WSJ--CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICS
Science[edit]
The Journal editorial board has promoted fringe views on scientific matters, including climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos. Scholars have drawn similarities between the Journal's fringe coverage of climate change and how it used to reject the settled science on acid rain and ozone depletion.[8]
Climate change denial[edit]
The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. The Journal disputes that it poses a major threat to human existence and can be prevented through public policy. The Journal has published articles disputing that global warming is occurring at all. The Journal is regarded as a forum for climate change skeptics,[71][72] publishing articles by individuals skeptical of the consensus position on climate change in its op-ed section.[73][74][75] These columns frequently attack climate scientists and accuse them of engaging in fraud. A 2015 study found The Wall Street Journal was the newspaper that was least likely to present negative effects of global warming among several newspapers. It was also the most likely to present negative economic framing when discussing climate change mitigation policies, tending to take the stance that the cost of such policies generally outweighs their benefit.[76] The Washington Post has characterized the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages as "the beating heart of climate-change skepticism."[77]
Climate Feedback, a fact-checking website on media coverage of climate science, has assessed that multiple opinion articles range between "low" and "very low" in terms of scientific credibility.[78] The Journal has been accused of refusing to publish opinions of scientists which present the mainstream view on climate change.[79] According to a 2016 analysis, 14% of the guest editorials presented the results of "mainstream climate science", while the majority did not. Also, none of 201 editorials published in the WSJ since 1997 have conceded that the burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change.[80]
Other science coverage[edit]
In the 1980s and 1990s, the Journal published numerous columns disputing and misrepresenting the science behind acid rain and the scientific consensus behind the causes of ozone depletion and the health harms of second-hand smoke, and opposed public policy efforts to curb acid rain, ozone depletion and second-hand smoke.[8][81][82] The Journal has also published columns attacking efforts to control pesticides and asbestos.[8] By the 2000s, the Journal editorial board recognized that efforts to curb acid rain through cap-and-trade had been successful.[81]Shaun W. Elsasser, Riley E. Dunlap: Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists' Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science. American Behavioral Scientist 57, No. 6, 2013, 754–776, doi:10.1177/0002764212469800.
- ^ Karen Akerlof et al.: Communication of climate projections in US media amid politicization of model science. Nature Climate Change2, 2012, 648–654 doi:10.1038/nclimate1542 (71)
- ^ Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S. A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B. R.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuce, A. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" (PDF). Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
- .
- ^ Supran, Geoffrey; Oreskes, Naomi (2017). "Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014)". Environmental Research Letters. 12 (8): 084019. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f
- .
- ^ Powell, James Lawrence (2011). The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231527842.
- ^ Lauren Feldman et al.: Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers' coverage of climate change. Public Understanding of Science 2015, doi:10.1177/0963662515595348
- .
- ^ "Wall Street Journal accepts environmentalist ad but charges extra". Wall Street Journal. 2016.
- ^ "The Wall Street Journal articles analyzed". Climate Feedback. Retrieved December 28, 2018.
- ^ Remarkable Editorial Bias On Climate Science At The Wall Street Journal Archived January 29, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Peter Gleick, Forbes, January 27, 2012
- ^ "Wall Street Journal accepts environmentalist ad but charges extra". The Washington Post. June 14, 2016. Archived from the original on June 15, 2016. Retrieved June 17, 2016.
- ^ a b "The Wall Street Journal: Dismissing Environmental Threats Since 1976". Media Matters for America. August 1, 2012. Retrieved January 1, 2019. (81)
