Is this Wall Street Journal editorial clueless or dishonest? Read RealClimate's detailed rebuttal.
Update: David Appell calls it "intellectually dishonest". Sounds about right.
Update 2: Chris Mooney piles on.
More like this
George Bush has consistently gone beyond his legal and constitutional authority and it appears this is still another way John McCain would like to be President McBush:
At a joint rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa Thursday, Republican John McCain slammed the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) for…
In addition to writing about the IPCC report itself, bloggers are dissecting the media and public responses to it. RealClimate wonders why the Wall Street Journalâs editorial board still has its head buried in the sand; Matthew C. Nisbet at Framing Science thought the report should have made more…
Chris Mooney reports on the latest attack on the hockey stick. Joe Barton, chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce has sent out a set of letters, supposedly "requesting information regarding global warming studies". However, if you look at the letters, you will find that the only study he is…
On his blog, John Lott writes
The Public's Response to Michael Moore's Sources
David Letterman: How do we know what's in your film [Fahrenheit 9/11] is true? Michael Moore: Because I got most of my information from The New York Times. Audience: Wild laughter. Letterman: [Strains to repress…
Cheers for the blogrolling.
As for your rhetorical question, well, I think they are probably not clueless....
I'm waiting for someone to ID the ghostwriter - IMHO it is too skillfully and wide-rangeingly mendacious to be the typical editorial output.
D
Dead right Dano, and it's a pity there are more than a couple of suspects who spring to mind as being willing and capable of having perpetrated it.
Talking about ghost writer, who the hell is Dano? May as well be deep throat.
Regards
Peter Bickle
It may not be a good idea to dismiss the WSJ with brief words like dishonest, though what appears in the opinion and editorial pages is often that, to start with. The full depth of intensity of that genuine newspaper of the wealthy is best glimpsed by reading the comments of Paul Krugman in some of his books. The paper reflects a truly extreme combination of greed and stubbornness, though its collective knowledge of the bits and bolts of the system is matchless.
They know, of course, as you can see by the uneasy shifting of its stance from no warming to some warming. There is also the conditional language,with all the absolutes fading into maybe. Why "some" if those who say so are without merit? Then there is the third serve (aren't you only supposed to have two serves in tennis?) where they say there is not enough to justify....etc. So they get to say its not enough without the slightest attempt to say what is or who CAN be relied on. They know better than to name those who would discredit real science except as nay sayers.
By the way, I see that McIntyre who came into the climate world a "businessman in mining" has now become a Canadian mathematician!
Reading the code I do believe the WSJ piece is a preparation for a quick and hastily disguised retreat. Their patrons sit around heavily burdened dinner tables hating everyone and consipiring to cheat and steal, but thjeir servants know enough to check that the fire exit doors are not locked.
I think the group at Real Climate should invite the editor for a weekend at the Arizona location of the tree ring counters with a little side trip to the White Mountains, on the basis of a grant for remedial education of the deprived. They can send him home with a new knowledge of ring counting, some samples, and a lovely picture of a Bristlecone pine.
It is over.Climate scientists had better prepare quickly to tell us what the hell do we do and where and how much. People really will get angry at them if they now say, that they have no idea, that is not their thing, etc. Form a consulting group, whatever, or hide. There is a frightened herd forming. Isn't it nice to know you are in demand.
The WSJ Op-Ed page long ago gave up any pretence to accuracy, balance or non-partisanship. It continues to support a range of issues (Iraq-attack, Open-Borders, Regressive Tax-Slashing, Climate de-control) that are disliked by the populus and refuted by the experts.
This is not an opinon journal, it is a propaganda organ for the more deranged factions of the Republican Right.
Hey Tim,
Do you like the name Deltoid because it refers to both brain and brawn ie it is a useful muscle and a pretty neat geometrical pattern?
Or is it more personal than just a clever pun?
I am a long time obsessive reader of this blog and a trivia nut so I can answer this one; Deltoid is so named because it was originally hosted on a computer called Deltoid; Tim had a bunch of computers all named after various different elliptic curves.
Correct. Except that a deltoid is not an elliptic curve. Here is the post.
The deltoid and description on how to draw it that appear at the top of every page come from Lockwood's "A Book of Curves" (CUP 1967). I bought a copy for $2 (Ha! I would have paid $20) at a second-hand book fair.
Nerds are weird.
At risk of being tagged by Jack as another nerd, he should be thankful that it's not the "Witch of Agnesi" (although that would lend a whole different flavor to this site). :)
Excerpt from Larry David blog
(for those who aren't familiar with American TV, he's the mind behind the Seinfeld show).
I like how they keep saying the science isn't in on global warming. They just don't know. No proof. But, of course, it's in on God. Lots of proof on that. Tons of empirical evidence. They got God's DNA. And Moses parted the Red Sea. He said, "Open sea," and it opened. And Jesus walked on water. Those are some tricks. ... You'd think anyone who believes this stuff would be so embarassed they'd keep it to themselves. But those maniacs shout it from the rooftops and they're running our country. God talks to Bush all the time. I don't care if you're President, if you say God talks to you, you're a schizophrenic and a menace to society. You should be on drugs in a mental institution, like the Son of Sam. What's the difference between God or a dog talking to you? It's still a voice in your head. That means you're certifiably fucking crazy!