Wall Street Journal: Accurate 7% of the Time

Wed, 2011-02-02 09:45Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Wall Street Journal: Accurate 7% of the Time

93% of WSJ Opinion Pieces Misreport Climate Change

Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College at Long Island, N.Y. has done a topline analysis (on Climate Progress) of Wall Street Journal Editorial and Op-Ed (the “Opposite Editorial” Opinion Page) coverage of climate change and finds that the paper tells the truth seven per cent of the time.

The WSJ’s defence for this performance would undoubtedly be twofold. First, the pages Mandia analysed are for opinion, not news. Second, there really ARE a couple of deluded “experts” out there who challenge the majority view on climate change: the Journal has a right and responsibility to give voice to those views.

Fair enough. But a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that the proponderance of climate scientists who are worried about global warming is 97 per cent - not seven per cent, so the Journal is a bit off the mark. And while the paper is entitled to its opinions, it is beyond irresponsible to be setting its wishful thinking forth as fact. Bullshit is still bullshit, even if it’s in an editorial.

Previous Comments

“the proponderance of climate scientists who are worried about global warming is 97 per cent - not seven per cent, so the Journal is a bit off the mark. ”

Although the credibility of the WSJ has not been always that of the most “objective” in terms of their editorials/opinion. It is, however, a good way to get your blood boiling first thing in the morning.

vegetable list

Climate change has got to be only one of a few topics that the WSJ has gotten so weird on that really, its like reading science fiction more than opinion. Even more so that being looked upon as revolutionary and/or alternative thinking, they are just complete nutjobs, really. unschooler

In the interests of clarity, you might want to amend the phrase “… the National Academy of Sciences has found …” to something like “… a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences …”.

The original phrase imputes the findings reported in the paper to be findings of the Academy itself, but publication of a paper in PNAS does not represent a finding of the Academy. Findings and position statements of the Academy can only be issued by formal decision of the officers and council of the Academy; acceptance for publication in a journal does not constitute such a formal decision.

Changed per your suggestion. Thx. r
[x]
Climate change

This is a guest post by Climate Nexus.

A recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by Rupert Darwall paints efforts to address climate change through international policy as doomed from the start, ignores recent progress and dismisses mounting...

read more