Anorak | Why did the New York Times lose the argument on manmade global warming?

Why did the New York Times lose the argument on manmade global warming?

by | 7th, March 2013

Central Park

THE Climate Change war is over. The New York Times has closed its climate change desk and Green Blog. Why?

Kevin Drum  wonders :

Obviously the Times editors are going to come in for plenty of criticism over this, and that’s fine. They deserve it. But let’s face it: the reason they did this is almost certainly that the blog wasn’t getting much traffic (and, therefore, not generating much advertising revenue). So a more constructive question is: Why do readers—even the well-educated, left-leaning readers of the Times—find environmental news so boring? Is it because we all write about it badly? Is it something inherent in the subject itself? Is it because most people think we don’t really have any big environmental problems anymore aside from climate change? Or is it because it’s just such a damn bummer to read endlessly about all the stuff we should stop doing because, somehow, it will end up destroying a rain forest somewhere?

Or maybe it’s because the science is not settled. In SEptember 2011, the NYT asked its readers:

88. Which statement comes closest to your view about global warming? 1. Global warming is caused mostly by human activity such as burning fossil fuels or 2. Global warming is caused mostly by natural patterns in the earth’s environment. or 3. Global warming does not exist.


new york times green copy



Or maybe, New

You have already read 1 premium article for free today
Access immediately the premium content with Multipass

Or come back tomorrow

Posted: 7th, March 2013 | In: News Comments (10) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink