While the WSJ touts accurate science with regard to vaccines, the WSJ is anti-science when it comes to climate change. Read on for an analysis of the WSJ’s coverage of climate change and to read an excellent Letter to the Editor that was never published.
The WSJ has an archive of editorials and op-eds in a category labeled Climate Change that is only available to subscribers. (Non-subscribers can see a few lines of content for each article but not the entire piece.) Between October 2008 and January 25, 2011 there were a total of 86 articles in the archive. I decided to sign up for a one-year subscription ($103) that featured a two-week free trial period. After reading all 86 articles, I canceled via phone and was not charged.
Scored each article using the following criteria:
PRO: Article supported the scientific consensus.
CON: Article did not support the scientific consensus, mocked or attacked the science or scientists, or cherry-picked data to cast doubt.
MISSING: Article ignored any mention of human activities as a cause of climate change but did not misinform otherwise.
N/A: Article was about non-science issues such as the pros and cons of cap and trade, carbon tax, political strategies, etc.
Figure 1 below shows the results:
Figure below shows a pie chart of the WSJ’s coverage of climate science. It is the OPPOSITE of the scientific consensus!
– from climateprogress.org