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 markets and other important things, don't bother with the Wall Street Journal. You no longer need it for the stock info (that's on your smart phone). The editorial and analysis, and I assume the reporting, from the WSJ is so badly tainted and decades behind the times that the newspaper as a whole has lost all credibility.
Here's an example.
It has been noted that,
The Wall Street Journal has published 21 opinion pieces since October opposing state or federal investigations into whether ExxonMobil violated the law by deceiving its shareholders and the public about climate change, a new Media Matters analysis finds, far more than The New York Times, The Washington Post, or USA Today published on either side of the issue. The Journal has yet to publish a single editorial, column, or op-ed in support of investigating Exxon’s behavior, and many of its pro-Exxon opinion pieces contain blatant falsehoods about the nature and scope of the ongoing investigations being conducted by state attorneys general.
The graphic at the top of the post reflects this.
This is part of a larger pattern, of which the WSJ is the worst offender.
The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and The Washington Post all published climate science denial and other scientifically inaccurate statements about climate change on their opinion pages over the last year and a half, while The New York Times avoided doing so, according to a new Media Matters analysis of those four newspapers. The Journal published by far the most opinion pieces misrepresenting climate science, while all three instances of climate science denial in the Post came from columns written by George Will. The Journal and USA Today also published numerous climate-related op-eds without disclosing the authors’ fossil fuel ties, while USA Today, the Post, and particularly the Journal frequently published some of the least credible voices on climate and energy issues.
I'd like to add something. It's Not Just The Editorial Page: Study Finds WSJ's Reporting On Climate Change Also Skewed.
When my bird gets constipated, I just line its cage with the WSJ.
It starts crapping all over it as soon as it sees the masthead...
Many if not most of the anti-science yahoos and dingle berries who come on board to enlighten us about their idiot versions of climatology doubtlessly have been influenced by the tainted opinion pieces in the WSJ rag. The business community to a large extent revers this news vehicle as a part of their religion, and they seem to treat its pronouncements with great reverence.
I've heard that not all articles in the journal on the topic of global warming are anti-science. But it appears that many of the readers of the WSJ like to utilize the journal's pea-brained opinion pieces as fuel for their vapid anti-warming arguments and behaviors. As a result, many of the sheep in the business community trail right behind the views of the ignorant op ed editors, and this is putting human kind in a deadly blinded state.
Sounds like the WSJ (a paper I don't read or get here) is very much like our Australan newspaper one that I occasionally do being our nations main (print) newspaper. Also a Murdoch rag and also heavily biased against climatologists and reality in favour of Climate Denialism and inaction instead.