Despite New York Times execs' assurances that abolition of Times' the environment desk will not affect its own coverage, it is already changing the conversation at other news media.

Do electoral politics and industry lobbying sometimes trump science when it comes to protecting people's health? In an unusual admission, a federal appeals court rules "Yes." And EPA agrees.

"An appeals court is siding with environmental groups that had challenged Environmental Protection Agency regulations on soot as too weak.

The three-judge panel ruled Friday that the EPA regulated soot of a certain size under weaker cleanup requirements than it should have.

"Times says demise of the nine-person team, created in 2009, won't affect climate coverage."

"BP and its partners in the Macondo well that released an estimated 4.9 million gallons of oil over three months beginning in April 2010 should be required to inform state officials -- and the public -- of the toxic materials included in the spill, and the potential health effects of those materials, a three-judge appellate panel ruled in New Orleans on Wednesday."

"A look back on a landmark study, weird weather, Greenland's ice sheet melt, and other highlights that shaped climate change science news last year."

"There are signs that climate-change coverage is poised for a rebound after three years of decline, experts say, but the media continue to pay it scant attention, and a lot would need to happen in 2013 to change that."

"GRANTS PASS, Ore. -- Seven federal fisheries scientists filed a complaint Monday claiming their supervisor censored their research into the water needs of threatened Klamath Basin salmon because it was viewed by others as biased, violating an Obama administration policy prohibiting political manipulation of science by the federal government."