Big media misses a key climate censorship story

A year and a half overdue, the Bush Administration finally submitted its Climate Action Report – 2006 (CAR) last Friday afternoon, with hardly any mention by government officials of the report or its shameful findings (like a 15.8 percent increase in U.S. emissions since 1990).

While the mainstream media has been either silent or blind to the report‘s release, major kudos are due to the blogosphere. The few adept, new media journalists to blog on the report include Kevin Grandia from DeSmogBlog and Rick Piltz at Climate Science Watch.

Piltz’s analysis notes that the report doesn’t draw on the most current and accurate science (most notably the IPCC), nor does it acknowledge some of the consequences that threaten us. Piltz concldues,

The failure to use this material, and the overall evasiveness of the impacts and vulnerability chapter of the report, was clearly a political decision. Administration officials have once again defaulted on an opportunity to address a crucial challenge for national preparedness.

Piltz’s post ends with a list of questions for the Administration, and rightfully so. However, my question is more inline with what Kevin Grandia is asking:

Where is the media to expose these sort of trip-ups and inform the public now – not as a citation in a later hearing, or once the release is history! In light of this Administration’s record of scientific censorship and disgraceful climate record, there should be a public cacophony over the nature and content of this report!

4 Responses to Big media misses a key climate censorship story

  1. Lou Grinzo says:

    Oh, please, Joe. Don’t tell me you expect the media to cover trivia like this plus the really pressing news of the day, like what Britney, Nicole, and Paris are up to.

    I mean, really–we have to have our priorities.

  2. Andy Revkin says:

    What about our story back in March on the near-final draft?
    Pointed out several of the issues you raise here.

  3. Joe says:


    You are indeed big (and it seems fairly unique). Kudos are due for the early hit — yes we missed that (just searching Google News for the past month was not enough). Thanks for the correction.


  4. Kgrandia says:

    Agreed Andy, there was good coverage of the draft report by the NY Times in March — but still, the final report should have received mainstream media attention.

    It’s an important report, 19 months late that has been at the center of controversy (re: Phil Cooney) for a long time.