Read this NY Times piece by Justin Gillis and you will quickly see that he is tired of reporting the same old story again and again that climate change is real and potentially scary. He is also well aware that his readers suffer from fatigue on this issue even though the NY Times is written for the educated elite. Here is the new report . You can judge whether it is "new".
Here is my advice for the New York Times. The Times should engage in some specificity. It should select 50 areas around the world ranging from Newark New Jersey to Singapore to Cairo and for each of these areas it should write in detail about how these areas will be affected by climate change. It can survey households, governments and firms about what people are doing in those areas to adapt. The NY Times keeps embracing behavioral economics that nobody is aware of the emerging challenges. Is that true? What are the market adaptation strategies for protecting the public such as allowing insurance prices to rise, international trade in food, and migration across areas. Gillis writes for the Science Section of the newspaper but he keeps approaching the issue from a social science perspective. Why isn't the NY Times actually talking to social scientists rather than to climate scientists about the climate change adaptation challenge. As 26,700 people have read, my views on free market climate adaptation are well known. We will adapt. For those who prefer videos, you can watch these.