The Wall Street Journal articles analyzed

Reviews of articles from: The Wall Street Journal

ARTICLE REVIEWS

Wall Street Journal commentary grossly misleads readers about science of sea level rise

in The Wall Street Journal, by Fred Singer

“The article has almost nothing to do with the modern state of sea-level science. The author tries to call into question that global warming causes sea-level rise, and does so by cherry-picking a short segment of data from 1915-1945, a time when data quality is poor and the warming signal small—a bizarre approach that could never pass scientific peer review and is apparently aimed at misleading a lay audience.”

— 18 May 2018

Wall Street Journal op-ed on economic consequences of climate change found naive by scientists

in The Wall Street Journal, by David Henderson, John Cochrane

“This is a very simplistic, almost naive op-ed on climate change impacts. Some assertions such as the one about CO2 being good for plants demonstrates that the authors do not know or understand how increasing CO2 is good or bad for plants, they are just repeating something they heard.”

— 02 Aug 2017

Analysis of “The Phony War Against CO2”

in The Wall Street Journal, by Rodney Nichols and Harrison Schmitt

“The article speaks about scientific questions under an “opinion” banner—as if questions about the role of CO2 in the Earth system could be a matter of opinions. For the major final conclusion “With more CO2 in the atmosphere, the challenge [to feed additional 2.5 billion people] can and will be met.”, there is absolutely no scientific credibility, nor support in the scientific literature—it is pure fantasy.”

— 03 Nov 2016

Analysis of “About Those Non-Disappearing Pacific Islands”

in The Wall Street Journal, by Bjorn Lomborg

“This article is very interesting because it exemplifies a highly-misleading rhetorical practice that is effective, frequently used, but not easily recognized by the public: “paltering”… A successful palterer will try to avoid being untruthful in each of his/her utterances, but will nonetheless put together a highly misleading picture based on selective reporting, half-truths, and errors of omission…”

— 17 Oct 2016

Analysis of “An Overheated Climate Alarm”

in The Wall Street Journal, by Bjorn Lomborg

“Lomborg is using scientific ‘language’ to suggest that climate change will have insignificant health impacts; this goes against a vast body of evidence. The notion that benefits from warmer winters could be more important than risks from hotter summer in terms of human health is plain wrong.”

— 11 Apr 2016

Analysis of “The Climate Snow Job”

in The Wall Street Journal, by Patrick Michaels

“This article is indeed a snow job, as the title implies. The author has twisted the facts and distorted the science wildly. The author is well known for his wildly inaccurate climate “forecasts”.”

— 26 Jan 2016

Analysis of “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate”

in The Wall Street Journal, by Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser

“This article peddles the usual false statements masquerading as opinion that we have been seeing for years, and would not be published by a reputable publisher. Most of the scientific statements in the article are false or misleading.”

— 30 Nov 2015