• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

According to Media Matters, a liberal nonprofit research organization that monitors media, the U-T is barely mentioning climate change in its wildfire coverage. However, other state media are doing the reverse.

The media watchdog reports that last year, 7 percent of the state's top newspapers mentioned climate change in wildfire-related stories; this year, that has climbed to 14 percent.

However, says Media Matters, "Oddly enough, the newspaper that covers an area that has seen some of most immediate and recent devastation due to the wildfires, the U-T San Diego, mentloned climate change the least. U-T San Diego mentioned climate change only once in its wildfire coverage, while questioning its existence."

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from the web

Comments

shirleyberan June 19, 2014 @ 10:08 a.m.

Such an embarrassment of riches. No science to report, or facts. They won't be informing of global economic change either, not just climate. We shouldn't think about the divide widening between rich and poor or pollution production.

0

jnojr June 23, 2014 @ 3:11 p.m.

Pollution produced by "poor" people, or "developing nations" is OK. They need to billow huge amount sod pollutants into the environment. It's only a problem when modern, Western nations populated by white people do it. And we won't accept any of those excuses about how much less pollution comes from developed nations... they must pay higher taxes and live under more government, period.

0

Don Bauder June 23, 2014 @ 3:19 p.m.

jnojr: The poor and developing nations don't get the attention of the large, industrialized nations. True. But the reason is obvious: the large industrial nations are larger polluters. Also, many have democracies and can at least try to enact reforms. How do you get the Congo to reform on pollutants? The poor nations and citizens thereof have much more to lose by industrial pollution reform. And efforts in those directions would be wasted. Go hunting where the ducks are. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder June 19, 2014 @ 11:49 a.m.

shirleyberan: Acceptance of climate change caused greatly by the burning of fossil fuels is now almost unanimous among scientists in the field. In economics, even conservative practitioners are coming to realize that wealth and income inequality is harmful to the economy. Best, Don Bauder

1

CaptainObvious June 19, 2014 @ 10:24 p.m.

No one has attributed it the the foul feind Mephistopheles either. Climate change has always been normal, but sciencey theories are debatable and don't really belong in stories about actual events.

0

Don Bauder June 20, 2014 @ 6:55 a.m.

Captain Obvious: As Edward O. Wilson writes, "The evidence for climate warming, with industrial pollution as the principal cause, is now overwhelming." The media should hammer this home, and stories about wildfires are a proper vehicle. Best, Don Bauder

1

ImJustABill June 20, 2014 @ 9:58 p.m.

Yes there is a lot of climate change and random variation in climate which has nothing to do with human activity. But there is strong evidence that human activity has caused changes in the Earth's ecosystem (C02 levels, ocean pH levels, etc) and in turn virtually all climate change models indicate that will lead to an overall change in San Diego's climate to one which is warmer and drier. Of course there's always room for science to evolve and sometimes scientific theories change as more evidence is uncovered and more research is done. But with the global climate change right now it really seems like the scientific debate is really about the exact magnitude of future man-made climate change rather than whether or not man-made climate change is happening.

0

Don Bauder June 21, 2014 @ 9:30 a.m.

ImJustABill: Agreed. The basic case has been made. Now the debate focuses on the degree of damage to the planet. Best, Don Bauder

0

Anon92107 June 20, 2014 @ 1:01 p.m.

Don, as we have discussed many times, the sad fact is that we live in the age of No One Really Cares (NORC).

And one reason they probably do not care is the it no longer matters which party wins, they are both corrupted by the Power of Money, which also corrupts all other social and economic institutions including universities and religions. Why else are there 1000s of Christian denominations competing with each other with false profits as leaders, and a university like Berkeley that is over $400 Million in debt for a last place team football stadium instead of enabling 1000s of eligible California kids to go to college that cannot afford it now.

So what's this global warming thing you're talking about? Didn't Pogo mention it at the 1970 Earth Day and absolutely no one paid attention except for a few people who could think but were, and still are marginalized by the power of money.

1

Don Bauder June 20, 2014 @ 5:02 p.m.

Anon92107: Pogo talking about global warming in 1970? Never heard of that. Best, Don Bauder

0

CaptainObvious June 20, 2014 @ 10:54 p.m.

Anon has a good point. The reality is that most people who can make a difference know they will probably be dead in 40 years, so they don't really care. They outlawed CFCs in spray cans and R-12 auto air conditioning. Whether or not that made any difference is debatable, because the replacement fluorocarbons are now controlled and require licensing to handle as they allegedly do a lot of damage to the Ozone Layer too. How many people bought a new car without air conditioning to save the earth? Can you even order one that way today? Do you know anyone with home or office air conditioning that turns it down when the power company requests it during hot spells? I don't, apparently thats for other people to do.

1

Don Bauder June 21, 2014 @ 9:33 a.m.

CaptainObvious: You put your finger on the tragedy. Dealing with this problem requires sacrifices NOW. But how many want to take those sacrifices? Our grandchildren will probably revile our generation. Best, Don Bauder

1

shirleyberan June 21, 2014 @ 10:25 a.m.

Don - the next generation already knows we're dumber.

0

Don Bauder June 21, 2014 @ 6:21 p.m.

shirleyberan: So true. Best, Don Bauder

0

jnojr June 23, 2014 @ 3:18 p.m.

There is ZERO evidence that the "climate" is changing. It is literally impossible to make any such statement with any factual basis... we have about 150 years of recorded weather data, which isn't even a blink of an eye when compared with the Earth's billions of years of climatological history. Scientists know to a certainty that the earth has alternated between periods with little or no polar ice and periods where much of the surface was encased in ice. Yet the idea that we see temperatures today that might be .2 degrees over what they were a few dozen years ago isa sized upon as proof that "THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING!" And, of course, it's impossible that that "change" might have anything to do with natural cycles. NO, IMPOSSIBLE, it's caused by human activity and nothing else! And the only possible solution is higher taxes, more government, and less liberty! Meanwhile, those who bleat the loudest about "global climate change" take private jets to remote resort destinations where idling limousines await to whisk them away to energy-guzzling mansions so that they can have meetings about climate change... and those meetings invariably result in some scheme that transfers enormous amounts of money into their own pockets.

It's a giant scam. Period. Science does not even begin to support the idea that humans are changing the climate.

0

ImJustABill June 24, 2014 @ 7:17 a.m.

The temperature HAS changed a lot, up and down, for a variety of reasons most of which have nothing to do with human activity. So looking at temperature data really isn't the best indicator of man-made climate change.

The atmospheric CO2 levels and ocean pH levels are what truly indicate there is man-made change. Unlike the temperature changes, it's difficult to explain away these changes as anything other than man-made.

Most of the climate models of the Earth predict that the changes in CO2, ozone levels, ocean pH, etc. will eventually lead to significant climate changes. Is it possible that the models are wrong because the data are incomplete and/or the models aren't accurate enough? Sure. But for now the best estimates are that significant climate change will occur over the next 100 years or so.

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2014 @ 7:43 a.m.

ImJustABill: Yes, it is possible the models are wrong. But it would be downright dangerous to conclude that the models are wrong, and therefore do nothing about the situation. There is enough evidence to go ahead with measures to protect future generations. In a society dominated by greed, however, that is no easy task. Best, Don Bauder

0

ImJustABill June 24, 2014 @ 1:11 p.m.

One cannot wait for 100% certainty of the future to make a decision. We don't know for 100% certainty the effect of human activity on the future climate but I think the rational thing to do is to plan around the most likely scenario - with some contingencies to adapt if less likely scenarios occur.

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2014 @ 1:55 p.m.

ImJustABill: How many things are we 100% certain of? There is no such thing as a seer. There are only seer-suckers -- those who fall for seers, losing their life's savings in the process. For the sake of future generations, we must go ahead no matter how sure we are. Best, Don Bauder

0

ImJustABill June 24, 2014 @ 7:23 a.m.

There is no doubt that a bunch of greedy scam artists are cashing in on the climate change debate.

Al Gore has made a fortune flying around in jets and going home to his huge mansion with huge heated indoor pool telling everyone else to conserve energy.

Carbon offset plans where rich guys who fly around the world in private jets can pretend to ease their conscience about their hypocrisy have largely been shown to be a scam.

CA governor Jerry Brown is wasting countless billions of taxpayer dollars in corporate welfare for a so-called high speed rail which is clearly a waste of money and will end up costing far more and go far slower than originally promised.

But just because there are scams doesn't mean the science is wrong.

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2014 @ 7:45 a.m.

ImJustABill: Greedy con artists are cashing in on EVERYTHING. 'Twas ever thus and 'twill always be. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2014 @ 7:38 a.m.

jnojr: Climate change is not a scam. It's basic science. Sixty years ago, a lot of people thought the theory of evolution was a scam. Now it is accepted knowledge. By and large, the same scientists who know that the earth's weather has changed radically over billions of years also believe that climate change caused by industrial pollution is real. Best, Don Bauder

0

shirleyberan June 23, 2014 @ 4:56 p.m.

Check out "greenhouse gasses" and "deforestation" as causes for changes in the atmosphere as well as burning fossil fuels. That should help make sense.

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2014 @ 7:46 a.m.

shirleyberan: There are multiple causes for the phenomena. There are some we can do something about, such as industrial pollution. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close