The American Geophysical Union plans to announce Monday that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. The effort is a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. Full Story »
Posted by Patricia L'Herrou - via LA Times (Most Emailed), Sirajul Islam (t), James Joaquin (f)
This article takes the easy route, but it's important nonetheless. It doesn't enter into the arguments at all, but it does provide good coverage of the scientists' moves to organize.
A fine story that could have been made more interesting by discussing the specifics of what these 700-odd climate scientists plan to do as part of their public campaign. As it stands, this piece is pretty general.
This article appears to pick up in the middle of the climate debate, and does not adequately explain the goals and motivations of the parties involved.
Applying the typical rubric to this story leads me to the conclusion that this would not be considered "good" journalism. Everything the story has to offer is contained in the byline and the subtitle the rest of the copy is somewhat superfluous because it doesn't deliver the facts that are needed to understand why this is news. However this is what journalism has become today an amalgamation of facts that are culled from an abstract timeline. Without realizing it our own 24/7 news cycle has created a style of writing that operates on the assumption that the reader possesses the necessary amount of knowledge to understand the article in its proper context.
I hadn't intended on writing a review for this but for some reason I just kept coming back to it, I have already added a comment but after further reflection I decided that this was something that I wanted to say. I still strongly feel that the intention and purpose of the article was accomplished by the byline and the subtitle. I do think the author got stuck by trying to create justification for the story. I do apologize for the personal rant but I thought I could offer a couple of ... More »
On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country’s largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak ... More »
according to this writer, a significant change in how scientists plan to begin an interaction with the climate-change skeptics in congress and the public to counter skepticism, will be launched today. also mentioned is another effort to accomplish this from another scientist at a minnesota university. i look forward to confirm these as actuality this week.
The reorter simply reported the contention of Heartland Institute's representative that "billions" of grant dollars were being spent studying global warming and this is a gross exageration of the amount of money that is being spent. Heartland plants a outlandish figure that suggests that somehow scientists are wasting money. Heartland is funded by Oil and coal interests and this was not reported.
Quoted both sides. The Heartland Institute in particular is known for distorting facts to discredit global warming.
Retrieving Comments
