You can see that it's Washington Post, well-known both for its ideological bent and its owner, as is generally the case for all major news outlets. As I see it, you should (1) use it understanding that; (2) pick other major news publications whose biases your prefer, and/or (3) find outlets that you find to be neutral, understanding that they're probably small and you should keep knowledge of them to yourself, lest they should become very successful and thus worthy of being bought or steered into something you don't like.

If you read the entire paragraph it says the normally annual report was delayed for three years, by Trump. We now get to see it for the first time.

How could you explain why the report is novel without explaining the delay?

Why?

Isn't this precisely the type of comment that goes against site guidelines? Curiously, because of the ideological bent of many in the SV crowd, a comment like this evades the downvoting that the OP gets.

It seems to me that there's a de facto ideological standard around flagging and downvoting, where certain people are allowed to pearl-clutch and pose opposing viewpoint as plainly absurd and lacking the dignity of intellectual consideration.

Yes and OP started it with his comment which shows perfectly why the rules are as they are. That the later comment was also against the guidelines could easily be predicted.

> and OP started it

So really you're implying both comments should be downvoted and flagged?

and yours, and my comment.

I've lost 10 points here for asking questions in good faith.

It is from a newspaper, Washington post, which had entirely anti Trump news leanings for years. It’s very obvious the items and quotes they choose to include here while offering almost no new information on climate. Excluding Trump, this article could have been written 20 years ago.