Reuters Covers Sea Level Rise Flooding Miami, But Won't Say Climate Change

Miami families chalk 6' sea level rise at
HighWaterLine.org event (Jayme Gershen)

Reuters has a compelling story on how sea level rise is impacting Miami Beach, but even more interesting is what the story leaves out: Climate change. And there's evidence to suggest Reuters' omission is no accident.

First, the Reuters coverage of the Miami Beach "King Tide" that's expected to peak October 9 at about a foot above normal:

The event, caused by the alignment of the sun, moon and Earth, provides a taste of the potential impact of a longer-term two-foot sea level rise predicted for south Florida by 2060, according to the United States Geological Survey. The low-lying greater Miami area, with a population of 5.7 million, is one of the world's most at-risk urban communities, scientists told a U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing in April.

The King Tide is expected to rise to almost four feet. With seven miles of coastline, Miami Beach is already seeing more frequent salt-water street flooding at high tide, according to Miami Beach City Manager Jimmy Morales.

To combat such widespread flooding, the city has set aside $300 million to 400 million to install up to 50 pumps in the coming years in what some say is a vain effort to protect an estimated $23 billion of real estate.

Bigger sea walls are not an option as Miami Beach's flooding is caused largely by water rising underfoot through porous limestone bedrock. Officials concede pumping water back into the ocean is only a short-term solution.

It's a really interesting article, but it leaves you with an unanswered question: Why is sea level rising? It's a critical part of the story. Leaving out the cause makes sea level rise seem like something that's beyond our control, but it most certainly is not. The intensity of future global warming and the height of future sea level rise will be determined by how much and how fast we cut industrial carbon pollution right now.

You might think it's a coincidence that Reuters left out any mention of global warming - maybe they just assumed everyone knows and accepts mainstream climate science! But there's evidence the action is deliberate. As Media Matters has reported, a former reporter accuses Reuters Deputy Editor-in-Chief Paul Ingrassia of denying the clear scientific connection between industrial carbon pollution and global warming intensity. The reporter accused Ingrassia of letting his personal politics taint Reuters' climate coverage and repeated Media Matters investigations have shown Reuters climate coverage continues to decline in frequency and quality.

Reuters' silence on the connection between sea level rise and carbon pollution comes with real consequences, especially in Florida. Gov. Rick Scott wouldn't even let climate scientists finish making their case for climate action before cutting them off. Sen. Marco Rubio lets his pro-polluter politics cloud his judgment on climate change.

In this case, Reuters isn't just failing to connect the dots for its readers - it's letting science deniers off the hook for their reckless decision to put politics ahead of people.

Via ClimateCrocks.com

Rush Limbaugh: Hurricane Isaac a Liberal Plot to Disrupt GOP Convention

Rush Limbaugh long ago untethered himself from reality (the oxycontin may have something to do with it), but this is a new level of crazy even for him:

Rush Limbaugh is even blaming Obama for the weather. On his radio show, Limbaugh claimed that Hurricane Issac is an Obama conspiracy to shut down the Republican convention: "The National Hurricane Center, which is a government agency, is very hopeful that the hurricane gets near Tampa. The National Hurricane Center is Obama." [...]

If the Republican Party wanted to avoid any potential weather problems, they could have made the decision not to hold their convention in South Florida at the peak of hurricane season. Seriously, who in the Republican Party thought it would be a great idea to hold their convention in South Florida in late August?

My favorite part of Limbaugh's rant:

We don’t need the National Hurricane Center, and we don’t need all these weather dolts analyzing this for us. Well, we need the center, we can look at their charts and graphs, we know what to do, we can read the stuff. 

We don't need Big Government telling us when a hurricane is coming! OK, yes, we completely do.

Audio courtesy Media Matters:

George Will Fails to Disclose Financial Ties to Polluter Front Groups

Why is George Will so aggressively anti-climate science? A new report makes his financial incentives more clear.

Media Matters reports that not only has Will been drawing a salary from his role on the board of the extremist-conservative Bradley Foundation, he's been writing about the front groups they fund without disclosing it in his Washington Post columns:

Media Matters reviewed Will's columns from mid-2008 to the present and found at least a dozen instances in which he has promoted conservative groups that have received money from the Bradley Foundation without disclosing his connection to the foundation. Those groups include the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society, and National Affairs quarterly.

SourceWatch has a full rundown of the Bradley Foundation's activities, funding everything from climate science denial to attacks on minorities as genetically unworthy of any public assistance. Just really the worst of the worst stuff. And as the Media Matters report details, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt is completely indifferent to Will's lack of disclosure.

Why Isn't Fox Talking About Global Warming This Week?

As this Media Matters video details, Fox only talks about global warming when it's snowing:

Washington Post's Romney/Climate Story Stiffs Science

The Washington Post has a story this morning about how Mitt Romney acknowledges the science, at least in general terms, that man-made carbon emissions are driving global warming.

Let's count the "experts" quoted:

• GOP workers & activists: 3
• Polluter-funded front groups: 2
• Rush Limbaugh: 1
• Climate scientists: 0

As Media Matters reported this week, when it comes to reporting on climate science, climate scientists are the last people the media seeks out.

CNN: Global Warming "a Largely Unscientific Hoax"

The Green Miles' roommate, while liberal, tends not to be overtly political. He's a journalist, so he see things more in shades of gray than black and white. Also, he's not overtly anything. It's just not his style.

So when he burst into the living room in anger after he overheard Mary Matalin on CNN, she must have said something pretty outrageous:

BLITZER: (reading Matalin quote) "I don't think he [Sen. John McCain] rests comfortably anywhere that conservatives would call home today. If it was true yesterday, it's not true for tomorrow's issues. The ones that he has chosen to take a lead on are the ones that conservatives either don't prioritize or flat-out loathe."

MATALIN: Like --

BLITZER: Like what?

MATALIN: -- some global warming issues. But he's going --

BLITZER: They loathe that?

MATALIN: Because it's a largely unscientific hoax. And it's a political concoction.

BLITZER: But he believes with [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT] -- he's co-sponsoring legislation on that.

MATALIN: He's going to have to put together an energy policy that has elements of conservation but productivity, and reduces our dependence on oil. He has said that. Some of the other issues, though --

BLITZER: But on global warming he's a true believer.

MATALIN: But he's not going to prioritize that, because that's not where the country is right now. And you haven't heard him prioritizing that.

"Unscientific hoax?!" my roommate shouted at the television. "Are you insane?!"

As Media Matters details, it's not the first time a CNN analyst has asserted blatant falsehoods when it comes to global warming.

When it comes to the science of global warming, there is no debate about whether it's happening or whether our greenhouse gas emissions are to blame. There's debate about the degree to which we'll warm, how fast, and what we can do to cure the planet's fever.

There's confusion in the public's mind only because conservative pundits keep making stuff up about climate science and networks like CNN keep giving them free air time to do it. For the straight science, check out RealClimate.

As for whether McCain will "prioritize that," it's a bit of a puzzle. While he co-sponsored climate legislation with Sen. Joe Lieberman, he says he won't support the current version of the bill, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, unless it includes more subsidies for nuclear power. If his ultimate goal is to cut carbon emissions, why is he prioritizing the nuclear industry over climate action? Odd.