wall street journal

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.

Mon, 2010-07-12 22:15Jim Hoggan
Jim Hoggan's picture

NY Times 'Climategate' Editorial A Reminder That Media Have Failed Miserably Covering Climate Science

The New York Times deserves praise for its excellent editorial on Sunday, “A Climate Change Corrective,” which rightly confirms that the “Climategate” non-scandal has been thoroughly investigated and revealed as a political attack on scientists, not the grand United Nations conspiracy concocted by industry front groups and the right wing echo chamber.

Five separate reviews have found no evidence whatsoever to back up the outrageous claims made by skeptics and deniers that the state of climate science has in any way been weakened by the theft and public airing of years’ worth of emails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit last winter. 

The Times’ editorial correctly calls on all the media outlets that amplified the bogus conspiracy theories from the Climategate noise machine to return to the subject and set the record straight for their viewers.  Far too much ink and airtime was spent on inflating the mythical Climategate conspiracy, and ever since there has been hardly any effort made to explain this episode accurately – as a baseless political attack on climate science.  It is imperative that all the outlets that fell into this trap and perpetuated the Climategate nonsense now spend the time necessary to ensure that their audiences know the truth.  

The Times editorial expresses hope that the “debunking of Climategate, will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies.”

Aside from the difficulty associated with correcting a lie once it has circulated this widely, editors at media outlets who lent credence to the Climategate myth must do some deep soul-searching to figure out why none of their reports initially probed the real conspiracy in this matter – the coordinated, political attack on climate scientists ginned up by a network of climate change skeptics who turned the mountain of stolen material into a sensational global news story. 

Thu, 2009-05-14 00:27Jeremy Jacquot
Jeremy Jacquot's picture

The OMB-EPA Kerfuffle That Wasn't

Is the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deliberately trying to sabotage the EPA’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions? Is Peter Orszag, the agency’s brainy and genial director, secretly in cahoots with Republican opponents of President Obama’s climate policies?

Not quite – though that may have been your first impression upon reading the raft of articles published yesterday that breathlessly reported that an OMB memo had strongly criticized the EPA’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gases.

Wed, 2008-08-20 22:22Emily Murgatroyd
Emily Murgatroyd's picture

Polluters Beware

I've often wondered if EPA actually stands for Environmental Pillaging Act, so contrary to environmental protection are the policies and recommendations that often come from this government organization.

However, in a victory for environmentalists, the US Appeals Court ruled against not allowing states to tighten up air quality standards.

Read more: Polluters Beware
Thu, 2008-07-03 16:42Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens' Sick Souled Neurosis

“Global warming is a sick-souled religion.”

Really?

Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens thinks so in his article, Global Warming as Mass Neurosis.

Unfortunately for Stephens' and the rest of the planet, his evidence for such an inflammatory claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Tue, 2008-03-25 11:40Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Wall Street Journal: Still Promoting Debate

Despite having been proved, again and again, to be out of step with the science, the Wall Street Journal is still promoting a phony “balanced” view on global warming - still trying to argue that there is a legitimate argument about climate change.

In a short feature today, the WSJ juxtaposes three decades of warnings, from sources of integrity and obvious expertise (eg., the U.S. Department of Energy), with 30 years of denial, from paid apologists for industry (eg., former tobacco and energy industry shill Dr. Fred Seitz).

The effect is to elevate the status of the deniers and to suggest that debate endures.

It's a sham that should be embarrassing to any journalist of conscience.

Tue, 2008-03-04 11:33Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Denial-a-Palooza is a Media Hit

… But Not What Organizers Wanted

Mainstream media seem to have caught up with climate change denial (caught up with reality, really), just in time to humiliate the assembled “sceptics” at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.

While Heartland wants to position the conference as a “smashing success,” the New York Times, CNN - even that raving left-wing apology sheet the Wall Street Journal - have all lifted their delicate hands and snickered. CNN, in a spot that left the cool dudes at Newsbusters apoplectic, went so far as to call the assembled skeptics “flat earthers.” (click on the seventh item here for Miles O'Brien's actual video.)

Fri, 2007-07-27 07:38Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Nicely Balanced Look at Hurricane Influence

Here's a short Wired piece adding some balance to an earlier Wall Street Journal article that dismisses climate change as an influencer of hurricane intensity.

The WSJ piece is also worth the read. It's interesting to see Bill (if-I-haven't-observed-it-with-my-own-eyes, -it's-not-happening) Gray tie himself up in knots, predicting more hurricanes of higher intensity but denying that climate change could be a contributing factor.

Wed, 2007-02-21 14:40Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

WSJ a DeSmog fan? Sure looks that way

Check out the new Wall Street Journal's Energy blog. Why am I telling you this? Because it looks like they're fans of ours.

And it might surprise some to know that DeSmog is a big fan of the great journalists at the WSJ. It's the narrow-minded editorial staff we have issues with.

Thu, 2007-01-11 11:25Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Exxon Acknowledges Climate Change, cuts CEI's funding

“We know enough now - or, society knows enough now - that the risk is serious and action should be taken.”

Exxon Vice President for Public Affairs Kenneth Cohen

In an interview reported in the Wall Street Journal today, Kenneth Cohen began to shift Exxon's corporate positioning on climate change, accepting the reliability of the science and announcing that Exxon has stopped funding climate change deniers like the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

Pages

Subscribe to wall street journal