So, when did the Wall Street Journal become a disreputable rag?

Bret Stephens does not mind looking like an idiot. Today, he published a column in the Wall Street Journal that is full of snark and devoid of thought, ill considered, misleading, moronic and in the end, embarrassing. It is a classic case of irresponsible journalism. Someone sent me the link and I swear, I checked twice while reading the piece to see if I had landing on I can't believe the Wall Street Journal published this.

I think it would have been impossible for a paper like the WSJ to publish a piece like this had main stream media not gotten rid of most of their science editors and writers. Even if the WSJ would put this sloppy thinking, moronic opinion and bad science in a column, other newspapers, or should I say, the science staff at those newspapers, would have their way with it.

Stephens drek is not worth quoting here; I'll just tell you that it is the worst piece of Climate Change Denialism that I've seen in a long time other than the crap that kooks send to my email inbox on a daily basis. The astonishing thing is that Stephens is the Wall Street Journal's deputy editorial page editor for Asian and European editions. Really. How embarrassing.

It is here. I recommend Dramamine first, becuase it will make you sick. Do people who work for the Wall Street Journal still get press credentials?

More like this

But I'm sure you already knew that. The Wall Street Journal is so far behind the curve when it comes to the science of climate change, and so deep in the pockets of the oil industry, that the following is now true: If you are in business or industry, and want to keep track of important news about…
Right in the middle, between the Trump-inspired March for Science, and the Trump-inspired People's Climate March, the New York times managed to come down firmly on the side of climate and science denial, in its editorial pages. This week sees the first NYT installment by the ex Wall Street Journal…
The Atlantic runs this regular column where they ask people about their reading habits — this time, they asked Aaron Sorkin, who sneers at the web and announces that he reads a couple of newspapers…or at least, he reads the front page and the op-eds in a couple of newspapers. When I read the Times…
There you go again, Mr. George Will.  In case you've somehow missed the fray, George Will has posted two ( href="">2/15/2009, href="…

I'm so looking forward to attending the Science Online conference in Raleigh, NC in January. I mention this because it brings to mind the power and the new prestige of Online science writers. Perhaps we are at the tipping point where online science writing takes the lead in relevant and intelligent commentary from the established journals.

When did the Wall Street Journal become a disreputable rag?

In the late 1970s.

By NewEnglandBob (not verified) on 29 Nov 2011 #permalink

Did you refute anything he stated, or just come up with a string of Ad Hominem attacks. This seems a "go to" tactic.

Very nuanced.

"Idiot" x 1
"Moron" x 2
"Crap" x 1
"Kook" x 1
Winning argument?

Are we to call him an elementary student next, or elderly (in need of adjusting medication)?

There wasn't really much there to refute. Ironically enough, it was mostly a string of ad hominem attacks.

Exactly. Ron, go read the column, identify the facts in there and get back to me.

In the comments they bring up Feynman. He has been dead for over 23 years. What does he have to say about current and projected AGW models?

The WSJ's opinion pages have contained nothing but right-wing dreck and nonsense since the current owner took over. Need I remind you that the current owner is Rupert Murdoch? Nuff said.

I didn't know you still published over here. I have just been checking FTB.

I got as far as "faith in things unseen" and had to drop it. Yeef! What a crackpot.

> What does he have to say about current and projected AGW models?

Feynman: Braaaiiinnnssss?

August 1, 2007, when the deal went through to sell the WSJ to Rupert Murdoch.

I have two related thoughts:

1. When I read these sorts of articles, I am reminded of a phrase I once heard years ago, "dodging the last kicks of a dying buffalo." The dying buffalo of climate change denialism is kicking like crazy. Problem is, it's still powerful enough to cause a lot of damage.

2. I am often struck by how similar the arguments used by climate change deniers and creationists. They both are absolutely convinced that there opponents are defending progressively weaker positions, whereas the actual evidence indicates that the exact opposite is true. I know that deniers hate the be called that, but if the shoe fits...

The WSJ's editorial and op-ed pages have had a lunatic right-wing slant to them for as long as I can remember. The news pages used to be among the most reliable of any paper in the world. This juxtaposition makes sense when you remember that their target market is the investor class: people who tend to favor Republican policies but need actual good information to invest and have the means to get it.

That, however, was before Murdoch bought the WSJ. Today, their news section is every bit as suspect as their opinion pages. The investor who wants reliable news is better off subscribing to the Financial Times.

No, I'm not clicking on the link just to find out whether this "article" (as the URL describes it) is an opinion piece or an alleged news item.

By Eric Lund (not verified) on 30 Nov 2011 #permalink

They both are absolutely convinced that there opponents are defending progressively weaker positions, whereas the actual evidence indicates that the exact opposite is true.

True. And you hear both of them say things like, Scientists are leaving/defecting in droves, and they're panicking as their ideology (or theories) collapse around them. What utter tosh. You can only be that ignorant by choice in that you refuse to educate yourself.

A few times I've heard people say, "I've studied this for a while now and....", and the next phrase is so wrong at a basic level it indicates they've not done any studying at all--rather, their version of studying is reading only that which supports their viewpoint (Fox News reports, AIG, Morris, Gish, Ham, Monckton, Delingpole, Solomon to name a few--even Canada's Rex Murphy, a commentator who is widely considered to be erudite, is a denialist--he just uses bigger words than the usual denialists).

By Daniel J. Andrews (not verified) on 30 Nov 2011 #permalink