Media coverage of the Trump-Harris debate was generally predictable including on climate. For instance the New York Times “Climate Forward” was full of the usual boring hype including this gassy paragraph: “The outcome of this presidential election could be critical to determining whether the United States, the world’s biggest historic source of the greenhouse gasses that are dangerously warming the planet, cuts its pollution enough to keep global warming within relatively safe limits. Scientists say the window for action is rapidly closing.” Oh, “scientists say”, do they? And what do they say the United States could do unilaterally to “keep global warming within relatively safe limits” given that if every nation on Earth met its Paris Accord targets, the very same models that blah blah blah dangerously warming pollution decade to act zzzzzzz say it would reduce temperatures by 2100 by about 1/10 of a degree, a rounding error not a balm for a fevered planet? Pfui.

Readers are not well-served by such journalism. For instance “The Morning”, from the same news outlet, wanted to ask 24 questions of Trump including:

“Extreme heat, severe storms and flooding have all become more common. Yet you’ve called climate change ‘not our problem.’ Are you worried about the world you’re leaving to your grandchildren?”

Yes. One in which journalists make such claims about storms and flooding and don’t bother to cite a source or, indeed, to have one.

They only had 21 for Harris, and we suspect patriarchy when the female candidate only earns 87.5% as many questions as the man. But one was whether the Biden administration switch from taxes on “dirty energy” to subsidies for “clean energy” was “delivering fast enough climate progress”. Ooooh. Hard-hitting.

We don’t expect everyone to adopt the Washington Times tone that:

“Vice President Kamala Harris, who needs Rust Belt voters to win the Oval Office, could lose the November election to former President Donald Trump because of her efforts to eliminate fossil fuels. Ms. Harris has been vague about her plans to govern on energy issues as she tries to keep climate activists in her corner without angering swing-state voters who rely on the oil and gas economy and low energy costs.”

But it’s reasonable to air both sides of the question, especially since many politicians promise more than they can deliver and less than they seem to pledge simultaneously. Or is it?

Not in another “Climate Forward” item, by columnist David Gelles the day before the debate, “Five climate questions for the candidates”, that not only offered the usual “Last year was another 12 months of record-breaking heat and extreme weather” framing but fact-checked Trump in advance:

“Trump has falsely claimed that climate change is not making extreme weather worse.”

Well, so has the IPCC. But what would they know? And Gelles doesn’t really even attempt to support his claim; it’s just one of those everybody-knows things. He does mention that “Some 645 people in died in Maricopa County, Ariz., alone from heat-related illnesses”, apparently in 2024, without delving into any trends in that number, and then arm-waves that:

“Economic losses from climate change are mounting and adding billions of damage to roads, bridges, seaside communities and critical infrastructure.”

Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts. On the other hand, he does note that:

“Harris has walked back her 2019 pledge to ban fracking, a key way of producing oil and gas. Her softening of this stance reflects economic concerns. While the Biden-Harris administration has worked to promote clean energy, it has also benefited from an economy buoyed by record fossil fuel production.”

So is she a weasel? Heck no. Rather, “Trump’s position is less nuanced.” Not “evasive” or “two-faced” as one might have said if a Republican were flipping their flop in this manner.