Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal (Forbes)

[Drew Wilson]

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading arguments about climate science, but purports to be of special significance because it was signed by 16 “scientists.”

Serious doubt has been cast on the actual expertise on climate science of the signers and on the accuracy of the content, here and elsewhere, and the strawman arguments and technical flaws of their opinion piece are evident to anyone actually versed in the scientific debate. For example, their op-ed has fundamental errors about recent actual temperatures, they use false/strawman arguments that climate scientists are saying climate change “will destroy civilization,” they launch ad hominem attack on particular climate scientists using out-of-context quotes, and so on. Formal responses are in the works, and will be available from a variety of groups in the next day or so. [Just as an example, as pointed out here previously, and at the Union of Concerned Scientists: the authors claim there has been a “lack of warming” for 10 years. The reality? 2011 was the 35th year in a row in which global temperatures were above the historical average and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record.]

But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.

More...

I think I can just revert to my anecdotal opinion on things here. There are those that deny that climate change even exists, and those that crack open a window and look outside.

[DigitalJunkie]

It's news to me that WSJ has any respectable reputation for science, for finance that's a maybe.

[Signa]

I think I can just revert to my anecdotal opinion on things here. There are those that deny that climate change even exists, and those that crack open a window and look outside.

Maybe something is funky in Washington, but when I crack open my window, I see snow or other cooler weather. Weather records around here were generally set in the '50s and '60s, so we aren't beating our records for heat or rain, or whatever seems to be extreme at the moment. So yeah, I'm a retarded skeptic, but you won't see me arguing over it like a retarded baby like all the scientists seem convinced they need to.

It also doesn't help that there is a lot of money and PR to be had by "going green." It's so disingenuous that I can't trust that saving the planet is the real reason behind all these reports.