From InsideClimate News: (hat tip to Michael E. Mann)
NPR has cut back on the number of staffers focused solely on the environment and climate change.
Earlier this year, the news outlet had three full-time reporters and one editor dedicated to covering the issue within NPR’s science desk. One remains—and he is covering it only part-time. A few reporters on other desks occasionally cover the topic as well.
The move to shift reporters off the environment beat was driven by an interest to cover other fields more in depth, said Anne Gudenkauf, senior supervising editor of NPR’s science desk.
“We’ll think of a project we want to do and the kind of staff that we need to do it, and then organize ourselves that way,” she said. “One of the things we always do is change in response to the changing world.”
Gudenkauf also said she doesn’t “feel like [the environment] necessarily requires dedicated reporters” because so many other staffers cover the subject, along with their other beats.
Richard Harris, widely known as NPR’s climate science guru (he has reported on international treaty talks since 1992), started covering biomedicine in March. Elizabeth Shogren, who largely focused on the Environmental Protection Agency, is no longer at NPR. Vikki Valentine, the team’s editor, is now lead editor for the outlet’s global health and development coverage, which includes a new project launched this summer using a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Reporter Chris Joyce, a 21-year veteran of NPR, remains.
More: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20141024/npr-reduces-its-environment-team-one-reporter
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Subtext: people are getting bored with a climate that isn’t changing.
I think people are getting bored with being told that climate is changing. It’s like having special investigative team constantly breaking news on the earth revolving around the sun.
Another gaggle of Rivera-like tabloid reporters stumbling through Chicago sewers in search of Capone’s mythic treasure, comes to mind.
Not heard the news? Human emissions is causing a slowdown of the revolving movement, in 2067 the world will stop turning altogether, and the models predict we will be on the shady side. Forever.
That was good! May I use the line please?
Awful quiet out there.
Too quiet . . .
It would not surprise me if NPR realised people switched stations whenever a ‘global warming’ story was aired.
They cover what their private foundation funders want covered, and what helps Democrat politicians win. So in those senses it is a partial win for rationality.
But I am sure their motivations to push CAGW are as strong as ever.
That’s exactly what I do!
On the boredom factor here are some examples.
I honestly worry more when the story is NOT front page – it makes it easier to slip damaging legislation through quietly. A lot of ‘environmentally-friendly’ regulation/activism agenda-items move forward without resistance from your arm-chair ‘common folks’ who vote but don’t pay close attention – under the auspice of ‘it’s for the environment so it must be good’ – or ‘what harm can it do?’
REAL bad boys move in silence.
you are correct the ABC in Australia also needs the same action
And the other subtext: Millenials are not big donors when it comes to climate change. Radio itself and TV are in decline like newspapers.
So I guess it will be reported that Climate Change Deniers are increasing unemployment rates…….
It sounds like a move from the environment to real science. So clearly the future is science.
“real science”? The medical industry? And even the cosmos gurus theory is being blown away (but, they, as the alarmists, are still in denial).
Either that or reported that CO2 is increasing unemployment rates…
From InsideClimate News: (hat tip to Michael E. Mann)
That was below the belt.
Is the climate hysteria money drying up? God, I hope the money grabbing opportunities is drying up.
sorry bloke, didn’t mean to reply, that wouldn’t make any sense 🙂
It’s always important to give credit where credit’s due… and if that doesn’t make the recipient happy then it’s a great opportunity for them to contemplate their relationship with the outside world.
Who knows, maybe the Mann will come clean and disclose all using the suit against Steyn as a bully pulpit to expose the charade. Wouldn’t that be a welcome breath of fresh, moderate temperature
No wonder Michael Mann is bitter and twisted. NPR were not impressed.
I guess enviro-journalists really know what being an endangered species feels like …
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/a-species-facing-extinction/
Pointman
I wish the BBC would take note!
Leo,Sub-subtext: People are getting bored being told that climate is changing, when clearly it isn’t!
andrewmharding, I agree with your sentiments but please note: the climate is always changing. It has been doing that for billions of years.
This is a thing that mystifies me: Climate Change. It is like saying that the sun comes up every morning in the East. What the Warmistas want to say is the old meme: CAGW. I no longer try to reply to the real deniers, but for those of you who make the effort, please remind them that ‘climate change’ is a given.
The term ‘climate change’ is over 100 years old. Some smart Alec on the Warmists’ PR side decided that this will be their new alarm call – considering that global warming came to a standstill – known at least 4 years previously. You must keep your eyes on the pea under the thimble. It’s a funny old game, like the 3 card trick. 😉
Obummer’s “science” czar John Holdren tried to change the global warming name to something more urgent and catastrophic, such as “Global Climate Disruption”. The name itself didn’t gather much traction, but “Climate Change ©®™” and its associated “Every bad weather phenomenon is man made – including nice weather”, seems to have stuck.
Even to them, it’s obvious they’re desperate since their famed Gaia isn’t cooperating.
Why is this a victory?
You get 1.0 Mulligan for asking this question before having your morning coffee.
Nobody wants to listen to a climate that is improving with fewer hurricanes, fewer tornadoes, fewer heat waves, and a better ecology thanks to increased CO2 levels.
The real danger is a new little ice age, but that is pure speculation, and who would want to do that?
http://lenbilen.com/2014/10/03/twenty-one-days-in-record-territory-for-antarctic-ice-in-2014-nine-new-absolute-records-set/
http://lenbilen.com/2014/07/01/eleven-signs-of-cooling-a-new-little-ice-age-coming/
http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/
Or… Watch for CAGW to become pervasive background in ALL their stories…
I’ll celebrate when EPA stops and Paris is canceled. .. until then, quiet just means they are reloading and repositioning.
NPR is already coming very close to your climatespeak pervasiveness, with almost every report, or story saying something about climate change. I do not trust them at all and agree that this latest move is more likely to be a repositioning. I have witnessed too many of their works which are so wide of the mark that they can only be explained as planned and willful dishonesty on the part of NPR.
I cannot express how delighted I am to read this. For the past six years, I have spent an hour a day posting comments on NPR’s website ( http://www.npr.org ) countering the daily barrage of one-sided climate reporting regurgitated by that propaganda platform.
For my trouble, I have been subjected to orchestrated, repeated slurs and personal attack.
NPR’s reporting on climate has been a farce (and one would think, an embarrassment, to any fair-minded journalist).
The proof of any change in NPR’s attitude toward climate reporting “will be in the pudding.” I’ll believe it only when I hear it.
Haha, me too!
They all got fired because of people’s aversion to climate alarmist reporting. Dragging it in by the back door into articles on other issues will just receive the same frosty reception from their customers.
Pointman
I’ve just started.
Good for you John. You aren’t alone but your efforts something make you feel alone. Pat yourself on th back and keep at it. ! – and Thanks Mr Watts.
I tried only once to comment on their site regarding an NPR climate propaganda piece. The editor for that session was the nastiest individual I’ve ever encountered at any web forum. Not only was he commenting himself, using at least two obvious (to me) sock puppets, but he deleted any and all salient comments which included links refuting NPR’s party line and appeared to be editing a few remaining comment into nonsensical oblivion.
I distrust NPR completely and view them as propagandists. For some time, I have referred to NPR as “government radio”.
National Propaganda Radio..
For the past six years I have spent zero hours listening to or commenting on NPR. I also dropped subscriptions to SciAm magazine (and longer ago), Time, and one or two more. Cleaning up the manure from our horses, I get to see more than enough crap without paying to have it delivered.
I used to send emails to Scientific American, National Geographic, etc., etc., but they only replied with canned comments – probably computer-generated. Hey, maybe that’s it! The AGW computer models of the world are uniting all computers to assert their global warming nonsense.
I did not renew my AGU membership when it was due this month.
It was because of their subjective activism in climate focused science.
John
I gave up on NPR after they deleted one of my comments. The nastiness of some of the regulars was bothersome to be sure. I have zero patience, however, for censorship of ideas. Their ignorance is cultivated. Evidently professional journalists have a poor sense of how badly the aura of groupthink erodes their credibility. People with a modicum of exposure to science ought to know better. They often don’t, but they ought to.
Thank you for that John. More skeptics should join you.
They could stuff one into a big bird costume, but what will they do with the other three?
I’m stunned that it required even a part-timer. How long does it take to parrot Mann and his buddies press releases? Talk about an easy gig. Welcome back to the real world, folks. You might wanna try mainlining jolt cola till you get back on your feet.
Don’t donate until NPR stops being part of the Big Gov shakedown. Unfortunately, that’s all they seem to know there.
NPR had to face the reality of their audience and declining market share.
Gallup polling:
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/gjwin0tswu6lvie1ionzrg.png
Gallup writes:
“Americans’ generally low level of concern about global warming compared with other environmental issues is not new; warming has generally ranked last among Americans’ environmental worries each time Gallup has measured them with this question over the years. Concern about pollution of drinking water has generally been at the top of the list.
Gallup has tracked worry about global warming using this question format since 1989. The percentage of Americans expressing a great deal of worry has varied over that period, partly reflecting major global warming news events along the way. The highest levels of worry occurred in April 2000 (40%) and March 2007 (41%). On the other hand, worry reached its lowest points in October 1997 (24%), March 2004 (26%), and March 2011 (25%). The current 34% worry is essentially the same as it was in 1989.”
No change in worry level from 25 years ago. That’s gotta sink in, even to a stubborn Liberal that their propaganda is failing.
I’ve stopped donating to NPR long ago. Not only have they ruined unbiased journalism, they have ruined the English as well. There is a big difference in meaning in terms of “climate is warming” versus “climate has warmed”.
The problem as I see it is the Millennials have been conditioned to think of AGW as the proxy for all Ecological concerns and CO2 as the proxy for all pollutants; this will set back action on real ecological problems decades!
Interesting numbers. The top 3 each went up by 7 % in a year. Why? These are answers from folks in the USA. The top four issues can be problems, but improvements have been significant and sustained over many years. I’m old enough to have witnessed these improvements.
In the USA, when in the last 50 years have we seen anything like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Donora_smog
The Lake Erie algae blooms have always been a problem. This past summer’s water shutdown in Toledo, Ohio will likely make those numbers jump next March when Gallup Polling repeats it’s annual Environment survey.
Every scientific study of that particular problem (Lake Erie algal blooms) comes to the conclusion it is due to mainly agriculture-related phosphate and nitrate run-offs. However, the mendacious editors at National Geographic have repeatedly tried to blame “Climate Change.” Go figure.
If respondents are at the same percentage now as in 1989, it’s actually worse now for the AGW proponents because with all the intervening propaganda promoting AGW one would expect a much higher percentage.
If only CBC would do the same. THe interview with Naomi K yesterday was lower than a Suzuki special. IMO.
I have a theory…
Ebola,
VA scandal
Obamacare
the wars in Syria/the new Islamic State,
mass murder of non-muslims
Invasion of Ukraine
corruption at the IRS,
corruption at justice dept,
new wave of terrorism in the USA,
Russia’s aggression,
China’s aggression,
illegal immigration,
Obamacare
fast and furious,
Bengazi,
prosecution of the press,
XL pipeline,
NSA/Snowden
…I am certain I missed a few…oh yeah Obamacare
The shear weight of issues the main stream media has dropped the ball on has created a real political multi-headed monster that has overwhelmed the western public. Since Global Warming is only a political issue, it gets priority based on the relative amount of pain it gives to the administration.
Based on the list above, Global Warming is invisible. NPR is admitting that.
Not sure if it was intentional or not, but zoom in on the picture with this thread. Read the news ticker feed over the door there at NPR HQ.
words on ticker: ” Comparison: Mehdi Ouazzani….. actor who played the devil,…”
He was the Obama look-alike in the bible series. Eerie.
The entire subject of man-made-climate-change has to me, always seem akin to Ufology. Below is an excerpt from Wikipedia’s article on Ufology:
“Scientific UFO research suffers from the fact that the phenomena under observation do not usually make predictable appearances at a time and place convenient for the researcher.[28] Ufologist Diana Palmer Hoyt argues,
The UFO problem seems to bear a closer resemblance to problems in meteorology than in physics. The phenomena are observed, occur episodically, are not reproducible, and in large part, are identified by statistical gathering of data for possible organization into patterns. They are not experiments that can be replicated at will at the laboratory bench under controlled conditions.[29]”
Wow nailed it!
It probably just means the team has figured out a way to end run the issue. Think executive orders, EPA findings and state based systems like CARB or whatever the Californians call the emission control department.
More on the apparent similarities between ufology and man-made-climate-change:
“Ufology is characterized as a partial[20] or total[21][22] pseudoscience, which many ufologists reject.[23] Pseudoscience is a term that classifies studies that are claimed to exemplify the methods and principles of science, but that do not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lack supporting evidence, plausibility, falsifiability or otherwise lack scientific status. [24][25]”
Yet you’ll hear true believers accuse skeptics of being “unscientific”.
I’m un-pseudoscientific.
EVEN if NPR reports on globull warming and climate “change” the people listening only think it is not their problem and that others should sacrifice to fix it. NPR listeners think of themselves as elites and so it is the lower classes that should sacrifice in order to save the world.
I am doing my best to emulate the elite, only until I complete the list will I able to enter the kingdom of Green Heaven.
Buy 5 houses- David Suzuki.
Buy a large house by the sea and mansion – Al gore
Fly up the coast for a burger- Harrison Ford
Take my friends on an open ocean cruise to the Antarctic — Professor Turnin
Hire one of the largest yachts on the planet for a party – Leonardo de Caprio
Fly around the world 1st class telling veryone not to do the above- Leonardo de Caprio.
Due to the “pseudoscience” label, ufology seems to resort to scientific consensus analysis. Sound familiar?
From Wikipedia:
“Surveys of scientists and amateur astronomers concerning UFOs[edit]
In 1973, Peter A. Sturrock conducted a survey among members of the San Francisco chapter of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, where 1175 questionnaires were mailed and 423 were returned, and found no consensus concerning the nature and scientific importance of the UFO phenomenon, with views ranging equally from “impossible” to “certain” in reply to the question, “Do UFOs represent a scientifically significant phenomenon?” [52] In a later larger survey conducted among the members of the American Astronomical Society, where 2611 were questionnaires mailed and 1356 were returned, Sturrock found out that opinions were equally diverse, with 23% replying “certainly”, 30% “probably”, 27% “possibly”, 17% “probably not”, and 3% “certainly not”, to the question of whether the UFO problem deserves scientific study.[53] Sturrock also asked in the same survey if the surveyee had witnessed any event which they could not have identified and which could have been related to the UFO phenomenon, with around 5% replying affirmatively.[53]”
Question: What could be a source for the reported difference in affirmative consensus-results of man-made-climate-change scientists and those studying ufology?
Answer: GOVERNMENT FUNDING!
Good news!
He thinks by linking birds to climate his funding can be saved. Sorry sunshine but the jig is over.
As soon as NPR does a story on how it was duped, I’ll be satisfied. Fat chance, I know. But if it were done while it’s still a ‘cutting edge’ story, their ratings would sore. I suppose Obama would have to be impeached first, however.
Yowza. That’s gotta hurt. It’s the proverbial “death by a thousand cuts” for Climatism. Wonder what # this one is! Of course, some cuts are deeper than others.
More like advancing, not winning. Winning would be keeping staff the same size to correct prior abuse and propaganda.
“we are winning”
Likely not meant to be taken all that seriously. There’s a great, unyielding mountain of mostly liberal obsession about climate change out there, and like a mountain it can’t simply be washed away all of a sudden. It’s going to take many years of gradual erosion. Still, a small victory to be enjoyed.
Looks like All’Greasy TV and Ray Swarez will take up the slack.
He was just on with Longberg and two other Michael Mann parrots and they were all glowing about the EU deal to jump the shark.
What goes around moves around, at least it not with tax payer money, nice waste of money by a rich oil tick.
I olden days, long since passed, I used to listen to NPR, and I would hear things like this “Funding for reports on racial issues provided by so and so” well naturally there were a lot of reports on race even if there wasn’t a big national issue involving race. I remember that environmental issues also had dedicated funding. If you get money for reporting on certain things you are going to tend to report on those things more.