Chris Mooney is a visiting associate in the 
Soon I'll be putting up my second HuffingtonPost entry on "Why Global Warming Tipped." (For the first entry, which has gotten 50 comments at last glance, see here.) In the meantime, though, I'd like to republish the fascinating figures that I used at HuffingtonPost, both of which arise from Nisbet's research and are part of the Speaking Science 2.0 talk. Here's the first (for a high resolution version see here):
This depicts the volume of attention to global warming over time at two agenda-setting newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post (presumed to be broad indicators of media coverage patterns). Data from the Lexis-Nexis database.
Much food for thought, eh? The peaks and valleys are not exactly what one might have assumed from a scientific perspective. For further analysis of the data here see the Huffpost.
And then here's the second figure, which also appears on p. 151 of Storm World:
Using a similar methodology, this depicts the volume of attention just to the relationship between hurricanes and global warming at the same newspapers. Once again, coverage patterns are correlated with relevant events. Once again, further explication of the data can be found at the Huffington Post.
As a journalist, it sure does feel good to use some actual DATA now and again--even if I didn't originally compile it. The upshot: In the media, as on the planet generally, things are warming up....and in the media, hurricanes are a significant part of the reason.
Comments
Wow, I just read through the whole comment thread of your HuffPo piece. It's filled to the brim with the standard denialist lunacy. I fear for humanity seeing people being that stupid.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 6, 2007 6:48 AM
You can't post anything, anywhere about GW without hordes of denialists pouring out of the woodwork... I'm suprised they're not here already.
The interesting question is how many of them are paid astroturfers, and how many are doing it pro-bono.
Posted by: Dunc | July 6, 2007 7:37 AM
I'm just happy that the Alarmists are led by the likes of your previous commenters. The American people will never get on your bandwagon because of your arrogance and dripping contempt for anyone who disagrees with you. It doesn't matter how right you are if the way you say it makes people want to smash your face.
Posted by: Mike M. | July 6, 2007 10:52 AM
for Mike M:
If you want to smash faces, then *you* need to acquire some insight into *your* motivations. It is possible for reasonable people to disagree without fisticuffs. Public policy debates should be about something more than combat (whether physical or rhetorical). The surest way to know that you are talking about *real* issues is to take the empirical approach - your observations keep you grounded in the real world, so that you don't spin out of control under the influence of some atavistic memes.
Posted by: carey | July 6, 2007 11:29 AM
I take this opportunity to insert standard denialist argument here:
Chris, Chris, Chris.
Chris.
ChrisChrisChris. The shape of the data is a Hockey Stick (TM). Therefore, the analysis is suspect and where is your data and alarmist tinfoilhatenviroweenie...uh...ahem.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | July 6, 2007 8:09 PM
Dano,
Very good point about the Hockey SchtickSM*.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that puts James Hansen on the rising edge of the Medevil Warm PeriodSM (on the first graph), where the media were really heating up.
*Steve McIntMarkSM
Posted by: Dark Tent | July 9, 2007 7:43 PM