Wall Street Journal Wolf to its Little Piggies: Trust Me
Sigh. Once again, the Wall Street Journal has published a nonsense op-ed that has the climate denialosphere all in a tizzy. The author of the op-ed, Matt Ridley, tries to convince us that global warming won’t be so bad. The track record of correct climate science in WSJ op-eds leaves much to be desired. In Wall Street Journal: Selectively Pro-Science, I showed that WSJ op-eds fail to properly inform 93% of the time. In another study, The Union of Concerned Scientists found that WSJ op-eds mislead 81% of the time.
Matt Ridley bases his left field claim on the “expertise” of Nicholas Lewis who Ridley claims is “A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change.” Using two journal database search tools, I could only locate one paper from Lewis. Just one. I guess WSJ and Ridley think Lewis’ one peer-reviewed science paper qualifies as “significant contributions to the subject of climate change” and he is qualified to overturn the many thousands of experts (including health officials, military officials, and insurers) who are very concerned about the expected planetary warming.
Here is what well-published climate scientists have been telling us for more than a decade:
- Global warming will increase the frequency and severity of heat waves
- Global warming will increase the frequency and severity of fires
- Global warming will increase the frequency and severity of drought
- Global warming will increase the frequency and severity of floods
- Global warming will increase ocean acidification thus jeopardizing the entire marine food chain from which millions and millions rely on
- Global warming will increase the frequency and severity of coral bleaching
- Global warming will increase global sea level
We are just at the very beginning stages of the global warming that is expected to come, yet, anybody with two eyes in his head can see the results of even this “modest” level of warming in the past few years:
All this from just a “modest warming” in the previous few decades. Imagine what images you will see if the expected warming (much, much more) by the year 2100 actually happens? The WSJ is supposed to be providing accurate financial advice to its subscribers, and in many cases it does. When it comes to climate change and the massive associated costs and human suffering a rapidly warming world brings with it, WSJ is misinforming its readers which is already costing them dearly. How many more billions will subscribers shell out in climate-related losses before they realize they are being duped by WSJ?
Error-Riddled Matt Ridley Piece Lowballs Climate Change, Discredits Wall Street Journal. World Faces 10°F Warming., Joe Romm, Climate Progress
WSJ’s Climate “Dynamite” Is A Dud, Max Greenberg, Media Matters
Scientists respond to the Wall Street Journal’s latest junk-science climate predictions, Climate Science Watch
So-Called Skeptics Clinging To Slippery Strands Of Climate Science Denial, Stephan Lewandowsky, DeSmog Blog