Like other former bastions of media respectability, the New York Times can't seem to get out of its own way these days.
"It was uploaded to a nonprofit internet digital library in January but received little attention until it was published by The New York Times", the corrected NYT article reads.
Rutgers professor Bob Kopp, who contributed to CSSR, tweeted, "It's not clear what the news is in this story; posted draft is public review draft from Dec, and WH review hasn't yet missed Aug 18 deadline" to officially endorse the CSSR.
The only problem: The draft report has been online since January.
"Dana Nuccitelli, the GuardianThe report-based on contributions from over 450 scientists from almost 60 countries-is the most detailed climate assessment that has emerged from a government agency since Donald Trump became president, a fact that raised questions about how it will be received by the White House". How can you suppress what's already out?
So this whole climate-change report is another case-in-point, right? That's the nature of the bureaucratic beast. But the Times' politicking of the CSSR's plight is even worse. "It was under the radar and we were fine about that", one author told AP.
In March, the Washington Post obtained a budget memo showing that the Trump administration meant to slash NOAA funding by 17 percent, a cut that former NOAA chief scientist Rick Spinrad said would "jeopardiz [e] the safety of the American public".
Actually, from what we've seen of past reports, it likely should be rewritten to reflect real science, diverging views and the emerging evidence that global warming science is fraught with outright fraud.
The assessment has generally been released every four years under a federal initiative mandated by Congress in 1990. But, Patrick Michael, director of the Center for the Study of Science, notes: "There has only been three such documents produced to date, each disgusting".
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders blasted away in a statement: "It's very disappointing, yet entirely predictable to learn The New York Times would write off a draft report without first verifying its contents with the White House or any of the federal agencies directly involved with climate and environmental policy".
The Times issued a correction on page A17 of its Wednesday edition.
Though climate change has rarely been documented in such detail, the report stopped short of linking the problem to what scientists agree is the leading cause - human activity, such as burning coal and gasoline.
The scientific report is working its way through the federal review process and, Hayhoe says, "has passed peer review, public review, agency review by all agencies and departments with relevant expertise, and review by a committee of the US National Academy of Sciences that was specially convened with the sole goal of reviewing this report".
So once again, The Times let its hatred for all things Trump cloud its journalistic judgment.
The report found most indicators of climate change continued to follow trends of a warming world, and several - including land and ocean temperatures, sea level and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere - broke records set just one year prior. The final draft contains the typical anxiety-laden language of how man-made global warming will be significantly detrimental to humanity. Or whether the heavily government-subsidized science and questionable models behind the climate change industry are valid or accurate. Their readers deserve better.