The scramble to make climate change in Alaska feel real

I don’t accept when people say “see, it’s snowing, climate change isn’t real!” so why would I accept the equal but opposite statement? Just because it reinforces my beliefs?

It’s anti-science to pretend they are the same thing because you want them to be. A random anecdotal sample is a single data point, or twenty data points, etc. The actual scientific problem of estimating and anticipation climate effects are the modeling billions of those data points, almost none of which we were around to actual observe.

This blind tribalism where ”You don’t get to use x as evidence but I do” hurts climate science overall.

The decisions made about Alaskan oil and other extractive resources aren't always made by Alaskans. When you see Alaskan politicians, and people speaking for Alaska, it's a good idea to look into their background and see how long they've been here. It's a good idea to ask whether their involvement is primarily for the benefit of the people here, or for the benefit of people outside the state.

There's a lot more to climate change than just the idea that cold places will become warmer. Much of the issue is destabilization. Here in southeast Alaska, we've had an increase in issues related to landslides, which has all kinds of impacts on local people.

Sure, it's been nicer for recreating some summers that were warmer and drier than the usual 50-degree and rainy summers that are typical for this area. But it's also unsettling, wondering about long-term impacts on forest and ocean ecology.

I dunno what you call it, but it certainly isn't journalism; more like infotainment.

Big bucks in that.

The problem is when journalists/scientists cherry pick the information that helps their agenda/hypothesis and downplay the rest. That's unscientific. But that's why we need multiple journalists working the same topic, i.e. replication. And we need a general population/peer review who is intelligent enough to spot biases.

But historically humans are just bad at spotting their own biases, and more often than not, "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Responsible journalism asks questions like these: "What perspectives on this issue am I leaving out? Is it justified to do so?". There's a near endless supply of perspectives on virtually any issue. Of course representing all of them in a journalistic piece would be impossible, so a journalist needs to make a decision about which perspectives should be included and which should be left out.

Is it fair for journalists writing about climate change to leave out climate change denialist perspectives? Perhaps, especially when climate change denialists engage in deceptive arguments, which is extremely common. But often, some amount of skepticism is totally warranted, as there is even quantified uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Often journalists can cross into propagandist territory by not including some of that skepticism, and it makes their presented narratives a bit less credible, especially to people who have been inoculated by hardcore climate change denialist propaganda.

We really don't know exactly how bad things will get by 2100 (or later), there are several different models based on many different parameters, and humans can significantly alter those outcomes based on decisions we make. There are a few facts which are undeniable, and can be verified by virtually anyone: atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising, mean global temperatures are rising yoy. Based on many models, the rate these changes are occurring at will very likely cause significant systemic problems to the ease at which we, and most other species, survive on this planet.

Is there something in the actual article that you feel pushes an unfair narrative?

To me it reports facts, which are scary. I don't think the article uses much hyperbole, but even if one concedes your point there IS impending doom to the people he interviewed. Their houses are sinking and rotten and becoming not livable because of climate change.

I really liked the Newsroom show; there's a great quote about narratives and bias. Sometimes giving equal weight to arguments just for the sake of 'fairness' is inherently unfair on settled topics like basic fundamental climate change facts.

As others have pointed out this type of journalism has some inherent bias simply from the choice of the journalist to do research & write on the topic.

Quackenbush writes in this blog how the hot moldy house piqued an urgency in himself, which he (rightly) feels is important to report on.

It's fundamentally a human interest piece, just like interviewing people who's houses were destroyed after a hurricane.

IMHO this is the most important & pressing issue today and should be #1 news and Quackenbush is right in trying to report more stories that give real human emotional consequences to the reality of destruction.