Jeffrey Sachs invites the WSJ editorial page back to reality

Jeffrey Sachs writes in the Scientific American about the Wall Street Journal's editorial page:

Another summer of record-breaking temperatures brought power failures, heat waves, droughts and tropical storms throughout the U.S., Europe and Asia. Only one place seemed to remain cool: the air-conditioned offices of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. As New York City wilted beneath them, they sat insouciant and comfortable, hurling editorials of stunning misdirection at their readers, continuing their irresponsible drumbeat that global warming is junk science.

Now I have nothing against the Wall Street Journal. It is an excellent paper, whose science column and news reporting have accurately and carefully carried the story of global climate change. Even the corporate advertisements that surround the editorial page tell of BP's commitments to renewable energy and General Electric's commitments to environmentally sound technologies. The editorial page sits in its own redoubt, separated from the reporters... and from the truth.

Sachs gives their deceitful editorial claiming that the hockey stick was broken as an example and concludes:

Reporters for the Wall Street Journal routinely distance themselves from the editorial page. Many of the paper's own reporters laugh or cringe at the anti-scientific posture of the editorials, and advise the rest of us simply not to read them. Nevertheless, the consequences of those editorials are significant. The Wall Street Journal is the most widely read business paper in the world. Its influence is extensive. Yet it gets a free pass on editorial irresponsibility.

As a neighbor to the paper at Columbia University, the Earth Institute has repeatedly invited the editorial team to meet with leading climate scientists. I've offered to organize such a meeting in any way that the editorial board would like. On many occasions, the news editors have eagerly accepted, but the editorial writers have remained safe in their splendid isolation.

Let me make the invitation once again. Many of the world's leading climate scientists are prepared to meet with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, and to include in that meeting any climate-skeptic scientists that that the Journal editorial board would like to invite. The board owes it to the rest of us to make the effort to their own "open-minded search for scientific knowledge." If only for the sake of their own sweltering hometown, it's time they accept the invitation.

Hat tip: Gavin Schmidt.

Categories

More like this

Fred Pearce is going down the David Rose road publishing fabricated quotes. Gavin Schmidt in a letter to New Scientist (so far unpublished there) writes: In the piece entitled "Climate sceptics and scientists attempt peace deal" Fred Pearce includes a statement about me that is patently untrue. "…
The Wall Street Journal has a reputation for publishing excellent news pages and mendacious editorial pages. Now, an investigation by Environmental Science and Technology on an WSJ front page article on McIntyre and McKitrick makes you wonder if the editorial pages are influencing the news…
Last month the National Research Council report on climate reconstructions released its report and basically vindicated the hockey stick. This was widely reported in the media. But not in The Australian. I did a search through the archives of The Australian to see what they had published about…
Over the last few weeks, there has been quite a bit of discussion on the Blogosphere about certain global warming related issues. Denialists have come on strong with two major and widely disseminated distortions of scientific reports and consensus, and scientists and those interested in saving the…

Sounds like more trouble with denialism

I swear, 90-100% of the crap that sciencebloggers rail against boils down to the same problem over and over again. People with no data, no credibility, and no sense just flat out denying the truth. It seems like it should be easier to defeat.

I read that damn Hockey Stick Hokum WSJ article he was talking about. I was pulling my hair out. It was classic denialism, including false experts, conspiracy, and selectivity (I'd score it a 7 out of a possible 10).

The real question is does this author really think denialists will ever engage in an honest debate, in which they have everything to lose? They aren't really interested in the truth. They're interested in being contrarian, and not having to face the truth.

It may take something more outrageous to get their attention. I say, the top climate scientists in the country need to do something to create a scene, maybe even buy a full page ad in the paper attacking the editorial board.