"News"

This article (née, recycled press release) from the Guardian may not necessarily strike the reader as "news" in so far as it is the usual fare. Topic: End-of-the-world environmentalism. Plot: Screaming headline, vague research cited, a common-sense void.

What makes the article interesting is the first and last paragraphs. Paragraph one:

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

There is then the rest of the article. An article the astute observer could no doubt recite from rote memory before even reading one word. Tim Worstall has a bit on the particulars. Then there is the last paragraph:

As a result of his fears about sea-level rise, Hansen said he had pressed both Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences to carry out an urgent investigation of the state of the planet's ice-caps. However, nothing had come of his proposals. The first task of Obama's new climate office should therefore be to order such a probe "as a matter of urgency", Hansen added.

So, what we have here is a classic plea for more funding. Scare-monger, use the word "consensus", a little sleight-of-hand with the "facts", a vaguely mentioned piece of research, then move in for the kill with the request for more funding. You see, the point is not about climatology (studying it, seeing how it works, seeing what man's impact is, etc.) the point is about getting more funding.

Funding is the outcome.