News broke yesterday on the latest and perhaps punchiest report yet from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So far it is but a draft to be discussed later this year at a meeting in Copenhagen. First accounts suggest it shall be among the most blunt and at the same time despairing that the big UN-sponsored IPCC has put together.
A few outlets all got it, apparently, at about the same time yesterday (and many others are churning these more primary ones in order to slap their own bylines on their contents). Here are three stories I found that imply their publisher or reporter got the report directly from somebody on the inside:
- New York Times – Justin Gillis: UN Draft Reports Lists Unchecked Emissions’ Risks ; Which is a very passive hed to put over a story with the lede: Runaway growth in the emissions of greenhouse gases is swamping all political efforts to deal with the problem, raising the risk of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts” over the coming decades, according to a draft of a major new United Nations report.
- AP – Seth Borenstein: UN Panel: Global Warming Human-Caused, Dangerous ; No fancy writing here, just a sober set of declarations at the top. Lede: Global warming is here, human-cuased and probably already dangerous – and it’s increasingly likely that the heating trend could be ireversible, a draft of a new international science report says.
- Bloomberg – Alex Morales: Climate report finds risk of ‘irreversible’ damage to planet ; Another straight lede: Humans risk causing irreversible and widespread damage to the planet unless there’s faster action to limit the fossil fuel emissions blamed for climage change…
The arrival of copies of the draft at news agencies appear to be independent and at times due to initiative by reporters.
Borenstein tells ksjtracker that it was not too hard to get. The IPCC put out a press release saying the drafts had been sent to government representatives around the world. “I put out emails to sources and within 5 minutes I had two copies and promises from two others (who I called off) and this morning a fifth offered it,”Seth wrote in an email. “They essentially sent it out to hundreds of people. How could it not leak?”
In his story, Morales writes “The draft, dated Aug. 25, was obtained by Bloomberg from a person with official access to it who asked not to be further identified because it hasn’t been published yet.”
UPDATE: Morales reports that he was tipped to the draft’s circulation even before the IPCC announced it, and got the source to send it to him – his story ran just before IPCC’s press release saying it had been sent for review to governmental representatives.
Here is what sent several reporters on the hunt: IPCC Press Release.
No doubt other outlets have beavered up their own copies. This seems like a solid piece of news. It also is dreadfully familiar. Whether one more report, however dramatically or emphatically phrased it is, can move world governments very far very fast toward policies that deliver a roundhouse punch to carbon emissions seems unlikely. Seth told us, “The real challenge was finding something new. and that was more a language issue.”
As it happens, from Australia we hear of two other approaches to shifting public opinion far enough that we collectively address what, far as I can tell, is the single greatest threat – including likelihood which leaves out giant asteroids as immediate perils – facing both humanity and the diversity of life as we know it generally. One is to get scientists to intimately confess their true feelings about global warming. The other is ridicule via parody of the loons on the fringe. Here are two samplings:
- The Guardian/Planet Oz – Graham Readfearn: Visiting the alternate climate change universe of Australia’s Attorney-General George Brandis ; I rather like the parts about media, which in Australia means mainly News Corporation. You know, the outfit that calls the shots for Fox News in the US.
- News.com.au: Scientists reveal how they feel about climate change in handwritten letters and photos ; Two separate projects in Australia decided to get past the dry abstracts and reports and dig out what climate researchers really think deep in their hearts. One just asked for handwritten letters, the other took pictures of them as they described their climate fears. This is an absorbing glimpse inside the academy. One source in this account says in effect (ie, this is my version) that what scientists right now is not eager to say anything for grant money, as skeptics seriously declare. They are scared half to death – yet somehow optimistic that sense will some day prevail. Another serious, decent account is at, surprise?, the Daily Mail by Amy Ziniak.
Grist for the Mill: Website with climate scientists’ letters: IS THIS HOW YOU FEEL?
Leave a Reply