This past week the Herald had a story about an event to discuss the threats and implications of climate change. What was notable from the write-up in this case was that apparently it was not a debate nor all-opinions-fine roundup where bows to the supposed requirement of continuing massive fossil fuel use were required. And it was not sponsored by simply some advocacy group but rather led by a government official.
Which member of the ND Congressional delegation or other local leader brought this to Grand Forks? Uh, that would be the Norwegian Ambassador to the US, Wegger Strømmen. Thank you for your leadership Ambassador Strømmen - you have my vote in the next election! Or maybe not.
Again though, the lack of nonsense and focus on the threat of climate change is only based on my not seeing any mention of it in the Herald article. Not to say diversionary nonsense would have been good in that setting, but in a way I somewhat wish there had been some of that - like someone claiming we do not actually know if human activities are affecting climate or more concerned with fossil fuel industry profits than a livable climate.
I only say that because it actually occurring but not being mentioned in the write-up could be considered a nice step forward. It would demonstrate journalism beyond mere transcription. It would show desire to not just tell readers what happened but to inform them, to not give equal status to everything anyone says but to point out that some ideas carry the weight of evidence and expert support while some are just driven by political opinions and/or financial interests.