1) Controversy, whether real or contrived, engages the emotions of conflict. Conflict sells. How many movies have you seen, and fictional books have you read, that involve lots of conflict, compared to those that have little to no conflict?

Hypothesis test: ask that question of 100 people and count up the answers. Prediction: significant difference favoring conflict-heavy stories at better than p < .001. Do it formally and you can publish the result in a peer-reviewed journal.

Direct implication: the media will always milk any possible controversy for all the conflict-emotions it's worth. This extends to the level of creating "controversies" where there are none, such as by giving climate denialist quacks a platform.

Further direct implication: the way to deal with denialist quacks isn't by ignoring them (someone else will un-ignore them to our detriment) but by subjecting them to vicious ridicule of the type that's normally reserved for medical quacks and perpetual motion quacks.

Action item: Stop using the word "denlaiist" and start using the word "quack." "Climate quacks." Quack quack quack. "If it ducks like a quack, it's a quack." In public debates call them that to their faces. Use analogies to medical quackery and perpetual motion machines. Over time this will stick, and it will work.

2) Money is an ass-cushion. Ass-cushions alter behavior.

People at the very top end of the economic curve (including those who own newspapers and broadcast stations) have grown used to the notion that they can "write a check" (or "swipe a card" or "call someone") to solve whatever troubles come their way. If their house gets destroyed by a natural disaster or climate impact, they just relocate to their other house, or their third or fourth house. If their place of employment gets wiped out, they can live on the return on investment of their capital assets. This produces climate apathy, along with disaster apathy in general.

The rest of us don't have those luxuries, so we're less likely to fall into apathy about the big things that can squish us or eat us.

By analogy, observe the behavior of cyclists and motorists on a main road that has lots of potholes. Vehicles with very little cushion (tires, suspension, padding on the seats) between the road surface and the driver's/rider's ass, maneuver around the holes: bicycles, motorcycles, sports cars. Vehicles with lots of cushion go right through or over the holes: SUVs, large pickup trucks, large trucks generally.

Extreme disparity of wealth is a direct driver of climate denialism and its evil twin, climate apathy. Exceptions only highlight the rule. The solutions are obvious but unspeakable in Washington DC, starting with a highly progressive tax on all income regardless of source.

Environmental issues shouldn’t be a section we can delete or displace. It should be contained as a necessary component in every section. A news story about Chicago should include information about its local environmental concerns. A story about trade across the Canadian border should include information about wilderness and the use of fossil fuels to sustain the businesses.

If these issues don’t become a reflexive part of our analysis, we are going to regret it.