Global warming, as a news story, is not just warm. It's absolutely sizzling. Forget yellow journalism. Some say we're now in the era of green journalism.

Melting ice caps?

Great visuals.

Disappearing polar bears?

Aaahhhh. The media love imperiled furry animals.

Freak storms?

We're so there, with wind-blown reporters doing live stand-ups.

Once considered dry and academic, environmental reporting has been buoyed by a combination of factors: Hurricane Katrina, Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth," a consensus of opinion on global warming by scientists, deadly heat waves in Europe and tsunamis in Asia, and even the Hollywood hit "The Day After Tomorrow."

But with some notable exceptions, experts are warning that, if the media are not careful, all they will manage to deliver is -- pardon the pun -- the tip of the iceberg.

"I still don't see the hard stories from the press," says John Stauber, author of such environmental books as "Toxic Sludge Is Good for You" and executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy.

"It doesn't matter how many conscientious people are going to take personal steps to save the Earth -- in the long run, if we don't pass legislation at the state, national and international level that promotes binding regulations for industries like timber, oil and coal, nothing will change."

Certainly, there's a place for reports on how individuals can do their part to help the planet. Heidi Cullen, climatologist for the Weather Channel and host of its program "Forecast Earth," says the personal stories, such as those about changing to energy-efficient light bulbs in homes, draw viewers in and, she hopes, keep their interest focused on the environment.

"If you can get people to watch '10 things to do' stories," Cullen says, "you can keep them for stories on how the climate has affected our infrastructure."

Yet many environmental journalists say the mainstream media sometimes spend too much time on quick, easy "solutions." And they can do more.

"There's some boosterism going on right now, and it's a little wide-eyed," says Chip Giller, whose online magazine, Grist, has won wide praise for its in-depth environmental coverage. "Companies are doing a lot of greenwashing through the media, so you need a skeptical eye. But that doesn't mean you can't make it fun or interesting."

National Public Radio's yearlong "Climate Connections" series -- in partnership with National Geographic -- has tried, for instance, to bridge the gap between serious issues and lifestyle reporting.

Since May, NPR has broadcast more than 120 stories and has sent reporters to far-flung locales for pieces about melting glaciers in the Alps and droughts in Algeria, drilling in the Arctic and the restoration of beaches in Florida.

Among the more unusual radio reports: how cheese- makers are noticing a change in taste because of the grasses and flowers eaten by Alpine cows; how New Zealand is using wind turbines to disperse the, shall we say, methane gas produced by sheep and cows; and how the climate is swiftly eroding European landmarks.

"We were really up to date with news and features on (global warming) because it's been on our radar forever, but we wanted to look at the whole human experience with the climate," says Anne Gudenkauf, NPR's senior supervising editor for science coverage.

"We're doing even our most scientific stories in narrative forms so people can understand the role humans play in the climate change."

The climate is also a focus at Grist, a Seattle-based online site that gets nearly 1 million page views a month; its writers and bloggers are known for their unsparing, critical looks at climate issues.

There is, however, a refreshing dose of humor as well -- something often missing from environmental coverage.

"Probably about a third of our (coverage) is the lighter green content," Giller says. "You've got to meet people where they're at. You've got to tell them how to engage in easy ways and use it as an entry point to bring them along the spectrum from light to dark green."

Even so, Giller is not afraid of running stories that go against mainstream reportage. In a September editorial, Grist writer and environmentalist Mike Tidwell went so far as to say that reporting on hybrid cars and light bulbs is actually hurting the fight against global warming.

"Most media sidebars and Web links quickly send us to that peppy and bright list we all know so well," Tidwell writes, adding that "appeals for voluntary change are not only widely insufficient but are themselves immoral as a dominant national response."

Giller says he doesn't necessarily agree, but he confirms that Tidwell's view is popular among environmental die-hards.

"I feel like the press is going through this transformation or awareness-raising about the environment," Giller says. "They're getting there."

Not so, counters Jack Shafer, columnist for the online magazine Slate. In a controversial July column, Shafer assailed the media -- especially his own publication -- for what he termed uncritical environmental reporting.

"Green journalism tends to appeal to our emotions, exploit our fears and pander to our vanity," Shafer wrote. "Not all green journalism harangues, but even the gentlest variety sermonizes, cuts logical corners and substitutes good intentions for problem-solving."

Experts add another hindrance to good environmental reporting: the politicization of global warming. Until recently, most at mainstream publications have felt the need to give equal weight to the few scientists who still deny that global warming is a real issue.

Timidity in reporting about climate change also has been a problem, Cullen says.

She knows. Cullen caused a minor storm of controversy recently when she suggested on her blog that local TV news meteorologists, who rarely mention global warming, are doing a disservice. The Weather Channel received 4,000 angry e-mails the day she posted the entry, and even radio host Rush Limbaugh took her to task.

"A local meteorologist could actually address global warming in just one or two sentences during a weather forecast," says an unwavering Cullen. "Most meteorologists don't want to look back on their careers 30 years from now and say, 'Oh my God, we never even mentioned global warming.' "

But will they be talking about it in 30 years, especially if coverage only goes so far? That's a question activist Stauber often asks.

"Looking back 37 years ago, when I was organizing the first Earth Day, there was an explosion of public consciousness and media attention," he says. "But that didn't stick.

"Now we're up against planetary limits, and that isn't going away. ... I don't see how the media can ignore this."