Junk science is alive and well on the WSJ editorial page. HERE is a good rundown of the latest garbage.

The Wall Street Journal has published one of the most offensive, untruthful, twisted reviews of what scientists think of climate change; the WSJ Lies about the facts and twists the story to accommodate the needs of head-in-the-sand industrialists and 1%ers; The most compelling part of their argument, according to them, is that the editorial has been signed by 16 scientists. ...

I just lost a lot of respect for Burt Rutan, and the Wall Street Journal has always been a megaphone for corporate interests. I’m not surprised the WSJ published this, but I am surprised they did not publish the rebuttal letter. That proves they have no interested in journalistic integrity.

DarronS - 02 February 2012 06:42 AM

I just lost a lot of respect for Burt Rutan, and the Wall Street Journal has always been a megaphone for corporate interests. I’m not surprised the WSJ published this, but I am surprised they did not publish the rebuttal letter. That proves they have no interested in journalistic integrity.

From looking at it, the letter he mentions was written in 2010. Not sure if that entered into their decision not to publish, or if there was some more recent letter he’s talking about. At any rate the original opinion piece should never have been published.

Yea, I’ve been holding back on posting about it here - but I’ve got a fun ‘debate’ going on at the “Skeptics"forum

and I’m putting together a review of the 16 signees to add to a post at my own little ‘ol blog

One of the signees and self proclaimed experts
Dr. William Happer of Princeton University testified before Congress that 80 million years ago the Earth was a very prosperous place so hey we got nothing to worry about.

Dr. Allegre has a problem disassociating lab for physical reality as highlighted by his 1999 misunderstanding regarding how gravity behaves on an object in the real world.

Roger Cohen is the retired Exxon Engineer and Lord Monckton defender who’s local lectures inspired my ‘activism’ years ago.  We were going at it rather lively for a few years, unfortunately I was never able to crack his ideology.

Lindzen is a real climate scientist, but as anyone familiar with him knows he’s sold his $oul to ideology long ago and preaches right-wing economic politics rather than science in his talks.
~ ~ ~

Economist William Nordhaus was lied about in the letter.  Telling Andrew Revkin in an email exchange:

“The piece completely misrepresented my work. My work has long taken the view that policies to slow global warming would have net economic benefits, in the trillion of dollars of present value. This is true going back to work in the early 1990s (MIT Press, Yale Press, Science, PNAS, among others). I have advocated a carbon tax for many years as the best way to attack the issue. I can only assume they either completely ignorant of the economics on the issue or are willfully misstating my findings.”

~ ~ ~

The letter preaches about the money scientists earn, but fails to mention that seven of their sixteen receive funding from fossil fuel industry sources.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Although the WST appears to be feeling the heat and published the following letter:
 
Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate ~ FEBRUARY 1, 2012
Signed by 38 scientists (climatologists, oceanographers, earth scientists)

====================
And I may as well add links to what some of the big boys have to say:

The Journal Hires Dentists To Do Heart Surgery ~ January 30, 2012
http://mediamatters.org/research/201201300008
~ ~ ~

In Which Climate “Skeptics” Drop the Lysenko Bomb. No, I’m Not Kidding….
Chris Mooney ~  January 30, 2012
~ ~ ~

Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal
Peter Gleick, ~ 1/27/2012
~ ~ ~

Panic Attack: Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal Finds 16 Scientists to Push Pollutocrat Agenda With Long-Debunked Climate Lies
By Joe Romm ~ Jan 29, 2012
~ ~ ~

The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
SkepticalScience.com ~dana1981 ~ 31 January 31, 2012

{...}
The op-ed begins with the wholly unsupported assertion that:

  “...a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.”

The fact that only 16 scientists and engineers signed this letter casts serious doubt on this assertion.  The fake skeptics were able to get ~100 signatories on a similar letter 5 years ago - this seems more like a small and dwindling number of fake skeptics.  It’s also worth noting that 255 National Academy of Science members (truly prominent scientists) signed an opposite letter, urging action to address climate change.
{...}

Bad Astronomer gets in on the act after being attacked by an anti-AGW shill.

dougsmith - 02 February 2012 10:56 AM

Bad Astronomer gets in on the act after being attacked by an anti-AGW shill.

Thanks, hadn’t seen that one yet.  Worth adding to my collection.
What’s fun about all these different blog posts, is that unlike what I’ve found time and again within the echo chamber, they’re pretty much originals and not just the same thing wall-papered from one blog to the next.

And love the joke, hadn’t heard that one yet either

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?

Answer: Four. It doesn’t matter what you call a tail, it’s not a leg.

William Nordhaus who was misrepresented by the writers of that infamous WSJ letter and decided to write an article explaining what the authors got wrong in their misguided attempt to sway opinion.

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong
William D. Nordhaus

{...}
But one of the difficulties I found in examining the views of climate skeptics is that they are scattered widely in blogs, talks, and pamphlets. Then, I saw an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal of January 27, 2012, by a group of sixteen scientists, entitled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” This is useful because it contains many of the standard criticisms in a succinct statement. The basic message of the article is that the globe is not warming, that dissident voices are being suppressed, and that delaying policies to slow climate change for fifty years will have no serious economic or environment consequences.

My response is primarily designed to correct their misleading description of my own research; but it also is directed more broadly at their attempt to discredit scientists and scientific research on climate change. I have identified six key issues that are raised in the article, and I provide commentary about their substance and accuracy. They are:

  • Is the planet in fact warming?

  • Are human influences an important contributor to warming?

  • Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

  • Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?

  • Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?

  • Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?

As I will indicate below, on each of these questions, the sixteen scientists provide incorrect or misleading answers. . .