There's more than one way to look at that link you shared.
I see an establishment media which likes to think of itself in high terms, having a long article with pictures that look like it really is a travel piece, to sell tourism.
The headline is also misleading. One has to dig down into the body/
... of the text, way down, to find that 42% of the islands are decreasing, while 39% are going the other way.
That's alarming, and the headline should be alarming.
Instead, the headline is milquetoast.
It's trying to be a feel-good story about an existential crisis for many.
I suggest your preconceptions about the Times are keeping you from reading the story clearly. The NYT has a climate team of a dozen journalists who work tirelessly to warn the world about the threat of climate change and the need for action.
My conception of the NYT is formed by years of watching their editorial board fucking around with American democracy, either being pedantically "both sides" or just straight up rooting for the vile.
As for climate change: NYT has had many special interests over the decades and on science reporting/
... has often done more than many smaller papers.
But the article you linked still looks like a travelogue entry, something I could find in Conde Nast.
And the article title is still misleading.
Perhaps it is you whose biases are making you miss some things going on in that NYT link.
The NYT does more than ANY other paper, as this chart from the University of Colorado's Media and Climate Change Observatory shows. Still, it looks like we fundamentally disagree, and won't be budging each other toward agreement. I wish you well. sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/rese...
