Does the Wall Street Journal refute climate science and global warming?



  1. 0 Votes

    After reading the article linked below, I would say that Wall Street uses “balanced reporting,” which misleads readers into believing that half of the worlds authority on the subject of climate change feels it to be significant, and half doesn’t.  When really, the evidence is overwhelming that global warming is in fact occurring and there are only a few prominent refuters among a large amount of substantiators.  This question has been covered before and I went into more detail then, see it here


  2. 0 Votes

    I hadn’t realized the Wall Street Journal had taken this stance – it seems incongruous given their otherwise meticulous reporting – but it does indeed seem (from the pieces I read) that the WSJ is critical of those who argue climate change is anthropogenic. 

    In this piece, the author claims that President Obama was “intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress” because the “global warming tide is again shifting”. The author goes on to accuse former vice president Al Gore and the UN as doing “a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as ‘deniers'”. The author goes on to call climate skeptics in Australia as part of an “era of renewed enlightenment”. It’s difficult to discern how much of this is due to the author’s own republican bias, and how much is due to a sincere belief in the faulty science of climate change (perhaps the two are interchangeable), but it definitely seems to indicate an opinion of serious doubt.

    Apparently this propagation of disbelief has been a trend with the WSJ, with this article in RealClimate (a climate change information consortium) criticizing the paper in 2005. It’s definitely disappointing, though perhaps not entirely surprising given the paper’s conservative bent.


Please signup or login to answer this question.

Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!