of critical importance and will act as a leader to curtail our greenhouse gas output. He is also the least likely leader in the race right now. The story is not just about adaptation. The story is about how the US political leadership is passionate about increasing the rate of climate change and calling the entire science of climate a 'hoax'.
  - crazy2be 10y ago
    Donald Trump is a problem, yes, although arguably for bigger reasons than just his stance on climate change. Ted Cruz is from Texas, so... :). I'm not sure where you get the impression that Hillary Clinton thinks climate change is "not a problem". Her website certainly states otherwise: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
    - cryptoz 10y ago
      Hillary Clinton profits directly from oil companies. She can say what she likes on her website, but her entire presidential campaign seems bent on doing the exact opposite. She is in favor of creating new technologies and building new infrastructure that will increase our greenhouse gas output. She is in favor of investing our time and money into creating new oil and gas energy systems. Her campaign finances are a good indicator of how she will act if she is elected - much better than what her website says right now, or at any time. If she wants to really stand behind what that page says, she should stand up and say: "Oil companies are destroying our planet's life and our health here in the USA. I will no longer take money from them. I will no longer vouch for new oil technologies." And then she should do those things. Until then, her website is probably full of lies and I do not trust her word at all.
      - yuzi 10y ago
        I'm not a fan of the clintons, reading about the whitewater scandal was enough for me to determine there's corruption abound with them; and I also support reducing oil consumption and further taxing of oil companies, but I have to say the arguments you outlined are not that good. 1. New technology leads to greater efficiency therefore reduces carbon output - So what's wrong with that? And Obama proved blocking pipelines does not stop the oil from flowing - right? 2. Taking money from oil companies doesn't mean much other than she's not anti-oil, which as a leader who understands the current dilemma, is probably not all that bad. Obama came out of his first election pumping money into coal which was just a waste of money. Obama blocked keystone yes, but that just pushed it through via train cars and trucking (which adds more pollution). Also, Oilsands production only dropped by 0.1 percent during the whole price plummet, so not much happened there- did it? So was Obama a good investment on that front? If you want to change the world for the better we, the people of the world, have to stop choosing to consume so much of it, but no one wants to discuss that, not even in politics.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > the highest/lowest/largest/smallest in recorded history is like 150 - 200 years usually Much of the climate data goes back thousands of years or more.
marincounty 10y ago
Along with Ocean Acidification Increasing at Unprecentated rates, Top the US aid recipients all practice torture, wiki leaks on the trans-pacific partnership ignored by corporate media, corporate Internet provides threaten net neutrality, bankers back on Wall Street despite major crimes, FBI dismisses murder plot against Occupy Wallstreet as NSA and big business crack down on Wall Street, US media hypocracy in covering Ukraine crisis, world health organization suppresses report on Iraqi cancers and birth defects, wealthy donors and corporations set think tank adgendas, Pentagon awash in money despite serious audit problems, lawsuit challenges nuclear power industry immunity from liability in nuclear accidents, and--accumulating evidence of ongoing wireless technology causing health hazards. I sometimes think journalists know what's being censored, but figure it's complicated, hasen't been proven, the average reader has too much to worry about just trying to keep a roof over their heads? In other words, "Let's just stick our heads in the sand, and hope for the best?" I didn't jot these censored topics off the top of my noggin. There's a pretty good book called Censored 2015. I wasen't going to read it, but it's not fluff. Some of the research was done by College of Marin students. A college I went to, and was a better than my state, and UC school. (I don't think it censorship. I think it's more like denial, and journalist that are hanging on to their jobs, hoping they won't be fired for low readership, or page counts, but what do I know?)
caipre 10y ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/science/2016-global-warming-record-temperatures-climate-change.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/science/2016-global-warmin... Published today, and showed up at the top of my NYTimes Now app
- hackuser 10y ago
  It's not promoted on NYTimes.com: i.e., it's not in the top section, but among the long, multi-column list of stories below.

sosborn 10y ago

Unfortunately, after a while it stops being "news".

ChuckMcM 10y ago

What would be the story? Climate change is real? I think that is pretty well understood by most of the NY Times readers. The story is now "This week in Apocolpyse Forecasting." Two things make this challenging, one is that the highest/lowest/largest/smallest in recorded history is like 150 - 200 years usually, and folks know that in human history at least people were living near gaciers and munching on Mammoth and Sabertooth. So clearly there are temperatures that are both "previously experienced by humans" and "not part of the recorded human record". I think climate change news now that would get coverage would be actions being taken (as opposed to observations being made). What actions will Texas take after this season to mitigate the risk of flooding? What actions will California take to insure reliable water sources across both drought and excess modalities? I think we've reached the "Ok, so what?" phase.

cryptoz 10y ago
The main problem with that thinking is that if the story is just about adaptation topics, we're going to be fighting a losing war for centuries. Adaptation is urgent to save human lives, yes - but vastly more important is to reduce greenhouse gas output. There is only one story right now for the US News to focus on: Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax. Ted Cruz also thinks climate change is a hoax. Hillary Clinton thinks climate change is not a problem and that we should increase our greenhouse gas output as fast as possible. Bernie Sanders considers climate change to be of critical importance and will act as a leader to curtail our greenhouse gas output. He is also the least likely leader in the race right now. The story is not just about adaptation. The story is about how the US political leadership is passionate about increasing the rate of climate change and calling the entire science of climate a 'hoax'.
- crazy2be 10y ago
  Donald Trump is a problem, yes, although arguably for bigger reasons than just his stance on climate change. Ted Cruz is from Texas, so... :). I'm not sure where you get the impression that Hillary Clinton thinks climate change is "not a problem". Her website certainly states otherwise: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
  - cryptoz 10y ago
    Hillary Clinton profits directly from oil companies. She can say what she likes on her website, but her entire presidential campaign seems bent on doing the exact opposite. She is in favor of creating new technologies and building new infrastructure that will increase our greenhouse gas output. She is in favor of investing our time and money into creating new oil and gas energy systems. Her campaign finances are a good indicator of how she will act if she is elected - much better than what her website says right now, or at any time. If she wants to really stand behind what that page says, she should stand up and say: "Oil companies are destroying our planet's life and our health here in the USA. I will no longer take money from them. I will no longer vouch for new oil technologies." And then she should do those things. Until then, her website is probably full of lies and I do not trust her word at all.
    - yuzi 10y ago
      I'm not a fan of the clintons, reading about the whitewater scandal was enough for me to determine there's corruption abound with them; and I also support reducing oil consumption and further taxing of oil companies, but I have to say the arguments you outlined are not that good. 1. New technology leads to greater efficiency therefore reduces carbon output - So what's wrong with that? And Obama proved blocking pipelines does not stop the oil from flowing - right? 2. Taking money from oil companies doesn't mean much other than she's not anti-oil, which as a leader who understands the current dilemma, is probably not all that bad. Obama came out of his first election pumping money into coal which was just a waste of money. Obama blocked keystone yes, but that just pushed it through via train cars and trucking (which adds more pollution). Also, Oilsands production only dropped by 0.1 percent during the whole price plummet, so not much happened there- did it? So was Obama a good investment on that front? If you want to change the world for the better we, the people of the world, have to stop choosing to consume so much of it, but no one wants to discuss that, not even in politics.
hackuser 10y ago
> the highest/lowest/largest/smallest in recorded history is like 150 - 200 years usually Much of the climate data goes back thousands of years or more.

marincounty 10y ago

Along with Ocean Acidification Increasing at Unprecentated rates, Top the US aid recipients all practice torture, wiki leaks on the trans-pacific partnership ignored by corporate media, corporate Internet provides threaten net neutrality, bankers back on Wall Street despite major crimes, FBI dismisses murder plot against Occupy Wallstreet as NSA and big business crack down on Wall Street, US media hypocracy in covering Ukraine crisis, world health organization suppresses report on Iraqi cancers and birth defects, wealthy donors and corporations set think tank adgendas, Pentagon awash in money despite serious audit problems, lawsuit challenges nuclear power industry immunity from liability in nuclear accidents, and--accumulating evidence of ongoing wireless technology causing health hazards. I sometimes think journalists know what's being censored, but figure it's complicated, hasen't been proven, the average reader has too much to worry about just trying to keep a roof over their heads? In other words, "Let's just stick our heads in the sand, and hope for the best?" I didn't jot these censored topics off the top of my noggin. There's a pretty good book called Censored 2015. I wasen't going to read it, but it's not fluff. Some of the research was done by College of Marin students. A college I went to, and was a better than my state, and UC school. (I don't think it censorship. I think it's more like denial, and journalist that are hanging on to their jobs, hoping they won't be fired for low readership, or page counts, but what do I know?)

caipre 10y ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/science/2016-global-warming-record-temperatures-climate-change.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/science/2016-global-warmin... Published today, and showed up at the top of my NYTimes Now app

hackuser 10y ago
It's not promoted on NYTimes.com: i.e., it's not in the top section, but among the long, multi-column list of stories below.