Welcome to The SIFT, a regular analysis of media coverage by the team at Media Sifter. Each edition provides a wide range of perspectives on a particular story, exposing bias, sub-topics and agendas…

The discussion of major weather events is now regularly accompanied by the persistent subtext of global warming. Hurricane Irma was no exception. In this edition of The SIFT we look at how Irma was reported as it moved across the Atlantic. We break down the debate that ensued around politicizing tragedy, and examine whether the media hyped-up, or down-played global warming in Irma’s aftermath.

Satellite image of Irma over the Atlantic

Early Reporting

Coverage of Irma began in the wake of Hurricane Harvey which at the time was the first major hurricane to make landfall in the USA since 2005. On the 30th August reports of Tropical Storm Irma began appearing. By September 1st, Irma had developed into a category 3 hurricane, was in the mid-Atlantic and five days away from the Caribbean. At this early stage, reports were highly speculative, summed up by this tweet from meteorologist Ryan Maue:

A huge array of satellite images could be found across the media, as well as discussion of the different forecasting models and conflicting reports detailing the potential paths the hurricane might take.

A “forecast cone” showing the probable path of the storm center of Hurricane Irma, from CBS

Even at this stage, many media outlets began to talk up the likelihood of Hurricane Irma becoming a devastating storm. The Express used click-bait within search results to attract visitors to their article.

Click-bait in the Express

Destruction in the Caribbean

By September 5th, reporting of Irma had shifted dramatically. It was labeled a “potentially catastrophic” storm. As the winds intensified to 185km/h, Irma’s place on the league table of hurricanes differed from report to report. Some claimed that Irma now tied for the second-strongest Atlantic hurricane on record. Others stated that it was the most powerful Atlantic Ocean hurricane in recorded history. Rather confusing. To clear up matters, 9news produced this helpful article.

An interactive map tracking the intensity of the Hurricane as it moved across the Atlantic.

On September 6th, Hurricane Irma made landfall in the Caribbean and the first island affected was Barbuda. The Guardian reported phone lines going down, heavy rain and howling winds. The article had a cataclysmic tone, particularly a featured quote from an official ending with the phrase,

“May God protect us all.”

Irma made its way through the Caribbean, hitting a number of small and flat islands which were essentially sitting ducks. It caused blackouts and flooding on St. Martin and St Barthélemy, roared through the British Virgin Islands, and flattened homes and left 1 million people without electricity on Puerto Rico. While it pummeled the Turks and Caicos Islands, the neighboring islands of Haiti and the Dominican Republic were slightly more fortunate.

Aftermath of Hurricane Irma on St. Martin, Sept. 7, 2017

When Irma struck the largest island in the Caribbean, Cuba, it was the first time the island had been hit by a category 5 hurricane since 1932. CBC painted a picture of relative relief on the island following the storm:

“Many Cubans expressed a sense of relief after the eye of the first Category 5 storm to make landfall on the island since 1932.”

They indicated that no deaths had been reported, and that the hurricane “uprooted trees and tore off roofs”. In stark contrast, The Guardian reported catastrophic destruction, mentioning Cuba’s ‘crumbling infrastructure’, ‘giant waves’ and ‘neck-high floodwaters’. They indicate that at “ least 10 people died”, later confirmed by the Cuban authorities.

The Guardian reported that the streets of Havana were flooded following Irma

The destruction was announced by the media in superlative terms. NBC portrayed Hurricane Irma as having “carved a merciless path of destruction through the Caribbean”. CNN described the aftermath as a “nuclear landscape”.

Passing over Florida

Even while it was causing havoc in the Caribbean, reports began to focus on the hurricane’s path towards Florida. On September 5th, USA Today described Irma as “spinning angrily in the Atlantic Ocean, a Category 5 monster”. The article featured an auto play video featuring people in Florida “stocking up” at grocery stores in preparation for the storm hitting.

Irma bearing down on Florida

Mandatory evacuations were placed upon residents in certain parts of Florida and warnings from Florida’s Governor Rick Scott were commonplace in the media:

“If you’re in an area that was told to evacuate, you need to leave now. This is your last chance to make a good decision.”

Irma made landfall on the Florida keys archipelago, weakening as it moved through the state. Major cities were relatively spared, yet early reports estimated that the storm inflicted $20 billion to $40 billion in damage according to catastrophe modeling firm AIR Worldwide. The Telegraph reported 6.2 million people without power and six deaths in Florida but carried this message:

The scope of damage in Florida and neighboring states paled in comparison with the utter devastation left by Irma as a rare Category 5 hurricane in parts of the Caribbean

The SIFT’s Take:

While Irma clearly had a significant impact on some parts of the United States, the difference in magnitude in terms of damage caused, as well as share of voice, between the Caribbean and Florida is difficult to reconcile. The New Yorker was one of the few outlets to detail this, eloquently highlighting the disparity :

“As bad as things have been for those who suffered loss and discomfort from Hurricane Irma in the continental United States — where millions of Floridians evacuated their homes and fled north in slow-moving processions of possession-packed cars — the difference in scale between their experience and that of residents of the affected Caribbean islands cannot be overstated.”

Politicising Tragedy

Before Irma hit, the American Environmental Protection Agency issued a statement rejecting any link between climate change and the extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey. EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman, responding to a question about comments from climate scientists said:

“EPA is focused on the safety of those affected by Hurricane Harvey and providing emergency response support — not engaging in attempts to politicize an ongoing tragedy,”

The chief of the EPA, Scott Pruitt was also quick to denounce any discussion of climate change while Hurricane Irma was affecting people:

“To have any kind of focus on the cause and effect of the storm; versus helping people, or actually facing the effect of the storm, is misplaced.”

This image in the Independent is captioned: Scott Pruitt is a climate-change denier and head of the US Environmental Protection Agency

The idea of whether or not we should be discussing climate change while people’s lives were at risk became the subject of heated debate. This piece from The Grist’s Social Media Manager stood out, outlining that while global warming is the subtext during these disasters, attempts to prematurely build a narrative around it only serve to increase division, exposing again the divided nature of the US and how the media plays to this:

“Both sides of our extremely divided country will find time to bicker, but they mostly play to their respective audiences.”

Indeed this was the case. On Breitbart News, several pieces appeared accusing the left of using the tragedy to further their agenda. James Delinpole’s feature included within the ‘Big Government’ category of the site stated:

“Whatever the spin the goal is always the same: to exploit the personal tragedies of the disaster victims for political gain by dishonestly pretending that natural extreme weather events are somehow connected with “man-made climate change.”

The article, a sift of sort through ‘left-wing’ or ‘climate-alarmist’ statements, systematically undermines scientific sources as well as the publications which feature them. To support his own claims, the writer links to a poorly sourced article he previously wrote. Both articles are lacking in credible references, especially in the context of sensationalist, bold statements such as:

“This is junk science. It’s fake news. It’s nonsense on stilts.”

The agenda of the piece however, is if anything, highly transparent, associating proponents of climate change with the mainstream media, before commending a piece entitled “Witches, Jews And Climate Deniers”.

ThinkProgress, providing a ‘progressive perspective’ featured an article selecting the comments of a Republican, Tomás Regalado, criticizing Donald Trump and the EPA:

“This is the time to talk about climate change. This is the time that the president and the EPA and whoever makes decisions needs to talk about climate change,”

ThinkProgress used cartoons to poke fun at climate change deniers

Another article in the same publication claimed ‘climate silence’ is the biggest threat to Americans, comparing the EPA and Trump administration to a doctor unwilling to talk about smoking when treating cancer. The writer roundly rejects the EPA’s notion that discussion of climate change would be politicizing an ongoing tragedy, stating that we must hear from scientists in order to prepare for future events:

“In reality, now is the time we need to hear from climate scientists the most, since now is the time we are going to have to spend tens of billions of dollars rebuilding low-lying areas devastated by superhurricanes Harvey and Irma.”

The SIFT’s Take:

In this debate, both sides unfortunately played uniquely to their respective audiences, offering extremely little in the way of balance. Reinforcing existing views is of course more difficult than confronting opinions which we do not share. That’s why part of our mission at Media Sifter is to provide the full array of perspectives, especially those which you might not usually encounter, in order to challenge established views.

The Elephant In The Room

While the eye of the storm was passing over Barbuda, opinion pieces linking Irma to climate change emerged. Andrew Freedman writing in Mashable referred to Irma as “rewriting meteorological history…swallowing islands in the process” before introducing the elephant in the room;

“And finally, there’s the elephant in the room, which must be acknowledged. In some ways, Hurricane Irma is a storm that allows us to picture what global warming looks like.”

Careful not to make any outright claims, stating that climate change is “probably playing some role” in elevating the intensity of the storm, he included evidence from a journal, which purports that ocean heat content (OHC) has risen significantly since the 1980s — OHC is suggested as one of the contributing factors for hurricanes.

The New Scientist start their article with “It’s a Monster”, featuring a dramatic image of Irma approaching seemingly tiny islands. They claim that the most likely reason for Irma becoming a monster is the effect of climate change warming Atlantic waters. Support for this comes via an evidence rich (but one-sided) article that appeared in the same publication in 2015 while covering Hurricane Patricia.

It’s a Monster

The New Scientist, Mashable and many more mainstream media sites explain that powerful hurricanes will become more frequent, though the overall number of storms might actually decline. Mashable provide this statement from the World Meteorological Organization as evidence, while The New Scientist again link internally to an article which outlines the findings of Brian Soden at the University of Miami in Florida.

The National Geographic were of the same opinion. In their article running through some of the common questions people were asking following Irma, they tackled the issue of climate change:

“It’s complicated, but there’s reason to think that a changing climate will have at least some impact on hurricane season activity.”

They also mention that,

“Every scientist contacted by National Geographic for a previous story agreed that Hurricane Harvey’s record-breaking rain was almost certainly shaped by rising temperatures from human activity.”

Indeed Irma’s occurrence so soon after Harvey was pointed to by various writers as evidence for climate change creating more devastating storms, yet less frequent storms overall. The Boston Globe under the headline “Global warming to make powerful hurricanes more likely” start their article:

“The rapid succession of Hurricane Irma, one of the most powerful storms ever recorded in the Atlantic Ocean, after the devastation of Hurricane Harvey is unusual, say scientists.”

In the main, articles which sought to link climate change to the hurricanes featured tentative claims, despite various expert sources and journals being quoted. It is written repeatedly that there is no clear evidence linking climate change to hurricanes, yet across the mainstream media, headlines and search results are filled with outright claims including climate change related terms:

Opposing views and dissenting voices were few and far between in the mainstream press. The Daily Mail featured this article from Richard Littlejon, comparing climate activists to middle-age heathens. Along the way he lampoons NGOs using old-English:

“A spokes-crier for Greene Peace blameth ye man-made globalle warminge for the great flood and loss of life, proclaiming the science was settled.”

It comes across as rather tasteless, especially the captioning of images of people affected by the hurricane in the Caribbean. We found a more educated attempt to argue against the link between climate change and an increased threat from hurricanes in The Times (paywalled):

“As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put it recently: “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

This source is not linked to in the article; we did find a reference here for those interested. We suggest that the quote featured in The Times is rather selective given that in the same source we find the following:

“It is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region.”

This appears to corroborate the claims earlier outlined by many writers in the mainstream media.

Most articles which rejected any link between climate change and the intensity of the hurricanes came from niche publications. These often employed mockery as a tactic to undermine and challenge ‘facts’.

A well-shared article in Zero-Hedge exemplifies this. It details the apparent persecution of those who do not accept that climate change is occurring. The article goes on to mock the Pope and Richard Branson who waded into the debate following hurricane Irma:

“And while we’re not sure if imprisonment is the right punishment, it does seem a bit outrageous for a Georgia Tech climate scientist to challenge the opinions of both the Pope and Sir Richard Branson on climate change…who does she think she is?”

The article features evidence which suggest that less hurricanes are occurring than at other periods in recorded history. The graph below for example, based on National Hurricane Center (NHC) data, is presented as a chart that the writer discovered:

“we do find the following chart on U.S. hurricane strikes by decade to be somewhat perplexing”

We were unable to find this chart on the NHC website, though the data is available (we did not fact-check the data at the time of publication). The source would also suggest that it was put together using NHC data by the writer.

If you are looking for a more optimistic perspective on climate change, we advise visiting Investors.com. Their article talks up the positive effects of global warming,

“The only thing that never, ever gets linked to climate change is good weather.”

While downplaying the effects of hurricane Irma,

“There’s no question that Irma was and continues to be destructive. But there’s also no question that it was not nearly the storm it was predicted by all the experts to be.”

The article laments the ‘one-sidedness’ of research into the aspects of climate change, citing professor Chris Thomas, an environmental professor at the University of York who earlier this year published “Inheritors of the Earth” — a book subtitled “How nature is thriving in an age of extinction”.

Meanwhile in a related sub-plot, Rush Limbaugh, a well-known radio talk-show host in Florida was able to attract some attention by issuing a monologue suggesting that there was an agenda to link climate change and hurricanes. This was widely covered and rebuked by mainstream news, The Independent summing up the comments of the “Right Wing Radio Host”,

“Coverage of Hurricane Irma is a conspiracy to trick people into believing in climate change and buying batteries.”

According to the transcript, Limbaugh does discuss at length his ‘theory’ linking commercial interests to reporting of storms and the creation of panic. He does also state at the beginning of the show that,

“I’ve gotta be very careful here because I am not a meteorologist, and nothing I say today should be considered to be a forecast or a prediction.”

We leave it to you to decide whether that disclaimer is sufficient. Limbaugh was later roundly mocked by the press as he left Florida under the mandatory evacuation process, Mashable quipping “What’s the big Rush?”

The SIFT’s Take:

In general there seemed to be a lack of responsibility on reporting of this topic. While claims linking climate change and increased hurricane activity were notably cagey in the mainstream media, headlines and search terms were designed to hype the issue and incite clicks. Niche and alternative news sources were typically bold in every sense, playing to their audiences and narratives.

Since it appears from most reports that if anything the science is unclear for now, the glaring omission was a reasonable debate across the media landscape. While this debate might be unpalatable for both camps, for differing reasons, enhancing knowledge can only come from scrutinizing the facts, rather than censoring certain voices.

For further reading we recommend this collection of letters in the San Diego Union Tribune, a wide variety of perspectives, as well as this fantastic cartoon.