I would argue that the media doesn't cover it enough to keep us informed. For us to be truly informed about this on a wide scale nature would lean towards our politicians having to be forced into actually take actions they want to avoid.

@William_Mary I agree that the media doesn't cover it enough, but that is because the media lives by its ratings and unfortunately there simply hasn't been enough public interest in the issue. As for forcing the politicians to take actions, that would be done by the ballot box, and so far our worst enemy has been our own societal apathy for the long-term consequences.

@Heraclitus with all due respect, you're contradicting yourself. While I'll agree the media lives on ratings, it also lives more so on advertising from corporations that place adds on their programs. One group of the wealthy rubbing shoulders with another group of wealthy to support each other within an agenda. When a fairly large amount of those corporations are responsible for the climate change in one way or another, the last thing they want is an informed public that might tend to demand our politicians begin taking action. If the media aspect of those 2 wealthy groups begin to voice mass attention towards what the other wealthy group does , the corporations, to cause harm to the environment, which would risk them removing their adds which provides their major means to survive. The last thing these corporations want is an informed public crying out for something to be done that might hit their profits. Therefore the media isn't going to take that risk, because it's already a planned agenda for these 2 entities to work together. You can't have public awareness of certain situations if the media doesn't cover it. Therefore the public is ignorant. You've already admitted that to a degree. Which is a very large part of not only our political ignorance in this country, but issues like this also. When you learn that we are systematically being managed by the system, you begin to see it's application in other aspects of our society. This is one of those outside the political realm.

@William_Mary I don't see the contradiction. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive. And, sure you can't have public awareness of certain situations if the media doesn't cover it. But, I am simply saying the same thing that Rogerbenham is saying, namely, this story has been in the news for at least 10 years. If the public isn't aware of it, that is simply because they have not been paying attention. Of course, there are corporate interests that don't want a lot of coverage, if any, of these types of stories, but while would you rely on them anyway? That is simply all the more reason it is up to the public to pick up on these stories and demand further attention, not those corporate interests whose current greed predominates over future concerns.

@Heraclitus you agreed the media doesn't cover it enough. Then state "the public at large seems relatively unconcerned about it." I'm arguing that the media doesn't cover it enough on purpose, with intent. Causing the public to lose concern and not become informed. rogerbenham simply made a statement of knowledge, where you took it to another step. His reply doesn't offer me a rebuttal where yours does. I'm simply offering up a discussion on the diversity of the subject to bring minds towards a unity with intent to inform. Your reply offered me an opinion on my views about the media. I exploited it. I'll ask, what concern to you is it? Are you part of that public that is relatively unconcerned? Or would you like to see this covered more to raise concerns in the political arena? I personally would like to see it in repetitive mode along with the shit that media uses to divide us. That same shit we get year after year with no substance that never get any meaningful attention on the floors of the congress and senate. I feel this subject is more worthy of that repetitive mode. I personally haven't heard of this, and i find it interesting. Which is why I also attempted to add to the discussion by adding another issue in the same field of permafrost about viruses.

@William_Mary That's not contradiction, that is correlation. If the public was more concerned about it the media would cover it more. Why would you expect the media to give a lot of coverage to a story that gained so little interest in the last 10 years plus that you haven't even heard of it? Are you not aware that a significant portion of the public dismisses these type of stories as "fake news" or even a government/political conspiracy to mislead us? You say that the media does not cover these stories with intent. I am saying the same thing. Now, if you are also saying that they do not cover it more because such stories do not generate enough corporate advertising dollars to cover such stories, that is not a mutually exclusive idea. Why would you think that there can only be one cause of a problem or issue? Corporate media is big business and basically goes where the money is when all is said and done. Not only that, but these ideas are related. Because there is a lack of significant interest, there is a lack of ratings. Because there is a lack of ratings, there is a lack of corporate interest in supplying these types of stories with advertising dollars. Because there is a lack of advertising dollars, these stories are covered even less. Because these types of stories are covered even less, there is even less public interest. It is a downward spiral. Now just how do you expect to stop that downward spiral? I am simply suggesting that if you are expecting the media themselves to stop that downward spiral you are barking up the wrong tree. And if I were not concerned I would not have offered my opinion that they are not covering these stories enough. Rather I would have simply ignored your post, as even the vast majority of people on this website have done.