L
lynnvinc
Guest
It’s inadvisable to get your scientific facts through the WSJ (tho it is good for stock market quotes). Try reading top-tier science journals, like SCIENCE, NATURE, and PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (PNAS). Their articles are pretty heavy reading for the non-scientist, but their abstracts are somewhat easier to understand. I usually read the abstract, first few paragraphs, eyeball the middle, then read the conclusion. Also the IPCC is a very good source, the WGI chapters on the science, especially, which are based on 1000s of these peer-reviewed science articles, but summarized in a form non-scientists can more easily understand.
It should also be noted that the WSJ is notorious for its wrongful misrepresentation of the “science” and outright denialism. See forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/ :
Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal
Peter Gleick, FORBES 1/27/12
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.
Science magazine – perhaps the nation’s most important journal on scientific issues – published the letter from the NAS members after the Journal turned it down [see http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pdf].
Do you have an open mind? Read both, side by side. And understand that every national academy of sciences on the planet agrees with the reality and seriousness of human caused climate change.
