#climatereporting — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #climatereporting, aggregated by home.social.
-
Environmental Journalism: The Fieldwork Behind the Story https://www.byteseu.com/2271899/ #ClimateInformation #ClimateReporting #DataJournalism #environment #EnvironmentalData #EnvironmentalJournalism #InvestigativeJournalism #InvestigativeReporting #journalism #SatelliteImagery #WebScraping
-
news of excess heat
after a long winter break
—from reports, that is#haiku #senryu #poem #ShortPoem #SmallPoem #SmallPoems #climate #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #ClimateDenial #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency
-
news of excess heat
after a long winter break
—from reports, that is#haiku #senryu #poem #ShortPoem #SmallPoem #SmallPoems #climate #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #ClimateDenial #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency
-
news of excess heat
after a long winter break
—from reports, that is#haiku #senryu #poem #ShortPoem #SmallPoem #SmallPoems #climate #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #ClimateDenial #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency
-
news of excess heat
after a long winter break
—from reports, that is#haiku #senryu #poem #ShortPoem #SmallPoem #SmallPoems #climate #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #ClimateDenial #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency
-
So hot we might die?
Relax. If it was THAT bad,
Someone would warn us.#haiku #poem #ShortPoem #SmallPoem #SmallPoems #climate #ClimateChange #ClimateDenial #heat #RecordHeat #collapse #extinction #Cassandra #ClimateWarning #ClimateReporting #ClimateLogic
-
So hot we might die?
Relax. If it was THAT bad,
Someone would warn us.#haiku #poem #ShortPoem #SmallPoem #SmallPoems #climate #ClimateChange #ClimateDenial #heat #RecordHeat #collapse #extinction #Cassandra #ClimateWarning #ClimateReporting #ClimateLogic
-
So hot we might die?
Relax. If it was THAT bad,
Someone would warn us.#haiku #poem #ShortPoem #SmallPoem #SmallPoems #climate #ClimateChange #ClimateDenial #heat #RecordHeat #collapse #extinction #Cassandra #ClimateWarning #ClimateReporting #ClimateLogic
-
So hot we might die?
Relax. If it was THAT bad,
Someone would warn us.#haiku #poem #ShortPoem #SmallPoem #SmallPoems #climate #ClimateChange #ClimateDenial #heat #RecordHeat #collapse #extinction #Cassandra #ClimateWarning #ClimateReporting #ClimateLogic
-
So hot we might die?
Relax. If it was THAT bad,
Someone would warn us.#haiku #poem #ShortPoem #SmallPoem #SmallPoems #climate #ClimateChange #ClimateDenial #heat #RecordHeat #collapse #extinction #Cassandra #ClimateWarning #ClimateReporting #ClimateLogic
-
BP board suffers triple climate rebellion from shareholders https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/23/bp-board-suffers-triple-climate-rebellion-from-shareholders #BPoil #FossilFuels #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #MakePollutersPay #shareholders #transparency #ClimateReporting
-
BP board suffers triple climate rebellion from shareholders https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/23/bp-board-suffers-triple-climate-rebellion-from-shareholders #BPoil #FossilFuels #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #MakePollutersPay #shareholders #transparency #ClimateReporting
-
BP board suffers triple climate rebellion from shareholders https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/23/bp-board-suffers-triple-climate-rebellion-from-shareholders #BPoil #FossilFuels #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #MakePollutersPay #shareholders #transparency #ClimateReporting
-
BP board suffers triple climate rebellion from shareholders https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/23/bp-board-suffers-triple-climate-rebellion-from-shareholders #BPoil #FossilFuels #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #MakePollutersPay #shareholders #transparency #ClimateReporting
-
BP board suffers triple climate rebellion from shareholders https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/23/bp-board-suffers-triple-climate-rebellion-from-shareholders #BPoil #FossilFuels #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #MakePollutersPay #shareholders #transparency #ClimateReporting
-
Media Outlets Scrutinized for Reporting Practices
Several news groups are being looked at for how they told stories about climate change, politics, and world events. See what happened.
#MediaEthics, #NewsAccuracy, #Journalism, #ClimateReporting, #PoliticalNews
-
Media Outlets Scrutinized for Reporting Practices
Several news groups are being looked at for how they told stories about climate change, politics, and world events. See what happened.
#MediaEthics, #NewsAccuracy, #Journalism, #ClimateReporting, #PoliticalNews
-
Some news companies are being reviewed for how they reported on important events like climate change and political news. This review looks at accuracy and fairness in their stories.
#MediaEthics, #NewsAccuracy, #Journalism, #ClimateReporting, #PoliticalNews
-
Some news companies are being reviewed for how they reported on important events like climate change and political news. This review looks at accuracy and fairness in their stories.
#MediaEthics, #NewsAccuracy, #Journalism, #ClimateReporting, #PoliticalNews
-
https://www.europesays.com/uk/622899/ Europe Agrees to Drastic ESG Cuts After US Pressure Intensifies #ClimateReporting #CorporateSustainabilityDueDiligenceDirective #CorporateSustainabilityReportingDirective(CSRD) #EnvironmentalSocialAndGovernance(ESG)Criteria #EU #EUClimateChange #Europe #European #EuropeanUnion #GreenhouseGasEmissions
-
Europe Agrees to Drastic ESG Cuts After US Pressure Intensifies https://www.byteseu.com/1612909/ #ClimateReporting #CorporateSustainabilityDueDiligenceDirective #CorporateSustainabilityReportingDirective(CSRD) #EnvironmentalSocialAndGovernance(ESG)Criteria #EUClimateChange #Europe #GreenhouseGasEmissions
-
The biggest climate stories often aren’t labelled ‘climate’ – so newsrooms miss them
#Environment #Climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateJournalism #UKPolitics #NetZero #EnergyPolicy #MediaBias #Journalism #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #GreenTransition #The14
https://the-14.com/the-biggest-climate-stories-often-arent-labelled-climate-so-newsrooms-miss-them/ -
The biggest climate stories often aren’t labelled ‘climate’ – so newsrooms miss them
#Environment #Climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateJournalism #UKPolitics #NetZero #EnergyPolicy #MediaBias #Journalism #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #GreenTransition #The14
https://the-14.com/the-biggest-climate-stories-often-arent-labelled-climate-so-newsrooms-miss-them/ -
The biggest climate stories often aren’t labelled ‘climate’ – so newsrooms miss them
#Environment #Climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateJournalism #UKPolitics #NetZero #EnergyPolicy #MediaBias #Journalism #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #GreenTransition #The14
https://the-14.com/the-biggest-climate-stories-often-arent-labelled-climate-so-newsrooms-miss-them/ -
The biggest climate stories often aren’t labelled ‘climate’ – so newsrooms miss them
#Environment #Climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateJournalism #UKPolitics #NetZero #EnergyPolicy #MediaBias #Journalism #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #GreenTransition #The14
https://the-14.com/the-biggest-climate-stories-often-arent-labelled-climate-so-newsrooms-miss-them/ -
The biggest climate stories often aren’t labelled ‘climate’ – so newsrooms miss them
#Environment #Climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateJournalism #UKPolitics #NetZero #EnergyPolicy #MediaBias #Journalism #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #GreenTransition #The14
https://the-14.com/the-biggest-climate-stories-often-arent-labelled-climate-so-newsrooms-miss-them/ -
As the US government sabotages its own climate web site (along with many other science-based or truth-based sites), a new site is the phoenix borne of its ashes. May it thrive. Please consider donating or otherwise supporting their efforts (e.g., by sharing notice of the site).
#climate #ClimateDenial #resist #science #truth #media #journalism #ClimateData #ClimateReporting #propaganda #hope #politics #USPolitics #fascism #PostTruth
Here's another URL that might be worth sharing:
-
As the US government sabotages its own climate web site (along with many other science-based or truth-based sites), a new site is the phoenix borne of its ashes. May it thrive. Please consider donating or otherwise supporting their efforts (e.g., by sharing notice of the site).
#climate #ClimateDenial #resist #science #truth #media #journalism #ClimateData #ClimateReporting #propaganda #hope #politics #USPolitics #fascism #PostTruth
Here's another URL that might be worth sharing:
-
As the US government sabotages its own climate web site (along with many other science-based or truth-based sites), a new site is the phoenix borne of its ashes. May it thrive. Please consider donating or otherwise supporting their efforts (e.g., by sharing notice of the site).
#climate #ClimateDenial #resist #science #truth #media #journalism #ClimateData #ClimateReporting #propaganda #hope #politics #USPolitics #fascism #PostTruth
Here's another URL that might be worth sharing:
-
As the US government sabotages its own climate web site (along with many other science-based or truth-based sites), a new site is the phoenix borne of its ashes. May it thrive. Please consider donating or otherwise supporting their efforts (e.g., by sharing notice of the site).
#climate #ClimateDenial #resist #science #truth #media #journalism #ClimateData #ClimateReporting #propaganda #hope #politics #USPolitics #fascism #PostTruth
Here's another URL that might be worth sharing:
-
As the US government sabotages its own climate web site (along with many other science-based or truth-based sites), a new site is the phoenix borne of its ashes. May it thrive. Please consider donating or otherwise supporting their efforts (e.g., by sharing notice of the site).
#climate #ClimateDenial #resist #science #truth #media #journalism #ClimateData #ClimateReporting #propaganda #hope #politics #USPolitics #fascism #PostTruth
Here's another URL that might be worth sharing:
-
#ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #TheGremlinZoo
Trump administration says it won't publish major climate change reports on NASA website as promised
-
#ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #TheGremlinZoo
Trump administration says it won't publish major climate change reports on NASA website as promised
-
#ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #TheGremlinZoo
Trump administration says it won't publish major climate change reports on NASA website as promised
-
#ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #TheGremlinZoo
Trump administration says it won't publish major climate change reports on NASA website as promised
-
This specific article has some badly structured wording in places. Better care is called for. I had to go back several times re-reading the confusing sentence "At least one congressional Republican is ready to take action in the face of increasing extreme weather events. " to realize this wasn't a change in pattern but rather a CONTINUATION of GOP broken policy by Marjorie Taylor Green (MTG).
If we are going to tell this story, it needs to be told with clarity. It is important to NOT just toss in these details as if they are stories that tell themselves. False narratives have been told that require careful unwinding. The fact of extreme weather events is an opportunity to say "there is an objective way to see who is telling the truth here".
Another part of this story we have to get better at telling is the part about probabilities. A lot of people are not good at math, but they still should intuitively understand the important parts if it's explained well:
People sometimes say of bad weather "well, that sometimes happens. even extreme events sometimes happen". That's true of gambling situations, too. There are low-probability events that do happen. But it's very different to say you know that an otherwise low-probability event is going to happen, that is, to be able to say "I will now roll double-sixes three times in a row." While it can happen that you do, if you say it's going to happen, one starts to suspect that it's not just random, that maybe it's the dice.
In this case, the effect is all that carbon pollution having an effect. It's what scientists have been predicting.
MTG offers the preposterous alternate explanation of weather being controlled by adverse political forces, but she is still speaking to the set of people who can tell something is amiss and demand an explanation. News media has hammered these stories into a segment of our population, and it cannot be taken for granted that people will suddenly see the folly of it. More careful hand-holding is essential.
The GOP and its associated propaganda sources have become an engine for offering bizarre conspiracy theories, but the Dems are the party of offering little or no narrative at all and assuming that the gaps will be filled by common sense. That's just not enough.
#Climate #ClimateReporting #ClimateJournalism #journalism #politics #USPolitics #ExtremeWeather #propaganda
-
This specific article has some badly structured wording in places. Better care is called for. I had to go back several times re-reading the confusing sentence "At least one congressional Republican is ready to take action in the face of increasing extreme weather events. " to realize this wasn't a change in pattern but rather a CONTINUATION of GOP broken policy by Marjorie Taylor Green (MTG).
If we are going to tell this story, it needs to be told with clarity. It is important to NOT just toss in these details as if they are stories that tell themselves. False narratives have been told that require careful unwinding. The fact of extreme weather events is an opportunity to say "there is an objective way to see who is telling the truth here".
Another part of this story we have to get better at telling is the part about probabilities. A lot of people are not good at math, but they still should intuitively understand the important parts if it's explained well:
People sometimes say of bad weather "well, that sometimes happens. even extreme events sometimes happen". That's true of gambling situations, too. There are low-probability events that do happen. But it's very different to say you know that an otherwise low-probability event is going to happen, that is, to be able to say "I will now roll double-sixes three times in a row." While it can happen that you do, if you say it's going to happen, one starts to suspect that it's not just random, that maybe it's the dice.
In this case, the effect is all that carbon pollution having an effect. It's what scientists have been predicting.
MTG offers the preposterous alternate explanation of weather being controlled by adverse political forces, but she is still speaking to the set of people who can tell something is amiss and demand an explanation. News media has hammered these stories into a segment of our population, and it cannot be taken for granted that people will suddenly see the folly of it. More careful hand-holding is essential.
The GOP and its associated propaganda sources have become an engine for offering bizarre conspiracy theories, but the Dems are the party of offering little or no narrative at all and assuming that the gaps will be filled by common sense. That's just not enough.
#Climate #ClimateReporting #ClimateJournalism #journalism #politics #USPolitics #ExtremeWeather #propaganda
-
This specific article has some badly structured wording in places. Better care is called for. I had to go back several times re-reading the confusing sentence "At least one congressional Republican is ready to take action in the face of increasing extreme weather events. " to realize this wasn't a change in pattern but rather a CONTINUATION of GOP broken policy by Marjorie Taylor Green (MTG).
If we are going to tell this story, it needs to be told with clarity. It is important to NOT just toss in these details as if they are stories that tell themselves. False narratives have been told that require careful unwinding. The fact of extreme weather events is an opportunity to say "there is an objective way to see who is telling the truth here".
Another part of this story we have to get better at telling is the part about probabilities. A lot of people are not good at math, but they still should intuitively understand the important parts if it's explained well:
People sometimes say of bad weather "well, that sometimes happens. even extreme events sometimes happen". That's true of gambling situations, too. There are low-probability events that do happen. But it's very different to say you know that an otherwise low-probability event is going to happen, that is, to be able to say "I will now roll double-sixes three times in a row." While it can happen that you do, if you say it's going to happen, one starts to suspect that it's not just random, that maybe it's the dice.
In this case, the effect is all that carbon pollution having an effect. It's what scientists have been predicting.
MTG offers the preposterous alternate explanation of weather being controlled by adverse political forces, but she is still speaking to the set of people who can tell something is amiss and demand an explanation. News media has hammered these stories into a segment of our population, and it cannot be taken for granted that people will suddenly see the folly of it. More careful hand-holding is essential.
The GOP and its associated propaganda sources have become an engine for offering bizarre conspiracy theories, but the Dems are the party of offering little or no narrative at all and assuming that the gaps will be filled by common sense. That's just not enough.
#Climate #ClimateReporting #ClimateJournalism #journalism #politics #USPolitics #ExtremeWeather #propaganda
-
This specific article has some badly structured wording in places. Better care is called for. I had to go back several times re-reading the confusing sentence "At least one congressional Republican is ready to take action in the face of increasing extreme weather events. " to realize this wasn't a change in pattern but rather a CONTINUATION of GOP broken policy by Marjorie Taylor Green (MTG).
If we are going to tell this story, it needs to be told with clarity. It is important to NOT just toss in these details as if they are stories that tell themselves. False narratives have been told that require careful unwinding. The fact of extreme weather events is an opportunity to say "there is an objective way to see who is telling the truth here".
Another part of this story we have to get better at telling is the part about probabilities. A lot of people are not good at math, but they still should intuitively understand the important parts if it's explained well:
People sometimes say of bad weather "well, that sometimes happens. even extreme events sometimes happen". That's true of gambling situations, too. There are low-probability events that do happen. But it's very different to say you know that an otherwise low-probability event is going to happen, that is, to be able to say "I will now roll double-sixes three times in a row." While it can happen that you do, if you say it's going to happen, one starts to suspect that it's not just random, that maybe it's the dice.
In this case, the effect is all that carbon pollution having an effect. It's what scientists have been predicting.
MTG offers the preposterous alternate explanation of weather being controlled by adverse political forces, but she is still speaking to the set of people who can tell something is amiss and demand an explanation. News media has hammered these stories into a segment of our population, and it cannot be taken for granted that people will suddenly see the folly of it. More careful hand-holding is essential.
The GOP and its associated propaganda sources have become an engine for offering bizarre conspiracy theories, but the Dems are the party of offering little or no narrative at all and assuming that the gaps will be filled by common sense. That's just not enough.
#Climate #ClimateReporting #ClimateJournalism #journalism #politics #USPolitics #ExtremeWeather #propaganda
-
This specific article has some badly structured wording in places. Better care is called for. I had to go back several times re-reading the confusing sentence "At least one congressional Republican is ready to take action in the face of increasing extreme weather events. " to realize this wasn't a change in pattern but rather a CONTINUATION of GOP broken policy by Marjorie Taylor Green (MTG).
If we are going to tell this story, it needs to be told with clarity. It is important to NOT just toss in these details as if they are stories that tell themselves. False narratives have been told that require careful unwinding. The fact of extreme weather events is an opportunity to say "there is an objective way to see who is telling the truth here".
Another part of this story we have to get better at telling is the part about probabilities. A lot of people are not good at math, but they still should intuitively understand the important parts if it's explained well:
People sometimes say of bad weather "well, that sometimes happens. even extreme events sometimes happen". That's true of gambling situations, too. There are low-probability events that do happen. But it's very different to say you know that an otherwise low-probability event is going to happen, that is, to be able to say "I will now roll double-sixes three times in a row." While it can happen that you do, if you say it's going to happen, one starts to suspect that it's not just random, that maybe it's the dice.
In this case, the effect is all that carbon pollution having an effect. It's what scientists have been predicting.
MTG offers the preposterous alternate explanation of weather being controlled by adverse political forces, but she is still speaking to the set of people who can tell something is amiss and demand an explanation. News media has hammered these stories into a segment of our population, and it cannot be taken for granted that people will suddenly see the folly of it. More careful hand-holding is essential.
The GOP and its associated propaganda sources have become an engine for offering bizarre conspiracy theories, but the Dems are the party of offering little or no narrative at all and assuming that the gaps will be filled by common sense. That's just not enough.
#Climate #ClimateReporting #ClimateJournalism #journalism #politics #USPolitics #ExtremeWeather #propaganda
-
This article highlights the importance of linking extreme weather events with government actions and inactions.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/nws-cuts-texas-floods
I have some concerns with the presentation of this specific article that I'll attach as a follow-up message in the comment on this thread, but I'm glad to see this getting reported in this general form.
People need help to understand what's happening, and the peddlers of propaganda know this so will be right in there with their misinformation. It must be countered by good information in a form that is clear about what's happening, how to understand its implication, and what to do in response. Each of these is a point of weakness if it is left unfilled because the propaganda folks will be right there filling the gaps.
It's a horrible thing that DOGE (and now also the ironically-called Big Beautiful Bill that just passed in Congress) have done to climate funding in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other agencies in terms of cutting funding for measuring, tracking, and reporting climate and weather phenomena. This will mean, over time, a lot more incidents like the one this article reports, and one of the good things this article does is call that out so that people can see that having good government policy matters.
We used to have a world where we know a lot less about what the weather was going to do with us, and a lot more people were injured by weather for lack of prediction capability. It is a terrifying thing to think of returning to that, and outrageous to have to see it as a voluntary act, a self-inflicted wound, by our politicians.
See also my 2020 essay Humanity's Superpower for the importance of integrating science into our societal decision-making. That's increasingly under assault now, which can only lead to bad places.
https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2020/03/humanitys-superpower_28.html
#Climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateReporting #journalism #probabilities #weather #WeatherReporting #ExtremeWeather #ClimateEmergency #DOGE #NOAA #NWS #NASA
-
This article highlights the importance of linking extreme weather events with government actions and inactions.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/nws-cuts-texas-floods
I have some concerns with the presentation of this specific article that I'll attach as a follow-up message in the comment on this thread, but I'm glad to see this getting reported in this general form.
People need help to understand what's happening, and the peddlers of propaganda know this so will be right in there with their misinformation. It must be countered by good information in a form that is clear about what's happening, how to understand its implication, and what to do in response. Each of these is a point of weakness if it is left unfilled because the propaganda folks will be right there filling the gaps.
It's a horrible thing that DOGE (and now also the ironically-called Big Beautiful Bill that just passed in Congress) have done to climate funding in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other agencies in terms of cutting funding for measuring, tracking, and reporting climate and weather phenomena. This will mean, over time, a lot more incidents like the one this article reports, and one of the good things this article does is call that out so that people can see that having good government policy matters.
We used to have a world where we know a lot less about what the weather was going to do with us, and a lot more people were injured by weather for lack of prediction capability. It is a terrifying thing to think of returning to that, and outrageous to have to see it as a voluntary act, a self-inflicted wound, by our politicians.
See also my 2020 essay Humanity's Superpower for the importance of integrating science into our societal decision-making. That's increasingly under assault now, which can only lead to bad places.
https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2020/03/humanitys-superpower_28.html
#Climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateReporting #journalism #probabilities #weather #WeatherReporting #ExtremeWeather #ClimateEmergency #DOGE #NOAA #NWS #NASA
-
This article highlights the importance of linking extreme weather events with government actions and inactions.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/nws-cuts-texas-floods
I have some concerns with the presentation of this specific article that I'll attach as a follow-up message in the comment on this thread, but I'm glad to see this getting reported in this general form.
People need help to understand what's happening, and the peddlers of propaganda know this so will be right in there with their misinformation. It must be countered by good information in a form that is clear about what's happening, how to understand its implication, and what to do in response. Each of these is a point of weakness if it is left unfilled because the propaganda folks will be right there filling the gaps.
It's a horrible thing that DOGE (and now also the ironically-called Big Beautiful Bill that just passed in Congress) have done to climate funding in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other agencies in terms of cutting funding for measuring, tracking, and reporting climate and weather phenomena. This will mean, over time, a lot more incidents like the one this article reports, and one of the good things this article does is call that out so that people can see that having good government policy matters.
We used to have a world where we know a lot less about what the weather was going to do with us, and a lot more people were injured by weather for lack of prediction capability. It is a terrifying thing to think of returning to that, and outrageous to have to see it as a voluntary act, a self-inflicted wound, by our politicians.
See also my 2020 essay Humanity's Superpower for the importance of integrating science into our societal decision-making. That's increasingly under assault now, which can only lead to bad places.
https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2020/03/humanitys-superpower_28.html
#Climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateReporting #journalism #probabilities #weather #WeatherReporting #ExtremeWeather #ClimateEmergency #DOGE #NOAA #NWS #NASA
-
This article highlights the importance of linking extreme weather events with government actions and inactions.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/nws-cuts-texas-floods
I have some concerns with the presentation of this specific article that I'll attach as a follow-up message in the comment on this thread, but I'm glad to see this getting reported in this general form.
People need help to understand what's happening, and the peddlers of propaganda know this so will be right in there with their misinformation. It must be countered by good information in a form that is clear about what's happening, how to understand its implication, and what to do in response. Each of these is a point of weakness if it is left unfilled because the propaganda folks will be right there filling the gaps.
It's a horrible thing that DOGE (and now also the ironically-called Big Beautiful Bill that just passed in Congress) have done to climate funding in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other agencies in terms of cutting funding for measuring, tracking, and reporting climate and weather phenomena. This will mean, over time, a lot more incidents like the one this article reports, and one of the good things this article does is call that out so that people can see that having good government policy matters.
We used to have a world where we know a lot less about what the weather was going to do with us, and a lot more people were injured by weather for lack of prediction capability. It is a terrifying thing to think of returning to that, and outrageous to have to see it as a voluntary act, a self-inflicted wound, by our politicians.
See also my 2020 essay Humanity's Superpower for the importance of integrating science into our societal decision-making. That's increasingly under assault now, which can only lead to bad places.
https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2020/03/humanitys-superpower_28.html
#Climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateReporting #journalism #probabilities #weather #WeatherReporting #ExtremeWeather #ClimateEmergency #DOGE #NOAA #NWS #NASA
-
This article highlights the importance of linking extreme weather events with government actions and inactions.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/nws-cuts-texas-floods
I have some concerns with the presentation of this specific article that I'll attach as a follow-up message in the comment on this thread, but I'm glad to see this getting reported in this general form.
People need help to understand what's happening, and the peddlers of propaganda know this so will be right in there with their misinformation. It must be countered by good information in a form that is clear about what's happening, how to understand its implication, and what to do in response. Each of these is a point of weakness if it is left unfilled because the propaganda folks will be right there filling the gaps.
It's a horrible thing that DOGE (and now also the ironically-called Big Beautiful Bill that just passed in Congress) have done to climate funding in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other agencies in terms of cutting funding for measuring, tracking, and reporting climate and weather phenomena. This will mean, over time, a lot more incidents like the one this article reports, and one of the good things this article does is call that out so that people can see that having good government policy matters.
We used to have a world where we know a lot less about what the weather was going to do with us, and a lot more people were injured by weather for lack of prediction capability. It is a terrifying thing to think of returning to that, and outrageous to have to see it as a voluntary act, a self-inflicted wound, by our politicians.
See also my 2020 essay Humanity's Superpower for the importance of integrating science into our societal decision-making. That's increasingly under assault now, which can only lead to bad places.
https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2020/03/humanitys-superpower_28.html
#Climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateReporting #journalism #probabilities #weather #WeatherReporting #ExtremeWeather #ClimateEmergency #DOGE #NOAA #NWS #NASA
-
I used to think actuaries would cause the insurance business to speak loudly about Climate, and that in turn would cause Government to see that the problem was not imagined because real dollars were at stake.
But gerrymandering insurability is not a form of awareness, it's a form of denial. It's Martin Niemöller's "First They Came..." poem, played out along the Climate axis.
#Climate #ClimateDenial #ClimateReporting #ClimateScience #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #LateStageCapitalism #economics
-
I used to think actuaries would cause the insurance business to speak loudly about Climate, and that in turn would cause Government to see that the problem was not imagined because real dollars were at stake.
But gerrymandering insurability is not a form of awareness, it's a form of denial. It's Martin Niemöller's "First They Came..." poem, played out along the Climate axis.
#Climate #ClimateDenial #ClimateReporting #ClimateScience #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #LateStageCapitalism #economics
-
I used to think actuaries would cause the insurance business to speak loudly about Climate, and that in turn would cause Government to see that the problem was not imagined because real dollars were at stake.
But gerrymandering insurability is not a form of awareness, it's a form of denial. It's Martin Niemöller's "First They Came..." poem, played out along the Climate axis.
#Climate #ClimateDenial #ClimateReporting #ClimateScience #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #LateStageCapitalism #economics
-
I used to think actuaries would cause the insurance business to speak loudly about Climate, and that in turn would cause Government to see that the problem was not imagined because real dollars were at stake.
But gerrymandering insurability is not a form of awareness, it's a form of denial. It's Martin Niemöller's "First They Came..." poem, played out along the Climate axis.
#Climate #ClimateDenial #ClimateReporting #ClimateScience #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #LateStageCapitalism #economics
-
I used to think actuaries would cause the insurance business to speak loudly about Climate, and that in turn would cause Government to see that the problem was not imagined because real dollars were at stake.
But gerrymandering insurability is not a form of awareness, it's a form of denial. It's Martin Niemöller's "First They Came..." poem, played out along the Climate axis.
#Climate #ClimateDenial #ClimateReporting #ClimateScience #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #LateStageCapitalism #economics
-
I just put up an essay on my blog. It's cobbled together from various bits of text I wrote Thursday morning in several mastodon posts (including one haiku) about the issue of scientific consensus, climate reporting, the 1.5 degree threshold, the need for action, and the fact that the weather/climate distinction is working against us here.
Must We Pretend?
https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2025/05/must-we-pretend.html#climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #ClimateReporting #journalism #consensus #science #ClimateAction #ethics
-
I just put up an essay on my blog. It's cobbled together from various bits of text I wrote Thursday morning in several mastodon posts (including one haiku) about the issue of scientific consensus, climate reporting, the 1.5 degree threshold, the need for action, and the fact that the weather/climate distinction is working against us here.
Must We Pretend?
https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2025/05/must-we-pretend.html#climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #ClimateReporting #journalism #consensus #science #ClimateAction #ethics
-
I just put up an essay on my blog. It's cobbled together from various bits of text I wrote Thursday morning in several mastodon posts (including one haiku) about the issue of scientific consensus, climate reporting, the 1.5 degree threshold, the need for action, and the fact that the weather/climate distinction is working against us here.
Must We Pretend?
https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2025/05/must-we-pretend.html#climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #ClimateReporting #journalism #consensus #science #ClimateAction #ethics
-
I just put up an essay on my blog. It's cobbled together from various bits of text I wrote Thursday morning in several mastodon posts (including one haiku) about the issue of scientific consensus, climate reporting, the 1.5 degree threshold, the need for action, and the fact that the weather/climate distinction is working against us here.
Must We Pretend?
https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2025/05/must-we-pretend.html#climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #ClimateReporting #journalism #consensus #science #ClimateAction #ethics
-
I just put up an essay on my blog. It's cobbled together from various bits of text I wrote Thursday morning in several mastodon posts (including one haiku) about the issue of scientific consensus, climate reporting, the 1.5 degree threshold, the need for action, and the fact that the weather/climate distinction is working against us here.
Must We Pretend?
https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2025/05/must-we-pretend.html#climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #ClimateReporting #journalism #consensus #science #ClimateAction #ethics
-
«A new study has warned that if global temperatures rise more than 1.5°C, significant crop diversity could be lost in many regions»
Are we not sufficiently AT the 1.5°C mark that this dance in reporting is ludicrous? I keep seeing reports (several quoted by me here below) that we averaged above that in 2024, so I find this predication on a pipe dream HIGHLY misleading.
Even just wordings suggesting that the crossing of some discete boundary will trigger an effect, but that not crossing it will not, is misleading. It's not like 1.49°C will leave us with no loss of diversity, but 1.51°C will hit us with all these effects.
What needs to be said more plainly is this: significant crop diversity is being ever more lost in real time now, and this loss is a result of global average temperatures that are dangerous and getting moreso. That they are a specific value on an instantaneous or rolling average basis gives credibility and texture to this qualitative claim, but no comfort should be drawn from almost-ness nor from theoretical clains that action could yet pull us back from a precipice that there is not somilarly substantiated qualitative reason to believe we are politically poised to make.
Science reporting does this kind of thing a lot. Someone will get funding to test whether humans need air to breathe but some accident of how the experiments are set up will find that only pregnant women under 30 were available for testing so the report will be a very specific about that and news reports will end up saying "new report proves pregnant women under 30 need air to breathe", which doesn't really tell the public the thing that the study really meant to report. Climate reporting is full of similarly overly specific claims that allow the public to dismiss the significance of what's really going on. People writing scientific reports need to be conscious of the fact that the reporting will be done in that way and that public inaction will be a direct result of such narrow reporting.
In the three reports that I quote below, the Berkeley report at least takes the time to say "recent warming trends and the lack of adequate mitigation measures make it clear that the 1.5 °C goal will not be met." We need more plain wordings like this, and even this needs to have been more prominently placed.
There is a conspiracy, intentional or not, between the writers of reports and the writers of articles. The article writer wants to quote the report, but the report wants to say something that has such technical accuracy that it will be misleading when quoted by someone writing articles. Some may say it's not an active conspiracy, just a negative synergy, but the effect is the same. Each party acts as if it is being conservative and careful, but the foreseeable combination of the two parts is anything but conservative or careful.
- - - - - Temperature references follow - - - - -
«The global annual average for 2024 in our dataset is estimated as 1.62 ± 0.06 °C (2.91 ± 0.11 °F) above the average during the period 1850 to 1900, which is traditionally used a reference for the pre-industrial period.
…
A goal of keeping global warming to no more than 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above pre-industrial has been an intense focus of international attention. This goal is defined based on multi-decadal averages, and so a single year above 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) does not directly constitute a failure. However, RECENT WARMING TRENDS AND THE LACK OF ADEQUATE MITIGATION MEASURES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE 1.5 °C GOAL WILL NOT BE MET. The long-term average of global temperature is likely to effectively cross the 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) threshold in the next 5-10 years. While the 1.5 °C goal will not be met, urgent action is still needed to limit man-made climate change.
»
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2024/
(CAPS mine for emphasis)- - - - -
«WMO confirms 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above pre-industrial level
…
The global average surface temperature was 1.55 °C (with a margin of uncertainty of ± 0.13 °C) above the 1850-1900 average, according to WMO’s consolidated analysis of the six datasets. This means that we have likely just experienced the first calendar year with a global mean temperature of more than 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average.»
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-year-record-about-155degc-above-pre-industrial-level- - - - -
«Temperatures Rising: NASA Confirms 2024 Warmest Year on Record
…
NASA scientists further estimate Earth in 2024 was about 2.65 degrees Fahrenheit (1.47 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-19th century average (1850-1900). For more than half of 2024, average temperatures were more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the baseline, and the annual average, with mathematical uncertainties, may have exceeded the level for the first time.»
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/temperatures-rising-nasa-confirms-2024-warmest-year-on-record/#climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #journalism #ethics #collapse #heat #GlobalAverageTemperatures #ExcessHeat #crops #CropDiversity #food #FoodSecurity #FoodInsecurity #sustainability #environment #ClimateEmergency
-
«A new study has warned that if global temperatures rise more than 1.5°C, significant crop diversity could be lost in many regions»
Are we not sufficiently AT the 1.5°C mark that this dance in reporting is ludicrous? I keep seeing reports (several quoted by me here below) that we averaged above that in 2024, so I find this predication on a pipe dream HIGHLY misleading.
Even just wordings suggesting that the crossing of some discete boundary will trigger an effect, but that not crossing it will not, is misleading. It's not like 1.49°C will leave us with no loss of diversity, but 1.51°C will hit us with all these effects.
What needs to be said more plainly is this: significant crop diversity is being ever more lost in real time now, and this loss is a result of global average temperatures that are dangerous and getting moreso. That they are a specific value on an instantaneous or rolling average basis gives credibility and texture to this qualitative claim, but no comfort should be drawn from almost-ness nor from theoretical clains that action could yet pull us back from a precipice that there is not somilarly substantiated qualitative reason to believe we are politically poised to make.
Science reporting does this kind of thing a lot. Someone will get funding to test whether humans need air to breathe but some accident of how the experiments are set up will find that only pregnant women under 30 were available for testing so the report will be a very specific about that and news reports will end up saying "new report proves pregnant women under 30 need air to breathe", which doesn't really tell the public the thing that the study really meant to report. Climate reporting is full of similarly overly specific claims that allow the public to dismiss the significance of what's really going on. People writing scientific reports need to be conscious of the fact that the reporting will be done in that way and that public inaction will be a direct result of such narrow reporting.
In the three reports that I quote below, the Berkeley report at least takes the time to say "recent warming trends and the lack of adequate mitigation measures make it clear that the 1.5 °C goal will not be met." We need more plain wordings like this, and even this needs to have been more prominently placed.
There is a conspiracy, intentional or not, between the writers of reports and the writers of articles. The article writer wants to quote the report, but the report wants to say something that has such technical accuracy that it will be misleading when quoted by someone writing articles. Some may say it's not an active conspiracy, just a negative synergy, but the effect is the same. Each party acts as if it is being conservative and careful, but the foreseeable combination of the two parts is anything but conservative or careful.
- - - - - Temperature references follow - - - - -
«The global annual average for 2024 in our dataset is estimated as 1.62 ± 0.06 °C (2.91 ± 0.11 °F) above the average during the period 1850 to 1900, which is traditionally used a reference for the pre-industrial period.
…
A goal of keeping global warming to no more than 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above pre-industrial has been an intense focus of international attention. This goal is defined based on multi-decadal averages, and so a single year above 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) does not directly constitute a failure. However, RECENT WARMING TRENDS AND THE LACK OF ADEQUATE MITIGATION MEASURES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE 1.5 °C GOAL WILL NOT BE MET. The long-term average of global temperature is likely to effectively cross the 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) threshold in the next 5-10 years. While the 1.5 °C goal will not be met, urgent action is still needed to limit man-made climate change.
»
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2024/
(CAPS mine for emphasis)- - - - -
«WMO confirms 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above pre-industrial level
…
The global average surface temperature was 1.55 °C (with a margin of uncertainty of ± 0.13 °C) above the 1850-1900 average, according to WMO’s consolidated analysis of the six datasets. This means that we have likely just experienced the first calendar year with a global mean temperature of more than 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average.»
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-year-record-about-155degc-above-pre-industrial-level- - - - -
«Temperatures Rising: NASA Confirms 2024 Warmest Year on Record
…
NASA scientists further estimate Earth in 2024 was about 2.65 degrees Fahrenheit (1.47 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-19th century average (1850-1900). For more than half of 2024, average temperatures were more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the baseline, and the annual average, with mathematical uncertainties, may have exceeded the level for the first time.»
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/temperatures-rising-nasa-confirms-2024-warmest-year-on-record/#climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #journalism #ethics #collapse #heat #GlobalAverageTemperatures #ExcessHeat #crops #CropDiversity #food #FoodSecurity #FoodInsecurity #sustainability #environment #ClimateEmergency
-
«A new study has warned that if global temperatures rise more than 1.5°C, significant crop diversity could be lost in many regions»
Are we not sufficiently AT the 1.5°C mark that this dance in reporting is ludicrous? I keep seeing reports (several quoted by me here below) that we averaged above that in 2024, so I find this predication on a pipe dream HIGHLY misleading.
Even just wordings suggesting that the crossing of some discete boundary will trigger an effect, but that not crossing it will not, is misleading. It's not like 1.49°C will leave us with no loss of diversity, but 1.51°C will hit us with all these effects.
What needs to be said more plainly is this: significant crop diversity is being ever more lost in real time now, and this loss is a result of global average temperatures that are dangerous and getting moreso. That they are a specific value on an instantaneous or rolling average basis gives credibility and texture to this qualitative claim, but no comfort should be drawn from almost-ness nor from theoretical clains that action could yet pull us back from a precipice that there is not somilarly substantiated qualitative reason to believe we are politically poised to make.
Science reporting does this kind of thing a lot. Someone will get funding to test whether humans need air to breathe but some accident of how the experiments are set up will find that only pregnant women under 30 were available for testing so the report will be a very specific about that and news reports will end up saying "new report proves pregnant women under 30 need air to breathe", which doesn't really tell the public the thing that the study really meant to report. Climate reporting is full of similarly overly specific claims that allow the public to dismiss the significance of what's really going on. People writing scientific reports need to be conscious of the fact that the reporting will be done in that way and that public inaction will be a direct result of such narrow reporting.
In the three reports that I quote below, the Berkeley report at least takes the time to say "recent warming trends and the lack of adequate mitigation measures make it clear that the 1.5 °C goal will not be met." We need more plain wordings like this, and even this needs to have been more prominently placed.
There is a conspiracy, intentional or not, between the writers of reports and the writers of articles. The article writer wants to quote the report, but the report wants to say something that has such technical accuracy that it will be misleading when quoted by someone writing articles. Some may say it's not an active conspiracy, just a negative synergy, but the effect is the same. Each party acts as if it is being conservative and careful, but the foreseeable combination of the two parts is anything but conservative or careful.
- - - - - Temperature references follow - - - - -
«The global annual average for 2024 in our dataset is estimated as 1.62 ± 0.06 °C (2.91 ± 0.11 °F) above the average during the period 1850 to 1900, which is traditionally used a reference for the pre-industrial period.
…
A goal of keeping global warming to no more than 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above pre-industrial has been an intense focus of international attention. This goal is defined based on multi-decadal averages, and so a single year above 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) does not directly constitute a failure. However, RECENT WARMING TRENDS AND THE LACK OF ADEQUATE MITIGATION MEASURES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE 1.5 °C GOAL WILL NOT BE MET. The long-term average of global temperature is likely to effectively cross the 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) threshold in the next 5-10 years. While the 1.5 °C goal will not be met, urgent action is still needed to limit man-made climate change.
»
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2024/
(CAPS mine for emphasis)- - - - -
«WMO confirms 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above pre-industrial level
…
The global average surface temperature was 1.55 °C (with a margin of uncertainty of ± 0.13 °C) above the 1850-1900 average, according to WMO’s consolidated analysis of the six datasets. This means that we have likely just experienced the first calendar year with a global mean temperature of more than 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average.»
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-year-record-about-155degc-above-pre-industrial-level- - - - -
«Temperatures Rising: NASA Confirms 2024 Warmest Year on Record
…
NASA scientists further estimate Earth in 2024 was about 2.65 degrees Fahrenheit (1.47 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-19th century average (1850-1900). For more than half of 2024, average temperatures were more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the baseline, and the annual average, with mathematical uncertainties, may have exceeded the level for the first time.»
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/temperatures-rising-nasa-confirms-2024-warmest-year-on-record/#climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #journalism #ethics #collapse #heat #GlobalAverageTemperatures #ExcessHeat #crops #CropDiversity #food #FoodSecurity #FoodInsecurity #sustainability #environment #ClimateEmergency
-
«A new study has warned that if global temperatures rise more than 1.5°C, significant crop diversity could be lost in many regions»
Are we not sufficiently AT the 1.5°C mark that this dance in reporting is ludicrous? I keep seeing reports (several quoted by me here below) that we averaged above that in 2024, so I find this predication on a pipe dream HIGHLY misleading.
Even just wordings suggesting that the crossing of some discete boundary will trigger an effect, but that not crossing it will not, is misleading. It's not like 1.49°C will leave us with no loss of diversity, but 1.51°C will hit us with all these effects.
What needs to be said more plainly is this: significant crop diversity is being ever more lost in real time now, and this loss is a result of global average temperatures that are dangerous and getting moreso. That they are a specific value on an instantaneous or rolling average basis gives credibility and texture to this qualitative claim, but no comfort should be drawn from almost-ness nor from theoretical clains that action could yet pull us back from a precipice that there is not somilarly substantiated qualitative reason to believe we are politically poised to make.
Science reporting does this kind of thing a lot. Someone will get funding to test whether humans need air to breathe but some accident of how the experiments are set up will find that only pregnant women under 30 were available for testing so the report will be a very specific about that and news reports will end up saying "new report proves pregnant women under 30 need air to breathe", which doesn't really tell the public the thing that the study really meant to report. Climate reporting is full of similarly overly specific claims that allow the public to dismiss the significance of what's really going on. People writing scientific reports need to be conscious of the fact that the reporting will be done in that way and that public inaction will be a direct result of such narrow reporting.
In the three reports that I quote below, the Berkeley report at least takes the time to say "recent warming trends and the lack of adequate mitigation measures make it clear that the 1.5 °C goal will not be met." We need more plain wordings like this, and even this needs to have been more prominently placed.
There is a conspiracy, intentional or not, between the writers of reports and the writers of articles. The article writer wants to quote the report, but the report wants to say something that has such technical accuracy that it will be misleading when quoted by someone writing articles. Some may say it's not an active conspiracy, just a negative synergy, but the effect is the same. Each party acts as if it is being conservative and careful, but the foreseeable combination of the two parts is anything but conservative or careful.
- - - - - Temperature references follow - - - - -
«The global annual average for 2024 in our dataset is estimated as 1.62 ± 0.06 °C (2.91 ± 0.11 °F) above the average during the period 1850 to 1900, which is traditionally used a reference for the pre-industrial period.
…
A goal of keeping global warming to no more than 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above pre-industrial has been an intense focus of international attention. This goal is defined based on multi-decadal averages, and so a single year above 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) does not directly constitute a failure. However, RECENT WARMING TRENDS AND THE LACK OF ADEQUATE MITIGATION MEASURES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE 1.5 °C GOAL WILL NOT BE MET. The long-term average of global temperature is likely to effectively cross the 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) threshold in the next 5-10 years. While the 1.5 °C goal will not be met, urgent action is still needed to limit man-made climate change.
»
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2024/
(CAPS mine for emphasis)- - - - -
«WMO confirms 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above pre-industrial level
…
The global average surface temperature was 1.55 °C (with a margin of uncertainty of ± 0.13 °C) above the 1850-1900 average, according to WMO’s consolidated analysis of the six datasets. This means that we have likely just experienced the first calendar year with a global mean temperature of more than 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average.»
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-year-record-about-155degc-above-pre-industrial-level- - - - -
«Temperatures Rising: NASA Confirms 2024 Warmest Year on Record
…
NASA scientists further estimate Earth in 2024 was about 2.65 degrees Fahrenheit (1.47 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-19th century average (1850-1900). For more than half of 2024, average temperatures were more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the baseline, and the annual average, with mathematical uncertainties, may have exceeded the level for the first time.»
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/temperatures-rising-nasa-confirms-2024-warmest-year-on-record/#climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #journalism #ethics #collapse #heat #GlobalAverageTemperatures #ExcessHeat #crops #CropDiversity #food #FoodSecurity #FoodInsecurity #sustainability #environment #ClimateEmergency
-
«A new study has warned that if global temperatures rise more than 1.5°C, significant crop diversity could be lost in many regions»
Are we not sufficiently AT the 1.5°C mark that this dance in reporting is ludicrous? I keep seeing reports (several quoted by me here below) that we averaged above that in 2024, so I find this predication on a pipe dream HIGHLY misleading.
Even just wordings suggesting that the crossing of some discete boundary will trigger an effect, but that not crossing it will not, is misleading. It's not like 1.49°C will leave us with no loss of diversity, but 1.51°C will hit us with all these effects.
What needs to be said more plainly is this: significant crop diversity is being ever more lost in real time now, and this loss is a result of global average temperatures that are dangerous and getting moreso. That they are a specific value on an instantaneous or rolling average basis gives credibility and texture to this qualitative claim, but no comfort should be drawn from almost-ness nor from theoretical clains that action could yet pull us back from a precipice that there is not somilarly substantiated qualitative reason to believe we are politically poised to make.
Science reporting does this kind of thing a lot. Someone will get funding to test whether humans need air to breathe but some accident of how the experiments are set up will find that only pregnant women under 30 were available for testing so the report will be a very specific about that and news reports will end up saying "new report proves pregnant women under 30 need air to breathe", which doesn't really tell the public the thing that the study really meant to report. Climate reporting is full of similarly overly specific claims that allow the public to dismiss the significance of what's really going on. People writing scientific reports need to be conscious of the fact that the reporting will be done in that way and that public inaction will be a direct result of such narrow reporting.
In the three reports that I quote below, the Berkeley report at least takes the time to say "recent warming trends and the lack of adequate mitigation measures make it clear that the 1.5 °C goal will not be met." We need more plain wordings like this, and even this needs to have been more prominently placed.
There is a conspiracy, intentional or not, between the writers of reports and the writers of articles. The article writer wants to quote the report, but the report wants to say something that has such technical accuracy that it will be misleading when quoted by someone writing articles. Some may say it's not an active conspiracy, just a negative synergy, but the effect is the same. Each party acts as if it is being conservative and careful, but the foreseeable combination of the two parts is anything but conservative or careful.
- - - - - Temperature references follow - - - - -
«The global annual average for 2024 in our dataset is estimated as 1.62 ± 0.06 °C (2.91 ± 0.11 °F) above the average during the period 1850 to 1900, which is traditionally used a reference for the pre-industrial period.
…
A goal of keeping global warming to no more than 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above pre-industrial has been an intense focus of international attention. This goal is defined based on multi-decadal averages, and so a single year above 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) does not directly constitute a failure. However, RECENT WARMING TRENDS AND THE LACK OF ADEQUATE MITIGATION MEASURES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE 1.5 °C GOAL WILL NOT BE MET. The long-term average of global temperature is likely to effectively cross the 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) threshold in the next 5-10 years. While the 1.5 °C goal will not be met, urgent action is still needed to limit man-made climate change.
»
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2024/
(CAPS mine for emphasis)- - - - -
«WMO confirms 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above pre-industrial level
…
The global average surface temperature was 1.55 °C (with a margin of uncertainty of ± 0.13 °C) above the 1850-1900 average, according to WMO’s consolidated analysis of the six datasets. This means that we have likely just experienced the first calendar year with a global mean temperature of more than 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average.»
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-year-record-about-155degc-above-pre-industrial-level- - - - -
«Temperatures Rising: NASA Confirms 2024 Warmest Year on Record
…
NASA scientists further estimate Earth in 2024 was about 2.65 degrees Fahrenheit (1.47 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-19th century average (1850-1900). For more than half of 2024, average temperatures were more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the baseline, and the annual average, with mathematical uncertainties, may have exceeded the level for the first time.»
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/temperatures-rising-nasa-confirms-2024-warmest-year-on-record/#climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateChange #ClimateReporting #journalism #ethics #collapse #heat #GlobalAverageTemperatures #ExcessHeat #crops #CropDiversity #food #FoodSecurity #FoodInsecurity #sustainability #environment #ClimateEmergency